|
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Correlating the Texts of Ancient Literature with the Old Testament
Jesus Christ on the Inerrancy of Scripture
by Dr. David Livingston
There is considerable debate these days concerning the inerrancy
(infallibility) of Scripture. The authority of God's Word is the main issue.
But, if one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMoshiach),
he must, in turn, yield to Christ's view of the Scripture itself. Anyone and
everyone who claims to be a Christian (a believer under the authority of Christ)
must hold to the same view He did! What was it?
I. Negative Aspects
Jesus (Yeshua) never belittled Scripture (as some modern critics do),
or set it aside (as the Jewish leaders of His day had done with their Oral
Traditions), or criticized it (although He criticized those who misused it), or
contradicted it (although He rejected many interpretations of it), or opposed it
(although He sometimes was free or interpretive with it), nor spoke in any way
as "higher" critics do of the Old Testament (Tanakh). |
make you wise to accept God's salvation (Hebrew yeshua) by trusting in Christ Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua HaMoshiach). The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right. It is God's way of making us well prepared at every point, fully equipped to do good to everyone. II Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 15-17, Living Bible |
....
Taken from: http://davelivingston.com/JCreScripture.htm
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Jesus Christ Truly Rose From The Dead
March 17, 2013
The Historicity of the Resurrection of Christ
By Mark Musser
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ (33 A.D.) is the most attested historical fact of the ancient world. In addition to the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it is also widely attested by Greco-Roman and Jewish writers. Closely related, history also confirms that the tomb of Jesus Christ on that first Easter morning was indeed empty. Every vested party knew where Jesus was buried after he died. Yet on Easter, the tomb was found empty, and nobody has ever been recovered.
In fact, the gospel of Matthew showcases that there was a still a heated debate going on between certain Jewish leaders and the Christians in the apostolic church over whether or not the disciples had stolen the body (Matthew 28:1-15). As such, both sides knew full well that the tomb was empty. More surprising, both sides also knew of the presence of Roman guards.
With a plethora of similar historical details connected to the empty tomb, Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant concedes, "The historian cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb ... if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."
Once the reality of the empty tomb sinks in, this stubborn fact substantially narrows down the historical possibilities of what transpired on Easter morning. Outside the resurrection itself of Jesus Christ, only a handful of other historical scenarios have been propagated in its place -- all of which can be routinely dismissed through a quick process of elimination.
One of the most popular answers to explain the empty tomb over the centuries is that the disciples stole Jesus's body during the night. The biggest problem with this supposition is it cannot explain the later behavior of the disciples, who became stalwart apostolic pillars in the church founded upon the preaching of the resurrection of Christ. The apostles lived very difficult lives. Many of them were martyred. If they had stolen the body of Christ, they would have known that Jesus was not raised from the dead. They thus would not have spent the rest of their lives sacrificing themselves for a lie.
Others have tried to implausibly advocate that the women who first visited the tomb Easter morning went to the wrong one. The very fact that the gospels admit that women were the first ones to visit the empty tomb gives historical authenticity to the entire account. In such a male-dominated world, no one in his right mind would ever want to acknowledge that women were the first to notice the tomb was empty -- especially when a new religion was essentially founded upon such an embarrassing fact.
Some have tried to suggest that Jesus's death was staged, or that it was a hoax. This is impossible for the simple reason that no one could have survived the cross. Jesus was beaten to a pulp and whipped out of his mind before he was crucified. Once he was nailed to the cross, his fate was sealed.
Others have tried to say that the resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples were hallucinations. Hallucinations, however, are individual occurrences by definition. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul wrote that whole groups of people, along with hundreds of eyewitnesses, saw the resurrected Lord. In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul tells his followers in Corinth that more than 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ at one time, most of whom were still alive at the time of Paul's writing (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
Still others have tried to venture the idea the resurrection accounts were based on fictitious folklore. However, such legends typically require 200-300 years in order to be established -- which is precisely what did happen with all of the fanciful apocryphal gospels that have helped spur the modern interest in The Da Vinci Code. In great contrast, the apostles were preaching the resurrection of Christ from the very outset, and even some of the most radical skeptical scholars of the German Protestant Enlightenment, like Ferdinand Christian Bauer (1792-1860), admitted that Galatians, Romans, and the Corinthian epistles were penned by the apostle Paul -- who emphasized the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Bauer believed that much of the New Testament was written much later by pseudo-authors.
However, one of the most eminent ancient church historians of all time, English scholar J.B. Lightfoot (1829-1889), established very early dates for two important church fathers -- Clement and Ignatius -- both of whom quoted or alluded to most of the New Testament around the turn of the 1st century. Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939) then established the surprising accuracy of the book of Acts, stating that Luke was one of the greatest historians of the ancient world. In 1976, John A.T. Robinson (1919-1983) demolished the entire edifice of Protestant Germany's skepticism by writing a book called Redating the New Testament. Robinson placed the entire New Testament back to the 1st century because it everywhere presumes that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing. Since the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 A.D., the New Testament must have been written before that time.
This leaves modern man faced with the startling conclusion that Jesus Christ may have indeed been raised from the dead. A little more than a century ago, Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas wrote an outstanding book entitled Christianity is Christ, where he strongly concluded that the resurrection of Jesus was one of the best-attested facts of the ancient world. Much later in the 20th century, Josh McDowell compiled a vast array of Christian evidences that demand a verdict, and Lee Strobel has an excellent Case for Christ. In fact, Strobel persuasively contends that the very historical existence of Christianity cannot be explained apart from the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.
Just because the resurrection of Christ cannot be placed in an experimental scientific test tube does not mean that it is an irrational fairy tale. In 1 Corinthians 15, one of the longest chapters in the New Testament, the apostle Paul strings together a series of arguments for the resurrection of the dead -- everything from the authority of the Old Testament to historical eyewitness accounts to his own apostolic authority and personal life -- and even for the sake of morality itself. Paul even points out that nature itself teaches the resurrection of the dead every year a farmer plants his garden anew (1 Corinthians 15:36).
It was Jewish German scholar Karl Lowith (1897-1973) who acutely observed, "The Christian hope is almost rational, for it rests on faith in an accomplished fact." However, because the apostolic writers depicted the historical events of the gospels as a decisive once-for-all cosmic salvation event, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ invariably offends, contradicts, and upsets "the normal historical consciousness of both ancient and modern times." The Christian faith offended the classical mind because it rendered a onetime historical event with ultimate significance. The Christian faith offends the modern mind because it exempts its own specific history of salvation from the generalized history of multicultural godlessness. Such unforgiveable offences are why the resurrection of Christ will often continue to be ignored and attacked in spite of its historicity.
Mark Musser is a missionary/pastor and a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance, a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. Mark is also the author of two books, Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrifice of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust, which has been recently expanded, updated, and republished, and Wrath or Rest: Saints in the Hands of an Angry God, a commentary focusing on the warning passages in the book of Hebrews.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_historicity_of_the_resurrection_of_christ.html#ixzz2O1tKjEu0
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
....
Taken from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_historicity_of_the_resurrection_of_christ.html
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Co-ordinating Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms with the Bible
A revisionist correspondent has asked Damien Mackey:
....
I was wondering if I might be able to have your thoughts on where you place the dynasties of the Old and Middle Kingdoms.
I have tended to lean towards Donovan Courville's dates on these periods but have been having my doubts about this recently. As you probably know, having seen some of your comments on a couple of your pages, Courville has dynasties 5 and 6 parallel with the Middle Kingdom.
[Another revisionist] has stated archaeologists would have picked up on this contemporary situation if it were true as there would be objects from these dynasties in the same layer but they haven't picked up on this. They clearly differentiate between early bronze and middle bronze.
I know dynasties 5 and 6 were minor dynasties and some objects have been found outside of Egypt. I have asked him if there is any clear evidence of them being in a level below those confidently linked to the Middle Kingdom? There may not simply be enough evidence in the finds to rule out Courville's contemporary theory. His main evidence for it is Ai where only early bronze objects have been found. [Another revisionist] says there is a big question mark over the main site identified as Ai and the true Ai is likely yet to be found.
Velikovsky has only made brief comments about the Old Kingdom's end in "In the Beginning" and he has a more standard view though he dates the end of the Old Kingdom later than convention does. He has it dated to about 1850 BC in sync with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and in line with the early bronze destructions that Schaeffer recorded which are not the same but separate to the middle bronze destructions.
If those destructions are separate then where in Egypt's history do you think these destructions occur? Are you familiar with any accounts by the writers of the Old Kingdom to such destruction? Have you seen any likely place in the early Mesopotamian dynasties that speak of such early bronze destructions?
If we had to propose an alternative to Courville if stratigraphy ruled out his contemporary theory where would you place each dynasty roughly?
I like Courville's idea about the Sothis list just showing the primary rulers and leaving out those parallel at the same time. The order is 1, 4 then 5 for the Old Kingdom 12 and late 13.
Adjusting those dates would be tricky if we accepted a 1850 BC Old Kingdom destruction. Dynasties 1, 4 and 5 would have to fit between 2100 & 1850. Currently he has them finishing about 1600 BC. Dynasties 12 he has starting about 1700 BC. Would one try and move back Dynasty 12 or have some foreign dynasty (dynasties 7-10 which Courville said we one and the same as the later Hyksos dynasties) fill in the void?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter when you are able to give me a reply.
....
Damien's reply:
....
I'll put together some thoughts for you over the next few days.
Dr John Osgood has absolutely nailed Abram (Abraham) to the Chalcolithic phase at Engeddi with respect to the invasion of Palestine at that time by the four Mesopotamian kings.
This Mesopotamian coalition attacked the kings of Pentapolis (Sodom, etc.), which will enable one to assess archaeologically the later event of the fire and brimstone. Look out Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras!
Any attempt to date Abraham to the MBI nomadic phase is doomed to failure in my opinion. As I have so often said, the starting point for any biblically co-ordinated archaeology is the identification of the MBI nomads as the Exodus Israelites, arriving in Palestine well after Abraham.
My regards
Damien.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Book of Daniel Identifies Darius the Mede Through Chiasmus
by
Damien F. Mackey
This
article has a parallel in our:
Biblical Name of Abram’s (Abraham’s)
Pharaoh
In
that article we were able, with the benefit of the toledôt and chiastic
structures of the Abrahamic histories, written (or owned) by Ishmael and Isaac,
“These are the generations of Ishmael ...” (Genesis
25:12).
“These are the generations of Isaac ...” (Genesis 25:19).
(a)
to
show that the two accounts of the abduction of Sarai/Sarah actually referred to
just the one single incident, not two; and that
(b)
he
who is called “pharaoh” in the first account (Ishmael’s) was the same as the “Abimelech”
referred to in the second account (Isaac’s).
Thus
the Bible does name Abram’s Pharaoh!
Now
Ishmael, whose mother was Egyptian, writes his account from an Egyptian
perspective; whereas Isaac, who dwelt in Palestine, writes from a more
northerly perspective. This difference in perspective, yielding two rather
different accounts of just the one incident, if not appreciated by commentators,
can lead them to conclude, but wrongly, that these were two quite separate
abductions (thereby increasing the pain for Sarah).
But,
when the Abrahamic narratives are subjected to chiasmus (unfortunately
unformattable in chiastic form in the above post), then it is found that “pharaoh”
is perfectly mirrored by “Abimelech”. The Bible is therefore providing us with
a key identification.
Now
to Darius the Mede.
Perhaps
more important for commentators is the fact that the Book of Daniel provides
the very same service in the case of the very enigmatic, but key, Darius the
Mede. Through chiasmus, once again, it tells us exactly who he was by mirroring
him with his alter ego monarch of a different
name. See James B. Jordan’s brilliant chiastic structuring of Daniel 6 on p.
314 of
The Handwriting
on the Wall
{Once
again, I cannot properly format chiasmus}
Hence, as many have suspected (e.g. George
R. Law, Identification of Darius The
Mede:
|
http://readyscribepress.com/home_files/DtM-Daniel_5_30-31.pdf.), Darius the Mede is
the same as Cyrus the Persian.
The Bible points it out for us.
Now, the Apocrypha provides a further confirmation of
this identification with another account of Daniel in the lions’ den. Here
Darius the Mede is presented as Cyrus. This again, like with the abduction of
Sarai/Sarah, is a case of the same story being told by two different authors,
quite differently. But it is nevertheless about the one same incident. All of
the main protagonists are there in both accounts. Biblical scholars ought
easily to be able to reconcile the two with sufficient care and attention to
detail.
Just as God would assure that his beloved Sarah was
never going to be abducted twice, so would he assure that his beloved Daniel had
only once to endure the den of lions.
Texan Lawyer’s Attempt to Identify the Star of Bethlehem
Christmas is a celebration of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
It can also be a time for receiving presents that we might not really want, those really bad presents, such as a plastic candle holder, or a box of apples for someone who has bad dentures. Not everyone is as intuitive as were the Magi (gold, frankincense and myrrh).
In our mail was the new DVD, “The Star of Bethlehem”, promising to: “Unlock The Mystery of the World’s Most Famous Star”. Was this going to be another of those dud Christmas presents? Was this going to be yet another failed attempt to arrive at a convincing identification of history’s most enigmatic Star?
No, as it turned out this was one present that really does live up to expectations, and we thank the sender for it. And we also hope that our readers received the sorts of Christmas presents that they really wanted. Whilst the DVD is advertised as being: “From Producer Stephen McEveety The Passion of the Christ”, the actual brains behind the whole project is a Texan lawyer, Frederick (‘Rick’) A. Larson, whose perceptive research into the Star of Bethlehem provides the substance for this DVD. Larson has the lawyer’s detective-like knack of being able to pick up clues in, say, Matthew 2:1-12, the account of the Magi and the Star, that other readers might pass over without due pause. He brings to the narrative, awe, passion, emotion, a love and knowledge of the Scriptures (including Genesis; the Psalms; Isaiah; the Book of Job; Malachi; and Revelation), as well as the benefit of sophisticated computer software, such as the astronomical program, “Starry Night”. This last enables for him to illustrate for the benefit of his audience exactly what he is attempting to explain to it. It also results in a sumptuous visual feast.
The demand for Larson’s talks have skyrocketted, even including overseas engagements. And the DVD has already been very widely circulated. This is one case where a truly worthwhile project is getting the sort of publicity that it deserves.
The back of the DVD reads:
Scholars debate whether the Star of Bethlehem is a legend created by the early church or a miracle that marked the advent of Christ. Is it possible that the star was a real astronomical event?
From Producer Stephen McEveety The Passion of the Christ comes an amazing documentary on the Star of Bethlehem. This presentation has been viewed by tens of thousands in the U.S. and in Europe and this new DVD reveals the evidence for God’s existence as seen in the stars above.
Presenter Rick Larson talks you through biblical and historical clues revealing the eternal significance of this celestial event as well as the vastness of God’s creativity. Discover the secret of the Star … a secret of magnificent beauty.
BONUS FILM
The View From Beyond.
We thoroughly recommend to all this DVD, for it really serves - as the above advertisement claims - to illustrate God’s handiwork and his pre-ordained pattern, or cosmic design, in the heavens. Pope Benedict XVI spoke along somewhat similar lines of God’s creative wisdom last year, using Thomistic concepts and also directly quoting St. Thomas Aquinas:
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR PLENARY ASSEMBLY
TO MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR PLENARY ASSEMBLY
… A decisive advance in understanding the origin of the cosmos was the consideration of being qua being and the concern of metaphysics with the most basic question of the first or transcendent origin of participated being. In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be, and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence.
To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously. Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation.
It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).
Clementine Hall
Friday, 31 October 2008
© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Could the star have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet; or a new star?
One point that most pick up is that the star seen by the Magi rose in the East (“Greek"en anatole”, meaning they saw his star rising in the east”.Larson). This can apply to various of these aforementioned types of heavenly bodies. Another is that it was seen for an extended period of time. Larson rules out a comet on various grounds; one being that, in antiquity, comets were generally associated with doom.
A crucial point that Larson has picked up is that Herod - and seemingly Jerusalem in general - seemed blissfully unaware of the presence of this harbinger star. It was only the arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem that had awakened Herod to the extraordinary situation that had now arisen in his kingdom. That would again rule out a comet, which the ancients (so much better attuned to the sky than we are today) would not have missed. A comet would have been “the talk of the town”, Larson rightly says.
The Magi of course, who Larson thinks may have arisen from the school of Daniel in the East, would have had the benefit of Daniel’s Messianic prophecy to guide them as to the approximate time to expect the Messiah. They were able to combine this with their expert reading of the ‘book’ of the heavens. Daniel’s prophecy no longer works for us chronologically, with its beginning in the first year of King Cyrus, now dated to 539 BC. As Martin Anstey (The Romance of Bible Chronology) and Philip Mauro (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) have shown, this date is 82 years too early for Daniel’s prophecy to work, meaning that historians have created too many Persian kings. Daniel’s count of years should begin at 457 BC instead. This point is crucial
Whatever the Star was, it did no arrest the attention of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Another vital point is that the star stopped. This was the point that had given Larson the greatest difficulty. But then it occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as “retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle.
Larson has opted for the bright planet Jupiter as the “Star” seen by the Magi.
One of Larson’s nine points, his first in fact, has to do with chronology. And this may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the (not entirely reliable) Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC. Here is a simplification of Larson’s fascinating account of it all, from the Annunciation (in September of 3 BC) to the Birth (in June of 2 BC), reading from his computer program for that period, beginning with a most unusual triple conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus, the “King” star:
Jupiter crowns Regulus [King] in Leo [Tribe of Judah].
Up rises Virgo [the Virgin] clothed with the Sun, the Moon under her feet. It is Rosh-hashanah, the Jewish New Year.
Nine months later the biggest planet [Jupiter] goes together with the brightest planet [Venus, the Mother planet] to make the brightest star anyone alive has ever seen. Right over Jerusalem it sets.
The Magi arrive, about November, and go to Herod – ‘where is the baby king?’ Herod, after consultation with his scribes, says ‘Bethlehem’. The Magi leave on the 5-mile trek, look up and there is the star Jupiter right over the little town of Bethlehem.
The one who is doing the maths for the Magi informs them that Jupiter is in full retrograde – it has stopped. It is now the 25th of December.
It is interesting to compare this part of Larson’s scenario with mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich’s picturesque version of what the Magi saw (The Life of Jesus Christ):
There was a certain constellation at which [the Magi] always gazed, and whose variations they noted. In it they saw visions and pictures. Upon this night [of the Nativity] also, they had several visions of various kinds. It was not in one star alone that they saw those visions, but in several that formed a figure, and there seemed to be a movement in them. They saw the vision of the moon over which arose a beautiful rainbow-colored arch on which was seated a Virgin. The left limb was drawn up in a sitting posture, the right hung a little lower and rested on the moon. To the left of the Virgin and rising above the arch, was a grapevine, and on her right a sheaf of wheat. In front of the Virgin was a chalice like that used at the Last Supper. It appeared to issue, but with greater clearness and brightness, from the brilliancy that emanated from her. Out of the chalice arose a Child, and over the Child stood a bright disk like an empty ostensorium. It was surrounded by radiating beams. It reminded me of the Blessed Sacrament ….
Over the head of the Virgin sitting on the arch shone a star, which suddenly shot from its place and skimmed along the heavens before the Kings. It was for them a voice announcing as never before that the Child, so long awaited by them and by their ancestors, was at last born in Judea, and that they were to follow that star.
[End of quote]
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich also seems to confirm Larson’s view that Herod and Jerusalem were quite unaware of any significant signs at the time, and that this fact had caused the Magi to wonder if they had actually made the right calculations. And the Star was not always shining brightly on the Magi’s journey, as would indeed be the case with a heavenly object such as a planet.
She has the Magi taking “about sixty days” to arrive at Bethlehem.
Mackinlay’s is one of those theories so consistent right the way through that one suspects it must be correct. That might put severe pressure on Larson’s choice of the Magi’s Star as Jupiter. Mackinlay’s theory has the same sort of consistency as has Florence Wood’s explanation in her “Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’” that the battles between Greeks and Trojans mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky. See our http://brightmorningstar.blog.com
Likely, too, John P. Pratt’s “The Lost Constellation Testifies of Christ”, as featured in an earlier MATRIX, will be an essential element in all of this.
The inherent weakness we think in both Larson’s and Mackinlay’s systems is their presumption that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain date for King Cyrus - and that it is therefore simply a matter of finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data. This was a problem that we had when typing up Mackinlay’s book. Though the whole substance of the book was readily accepted, notes still had to be added to explain that the actual dates given there, now with such certainty on the part of Mackinlay (e.g. 26 AD for the beginning of Christ’s public ministry), had not necessarily yet been established.
Happily, neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account.
We definitely think that the type of heavenly body that had guided the Magi must have been a planet. And we should favour Mackinlay’s Venus, which does however also figure in Larson’s scenario in conjunction with Jupiter, his showcase “Star”.
The solar system is like a vast clock of immense power, precision and beauty. Upon viewing the Star of Bethlehem DVD, one will better appreciate that statement in Genesis 1:14 that these objects were created to “be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years”. “For if the Star wasn't magic or a special miracle from outside of the natural order, then it was something even more startling. It was a Clockwork Star. And that is overwhelming. The movement of the heavenly bodies is regular, like a great clock. The Clockwork Star finally means that from the very instant at which God flung the universe into existence, he also knew the moment he would enter human history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He marked it in the stars. …”.(Larson).
The Bible has provided us with an exact chronology from Adam to Jesus Christ (the “second Adam”). Though it is difficult now for human beings to arrive at the exact calculations, we can nevertheless get close. For our AD calculations, however, we do not have this advantage. But the answer must nevertheless lie with Jesus Christ, who is the key to time. He is the Lord of all History, the First and the Last; the Beginning and the End; the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus Christ is the reason for history, the creator of history, and the guide and culmination of all history (cf. Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 2:13). For a perfect chronology, one will need to be able to read this celestial clock, or cosmic book, along the lines of a Rick Larson, with the benefit of advanced computer technology perhaps - but also independently of the stumbling block that is the conventional chronology - to find at what precise point in time the Birth of the Messiah actually occurred. Who will be wise enough to do this?
As the Pope has taught:
The human mind therefore can engage not only in a “cosmography” … but also in a “cosmology” discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos. We may not at first be able to see the harmony both of the whole and of the relations of the individual parts, or their relationship to the whole. Yet, there always remains a broad range of intelligible events, and the process is rational in that it reveals an order of evident correspondences ….
[End of quote]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)