Killing Patton

Killing Patton by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard

A review by John Haynes 

This book is not really a lot about Patton. Sometimes when reading, I even forgot that it was supposed to be about Patton. It would better be titled How America Won the War in Europe.

Some good things about the book. I like the references to Patton praying. I’m not sure he was a Christian, but he definitely knew he needed the help of the Almighty.

Problems with the book:

On p. 162, it says that on FDR’s fourth inauguration, “In addition to the veterans and dignitaries, a smattering of black faces can be seen in the crowd, reflecting Roosevelt’s hope for a more racially integrated nation.” Perhaps FDR wanted more black faces, but it’s absolutely not true that he wanted a “more racially integrated nation.” If that were true, why did he discriminate against Japanese Americans during that time in what is known as the internment? That was an awful time, and it was even upheld by the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 1944). That case was based on the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. Interesting that on page 171, Roosevelt is quoted as saying that “[o]ur [C]onstitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument . . . [b]ut it provided a firm basis upon which all manner of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.” All manner it seems except Japanese Americans.

On p. 166, it says that “Roosevelt has lifted America up from the lowest point in U.S. history to make it the most powerful nation on earth.” He did nothing of the sort. It was World War II that lifted America up. Roosevelt was a socialist, and it was his policies that led to the kind of big government we have today.

p. 203 In the footnote, it says that starting with Eisenhower, “every president for the next forty-two years served in World War II.” There’s one problem with that. If it’s 42 years, that puts it at 1995 when it ends. Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, not 1995. He was the first of that era who was not a WWII vet.

On page 240, the authors make some significant errors about the Bible, repeating some of the same mistakes of Killing Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PXMBB3RXPCQE?ref_=pe_620760_65501210). Speaking about King David, they say that “[h]e was said to be ‘a man after God’s own heart’ [which is true, (1 Sam. 13:14)], despite the fact that he slept with his best friend’s wife, lied about the act, and then ordered the husband sent to the front lines so that he might be murdered in battle.” Ostensibly this is talking about Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. But much of this is not true. Uriah was not David’s best friend. He didn’t even know him, and we know that from the fact that he inquired about Bathsheba when he was contemplating sleeping with her (2 Sam. 11:3). If he were Uriah’s best friend, he surely would have already known that Bathsheba was his wife. Also, it is worth noting that nowhere in Scripture does it say that David lied about this act. Maybe he did, but there’s no evidence of this.

Later on that same page (240), the authors get it wrong about David again. In discussing David’s price that he paid for this sin, the authors say that he lost “a son at a very young age and eventually [lost] his entire kingdom.” I don’t know what son they’re talking about, but it would have to be the baby that Bathsheba gave birth to as a result of their sinful encounter. David lost other sons, but no other was at a “very young age.” I don’t know why they can’t be more specific.

Second, David never lost “his entire kingdom.” He was a great king until the day he died. The kingdom split not after David died but after Solomon died.

The ending was a big disappointment. The authors talk about the accident that led to Patton’s death, but you must fill in the blanks or go back and read the Prologue. I think that is poor writing. It’s okay to give a tease at the beginning of the book, but I don’t think the way this was written is very good.

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

By David Instone-Brewer

A review

By John Haynes

p. 14 He says that there are “two valid grounds for divorce, but remarriage is not allowed unless on of the former spouses has died.” About that he says this “is the one given by most established churches.” Really? I don’t think I even know of one church that holds this view. Anecdotal, I know, but still important.

p. 16 He deals with the idea of “no one can separate.” The passage that Jesus said in Matt. 19:6 says, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (NIV). It does not say, he goes to great lengths to point out, “no one can separate.” But is there a real difference?

He points out that the phrase “let not man separate” is an imperative. He is correct, but he fails to understand what that means. The imperative mood shows a command. Jesus was saying that mankind must not under any circumstances separate. So how is that really different from saying “can separate”? I’m not sure there is a real difference.

p. 20 He talks about God giving us Scripture, which by definition means the Old and New Testaments. He says that Scripture is “full of histories, letters, prophetic messages and praise songs. [But] it contains almost no theology.” What? Has he never read the book of Romans? This is a stupid statement and factually untrue.

p. 35 He discusses three more biblical grounds for divorce (in addition to adultery and desertion). He addresses Exodus 21-10-11:

“If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. ¹¹ If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment” (NLT).

He then switches into lawyer mode and says that this passage shows case law in the OT. Even though we don’t practice polygamy or slavery, he says, we still should draw principles from this passage. The problem is that polygamy and slavery are part of the case here. You can’t divorce it (no pun intended) from the passage.

p. 36. Regarding the man who had been gathering sticks on the Sabbath, he says that Moses “decided that he deserved death.” Moses did no such thing. God declared his punishment (Num. 15:35).

p. 40 “A good lawyer might argue that she did not use the magical legal phrase ‘Time is of the essence.’” What? What does that have to do with anything?

p. 71 “Paul’s wife had probably did in childbirth (as happened all too often in the first century).” How in the world can he make a statement like that? He doesn’t know anything about Paul’s past!

p. 72 “The present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). . . . Historians guess that he must have been referring to the famine that was afflicting the region at that time.” Again, another leap.

“In general Paul approved of marriage.” Glad he thinks so. I think Paul approved more than generally.

p. 94 “Origen, the greatest of the church fathers at the start of the third century.” Rather dubious statement. Iranaeus (died in 202) was better in my opinion. There was also Hippolytus and Tertullian, who both rivaled Origen.

pp. 94-95 “A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” Not true. He says that if separated, you must remain unmarried. Read the text, please!

p. 96 “Rather than indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce for neglect and abuse, his silence about it highlights the fact that he did accept it, like all other Jews at that time.” You cannot argue from silence, and he knows this!

p. 98 “We have concluded that Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 (and par.) only exclude divorce for “Any Cause,” but does this mean that Jesus accepted  the grounds given in Exodus 21:10-11? As we saw earlier in this chapter, we can probably assume that he did accept them because if he had not he would have said so.” This is putting words in Jesus’ mouth. Not allowed.

p. 99 “Later in the chapter, when [Paul] suggests that people should postpone their marriage plans because of the famine. . . .” Paul never mentions a famine. You can’t put words in Paul’s mouth, either.

“Although Paul does not specifically say that these three areas of neglect can be grounds for divorce, the fact that he talks about them as obligations implies that he accepted them and agreed with them [Ex. 21:10-11]. . . . If Paul did not accept these grounds for divorce, he would not have used these verses as a basis for his teaching on the obligations within marriage.” But Paul isn’t using them as proofs for divorce. Not at all.

p. 100 “In summary, Paul accepts all four Old Testament grounds for divorce.” No he didn’t. He didn’t prove this at all.

p. 106 Apparently this author has also written a book called Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. So how is that different from this book?

p. 206 “Jesus is using preacher’s rhetoric when he tells people to gouge out the eyes.” Preacher’s rhetoric? Never heard of that. How about hyperbole?

The Last Days of Jesus

The Last Days of Jesus

by Bill 0’Reilly 

a review by John Haynes

I find it interesting that this is written completely by O’Reilly, without Martin Dugard. This book is written primarily for children.

Flyleaf: He lists some contemporaries of Jesus, which include Julius Caesar. Caesar died in March of 44 b.c., so I don’t know how he could be called a contemporary. Even Herod the Great died probably the year after Jesus’ birth, so again, he wasn’t really a contemporary.

p. ix I don’t like the way he numbers the preface pages. Most pages don’t have numbers, and it is hard to identify what page I’m on.

He uses the terms “gospels” of the first four books of the New Testament. This should be capped: “Gospels.”

p. x The Family of Jesus: It lists Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. No mention of his half brothers and sisters. Typical Catholic nonsense. Disregard what the Bible says.

p. xii Joseph of Arimithea: He says he “gave his tomb for Jesus’s body.” First off, this should be “Jesus’.” That is the normal way of making Jesus possessive. Second, what is this like a trade?  Joseph gave his tomb in trade for Jesus’ body? It should say that he “gave his tomb for the burial of Jesus’ body.”

p. xiii “Anna: Pilgrim at the temple who bore witness to the divinity of Jesus.” Killing Jesus was touted at a book of history, not of theology. I don’t know if this book is the same. He does say earlier that “this is a story of the struggle between good and evil” (p. ix).

p. xx There is a lot of mention on this page about God. Again, I wonder if this is a book of history or theology or both.

p. xx “They journeyed each year to their birthplace for the census count.” I’m not sure about that. I’ve never heard that the census in Luke 2:1 was anything other than a one-time occurrence. It may have become a yearly matter after this, but I’m not sure it was something that had always happened.

p. 3 “March, 5 BC” Should be small caps: b.c. Also how does he know the month? And no information is given about how he arrives at this specific date.

p. 5 The Tanakh is also the Jewish Bible, what Protestants call the Old Testament. This is important to note.

p. 5 “The wealthy foreigners [Magi] travel almost a thousand miles.” Then at the bottom of the page, “The wealthy foreigners travel more than a thousand miles.” Which is it?

p. 6 “The Magi see through the deceit [of Herod the Great].” No, they didn’t. God made clear to them to leave another way (Matt. 2:12).

p. 9 The Temple was “rebuilt nearly fifty years later [after the Captivity]”. Probably much later. The Captivity lasted 70 years (Jer. 25:11).

p. 13 Says that Anna “was an eighty-four-year-old widowed prophetess.” First off, we don’t need a gender-specific term like “prophetess.” We don’t say “doctoress” or “lawerette” for females of that job description. Prophet serves both sexes well. Second, it is uncertain how old Anna was. The language of Luke 2:37 is unclear. It could mean she had been a widow for eighty-four years. The King James Version says, “She was a widow of about fourscore and four years.” Since the KJV is painstakingly literal, this could mean she had been a widow that long.

p. 13 “Then she [Anna] made a most unusual claim, predicting to Mary and Joseph that their son would free Jerusalem from Roman rule.” She did nothing of the sort. The Scripture says, “She talked about Jesus to everyone who had been waiting for the promised King to come and deliver Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38, NLT). It does not say what deliverance meant. But from Jesus’ ministry, it is clear that it was talking about spiritual deliverance.

p. 22 Note at the bottom of the page says that the previous page contains the text of the Shema. It does not. I know Hebrew, and this is definitely not the Shema.

p. 27 Calls the Israelites the “ancestors of the Jews.” That’s just nonsense. The word “Israelite(s)” appears 18 times in the Old Testament. You didn’t have to be an Israelite to be a Jew (you could be a convert, as were many Egyptians after the Exodus (Exod. 12:38), but all Israelites were Jews.

p. 29 Talks about things he thinks Mary, Joseph, and Jesus saw, such as “the crucifixion of more than two thousand Jewish rebels outside Jerusalem’s city walls.” He doesn’t know that they saw this. Pure speculation.

p. 31 Mentions Augustus Caesar at the top of the page and at the bottom it says, “Casaer Augustus.” Which is it?

p. 33 March 22, AD 7. He doesn’t know the exact date. Same with p. 35.

p. 35 “Son of God, as Jesus will refer to himself for the first time this on this very day.” No, he didn’t. He called God his Father. He said, “You should have known that I would be in my Father’s house” (Luke 2:49). Jesus rarely called himself the Son of God.

p. 36 Says about Jesus that it “never crosses his mind that Mary and Joseph will be worried about him.” Really? You don’t know much about what it means that he is God, do you? He knew all (John 2:25).

p. 38 “The place where God is thought to have gathered the dust to make Adam.” Unless God decided to take it from someplace quite a ways away instead of locally, this is probably not true. The Garden of Eden was near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (as well as two other rivers that have since disappeared, Gen. 2:11-14). Mount Moriah is in Israel, near Jerusalem. Also mentioned on pages 40 and 76.

p. 47 Gives specific description of Herod Antipas. How does he know what he looked like?

p. 57 “The end of the known world is coming, John [the Baptist] preaches.” I don’t think anything John said can be construed to mean that he was saying the end of the known world was coming.

p. 57 Bill seems to think John baptized by immersion. That is the description he gives. We don’t know how John baptized.

p. 58 “Isaiah had foretold that a man would come to tell the people about the day the world would end and God would appear on earth.” I don’t think that is what Isaiah said at all.

p. 65 Discusses the Sadducees and Pharisees. Never mentions that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection or angels or anything supernatural. The Pharisees did. 

p. 65 Says the Sanhedrin had 71 members. Not true. Probably had 69.

p. 66 “Speaking softly with John the Baptist, Jesus does declare who he is. Bowing his head to accept the water, he tells John ‘Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.’” That does not declare who Jesus is. And we don’t know that he said this softly.

p. 66 Says that John the Baptist said about Jesus “This is the Son of God.” Not true. I can find no evidence in Scripture that John said anything like this.

p. 72 “The spiritual emotion that flows through the city is wondrous, as these many Jews come together.” Simple grammatical mistake that drives me nuts. Should say, “since (or because) these many Jews come together.”

p. 76 “Seventy years later, on the same site, construction began on a new sanctuary, which was finished in 516 b.c.” This is accurate but in contrast with what he says on p. 9, where he says it was built some fifty years after the Captivity began.

p. 71 “The Temple itself was visited by only the most senior high priests.” I think the word “Temple” should be capped, but Ø’Reilly isn’t consistent with this. See p. xiii, p. 116, and p. 134. Also, there is only one high priest. This should read, “The Temple itself was visited by only the most senior priests.”

p. 80 “April, AD 27.” How does he know it was in April? He doesn’t.

p. 81 “‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” Incorrect. Unless he is born again. “No one” is singular.

p. 81 “He has been telling all who listen that a person must be spiritually reborn to be judged kindly by God.” That’s not it at all. Being born again is the only way into the Kingdom of Heaven.

pp. 87-88 “Jesus should remember his place: his family is not the wealthiest in town, nor is he the smartest among them.” I’m betting he is the smartest. He is God incarnate, genius!

p. 93, bottom “Colored engraving, no date.” So why is the picture not in color?

p. 102-03 “The sermon [on the Mount] is intended to remind the men and women of Galilee, who feel oppressed and hopeless, that their current circumstances will not last forever.” This sermon was not preached to the masses. It was preached to his disciples. See Matt. 5:1: “Jesus went up the mountainside with his disciples and sat down to teach them.” He taught his disciples, not the crowds.

p. 104-05 “For the peasants of Galilee, his [Jesus’] words off solace for their life under Roman rule: the need to rely on God, the worry about daily nourishment, the constant struggle to stay out of debt, and finally a reminder that in the midst of this cruel life, succumbing to the temptation to lie, cheat, or steal will only lead people farther and farther away from God.” No, it should be “further and further away.”

p. 105 “There, soon after entering the city, a most amazing thing happens: the Roman military officer in charge of Capernaum declares himself to be a follower of Jesus.” He didn’t just declare that he was a follower of Jesus; there was something that happened first. Matt. 8:5-10 says that the centurion’s servant was sick and that he wanted Jesus to heal him. But he said that Jesus didn’t need to come to his house for that; he could do it from where he was. That’s why Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all the land of Israel!” (v. 10, NLT).

p. 107 I don't think there’s any biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Some people think that, but it doesn’t make it so. Ø’Reilly also puts Mary Magdalene in the home of Simon the Pharisee. He says she anointed Jesus head with the expensive perfume. No evidence in the Bible that it was Mary Magdalene. John 11:2 and 12:3 says that a woman name Mary anointed his head with the essence of nard, but this Mary was the sister of Lazarus. And that didn’t happen in the home of Simon. The Simon in whose house there was an anointing was called Simon the leper (Mark 14:3). Nothing about him being a Pharisee. Luke 7:37 says that a woman anointed him in the home of a Pharisee. Jesus later identifies him as Simon (v. 40). That may have been the same as the Simon the leper. But we still don’t know who the woman was.

p. 113 “The eager disciples go on to tell John [the Baptist] that Jesus not only alluded to his own virgin birth, as foretold by Scripture.” I see no evidence of this at all. This is recorded only in Luke 7. Nothing at all about his virgin birth.

p. 116 “Other than the lone incident with the temple money changers.” Jesus did this twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of his ministry. See John 2:14; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.

p. 119 “Jesus is a spiritual and intellectual rival unlike any they have ever faced.” But what about what was said on p. 87-88, where he said he wasn’t the smartest among them?

p. 124 “Now Jesus’s words push him farther away from the group.” Two problems here; it’s “Jesus’” and it should be further.

p. 127 “‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my father in heaven.’” Father should be capped. I don’t know why it’s not.

p. 134 “And they [Pilate and Caiaphas] consider themselves devout men.” We know nothing about Pilate’s religious proclivities. I’m sure he worshiped the emperor, but that’s all we know for sure.

p. 134 Discussion about Jesus’ disciples telling Jesus to go to Judea to be a more public figure. I don’t know that his disciples ever did this. I know his brothers did, but they were not his disciples (John 7:3-7).

p. 140 “At the age of thirty-six, Jesus is clever enough to act out any prophecy.” He wasn’t 36. He was 33. He began his ministry at the age of 30 (Luke 3:23). It lasted about three and a half years. That makes him 33.

p. 144 March 30/31, AD 30. He doesn’t know this. It could have been a.d. 29 for all we know.

p. 145 “They have followed Jesus as a group for more than two years.” Yes, but it was actually for about three and a half years.

p. 145 “Peter is so sure that Jesus is going to use military might that he is making plans to purchase a sword.” I don’t know where he gets that. Also, what a great example for the first “pope,” eh?

p. 149 “As Jesus learned on the road yesterday morning, the local fig and date orchards will not ripen for months to come.” Really? Even a normal Jew would know this, and this is the Son of God! I don’t think he just found this out.

p. 150 “Sunday, April 1, AD 30.” Again, he doesn’t know the exact date.

p. 152 “Bethpage” Incorrect. Even the NIV has it as “Bethphage.”

p. 157 “Suddenly, Jesus begins to weep.” Nothing in the NT about Jesus weeping on Palm Sunday.

p. 160 Jesus “walks alone to the tree, hoping to pluck a piece of fruit, even though he know that figs are out of season.” Yet look at the discussion on p. 149. So did he know or not?

p. 163 “‘If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or a wonder,’ read the Book of Deuteronomy, ‘that prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God.’” He isn’t quoting the passage accurately. This is from Deut. 13:1-5. The punishment of death isn’t for simply announcing a sign or wonder. It’s when the prophet tells the people to worship other gods (v. 2). That is what makes this a death offense.

p. 169 “‘Why are you trying to trap me?’ Jesus seethes.” I don’t know that Jesus was angry when asked if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. If anything, I think Jesus delighted in showing them what fools they were to ask such a question.

p. 170 “But Jesus does not choose from one of the established laws. Instead, he articulates a new one: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.’” This is not a new commandment. Moses wrote this in Deut. 6:5. It appears many times in the book of Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the OT.

p. 170 “Then Jesus goes on to add a second law: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” This is from Lev. 19:18, and again, it is not new.

p. 170 “Jesus says these words [about destroying the Temple] to his disciples, but a Pharisee overhears. That statement will become a capital crime.” That is not why Jesus was put to death. It is because he admitted to being the Son of God. See Matt. 26:61-66. The Jewish leaders tried to make a case out of Jesus’ statement about the Temple, but what really got Jesus into trouble was his admission in verse 64 that he was the Christ, the Son of God.

p. 171 “A week that began in this very spot with him weeping while astride a donkey now finds him reflective.” Weeping on Palm Sunday? Again, where is this in the NT? Luke 19:41 says that Jesus wept over Jerusalem, but this wasn’t on Palm Sunday.

p. 173 “Jesus has yet to publically announce that he is the Christ.” Actually, he has announced this to his disciples. When Peter made his declaration in Matt. 16:16, Jesus never corrected him. He accepted what Peter had said. He was indeed the Christ.

p. 174 “This time he [Judas Iscariot] is not alone in his disgust. Several other disciples join in before Jesus puts an end to the discussion.” He’s getting stories confused. When Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with perfume, no one but Judas complained. There is another time when at the home of Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6) when the disciples complained. But these are two different occasions.

p. 177 “Judas has live the hand-to-mouth existence of Jesus’s disciples for two long years.” No, it was about three and a half years. That is how long Jesus ministry was. All you have to do is read the Gospels and add up the time. This is a well-established fact of Jesus’ life.

p. 186 Discussion about Jesus washing the disciples feet. Nothing is said about Peter objecting to Jesus doing this (John 13:6-9).

p. 191 “Peter draws his new sword and cuts off the ear of one of the men.” I don’t know how he knows it was a new sword, and I also don’t know why he doesn’t mention that Jesus healed the man’s ear. Luke 22:50 says it was his right ear, and verse 51 says Jesus healed him. John 18:10 says the man’s name was Malchus.

p. 194. “Jesus sees . . . Annas, the aging and regal leader of a priestly dynasty dating back a thousand years.” How does he know this? He gives no proof for almost everything in this book.

p. 196 “Annas, his sons, and his son-in-law Caiaphas will all take turns serving as high priest.” Again, how does he know?

pp, 201-02 “Voices of dissent come from Nicodemus and from a wealthy Sadducee named Joseph of Arimathea.” How does he know Joseph was a Sadducee?

p. 212 “‘It was your own people and chief priests handed you over to me.’” Grammatical error. Should read, “‘chief priests who handed you over to me.’”

p. 222 This chapter deals with the crucifixion, which he dates as “Friday, April 6, AD 30.” But there is no certainty about that date. It could have been a.d. 29.

p. 228. “Jesus of Nazareth is dead. He is thirty-six years old.” Again, not true. He was thirty-three. I don’t know where he gets this idea.

p. 231 “They have received permission from Pilate to take the body, as the governor wants to put this execution to rest as soon as possible.” That stupid “as” again. Should read, “to take the body, for” or “to take the body because [since].”

p. 232 “Then they wrong the body tightly in linen, making sure to keep it loose around Jesus’s face in case he is not really dead, but merely unconscious.” No comma needed after “dead.” Also, I doubt they did this. There was no question that Jesus was dead. The Romans never made a mistake.

p. 234 “But now they [Caiaphas and the Pharisees] are inside the palace, no longer fearful of being made unclean by the governor’s presence, for Passover is done.” Yes, but Saturday is still the Jewish Sabbath.

p. 236 “Mary Magdalene now takes it upon herself to perform the traditional task of examining the dead body.” Maybe this is true, but Scripture says that the reason she and other women went to the tomb was to finish anointing his body with spices (Luke 23:55—24:1).

p. 237 “And just as she [Mary Madalene] once anointed him with perfume and washed his feet with her tears, so now she plans to anoint the body with spices.” No evidence in Scripture that Mary Magdalene anointed him with perfume and washed his feet with her tears. See discussion at p. 107.

p. 239 “Peter’s missionary work eventually took him to Rome, where he formalized the new Cathloic Church.” No evidence that Peter ever went to Rome. He may have, but he certainly didn’t establish the Roman Catholic Church. That came long after by Pope Leo I, the Great (c. a.d. 400 to 461.

p. 240 “John died in AD 100 in Ephesus, in what is now Turkey. He was ninety-four, and the only apostle not to have been martyred.” He doesn’t know the exact year John died or how old he was. This is nothing more than a guess.

p. 241 Says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was mentioned in “the book of Revelation as “a woman clothed with the sun.” That is from Rev. 12:1, but it is not certain that this is Jesus’ mother.

p. 241 “On November 1, 1950, the Roman Cathlic Church decreed that her [Mary’s] body had been ‘assumed into heaven.’ Pope Pius XII noted that Mary, ‘having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.’” That’s a nice story, but there’s no truth to it whatsoever. No evidence at all, and it is beyond the bounds of credibility. She died just like anyone else.

p. 251 “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built on the location of Jesus’s crucifixion, is a sacred site in the city.” No one knows exactly where Jesus was crucified. This is nothing more than a guess.

pp. 252-53 This map is said to show Jerusalem about 4 b.c. But that cannot be. It shows the Muslim quarter and the Christian quarter as well as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. These didn’t exist in 4 b.c.

p. 254 “It [the NT] contains twenty-seven books written between AD 50 and AD 100.” I think it was more like a.d. 45 to a.d. 95, but I won’t quibble too much.

p. 254 His list of writers of the NT do not include the writer of Hebrews. It was not Paul, but we don’t know who it was.

p. 260 “However, by the second century, Christians began touching their forehead, chest, and each shoulder to make the sign of the cross as a way of warding off demons.” I wonder where he gets this. Protestants disavowed this practice.

p. 260 “The iconic image showing the body of Jesus affixed to a cross did not become part of the Christian culture until six centuries after his death.” Not Christian culture but Roman Catholic culture.

p. 261 “It is said that the priest used the coins to buy a field to be used as a cemetery for foreigners.” He makes it sound like this is just a supposition and may or may not be true. It is true. The Bible says so (see Matt. 27:7-10 and Acts 1:18-19).

p. 263 Why list Oceania? Most people have no idea where this is. For the record, it is Australia and many island groups in that vicinity including Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia.

p. 265 He discusses the Roman Empire in 44 b.c. Why does this matter? This was decades before Jesus was born. It is not during the lifetime of Jesus.

pp. 266-67 Why show a map of The Roman Republic  about 44 b.c.? Why not show it at its height in a.d. 117 (p. 265).

p. 279 “Apostle.” Should have some mention of being sent, since that’s what the Greek word means.

p. 279 “Heresy.” He defines it as “Views different from those of a particular religion.” There needs to be some negativity. A Christian heresy is something very bad, not just a “different” view.

p. 280 “Magi: The legendary wise men who visited Jesus soon after he was born.” Nothing legendary about them. They were real. The Bible says so. Also, we don’t know when they visited. The Bible says that they came when Joseph and Mary were in a house (Matt. 2:11). Jesus could have been two years old or more.

p. 285 In his recommended readings, he recommends the Jesus Seminar (www.virtualreligion.net/forum)I have heard R. C. Sproul talk many times about this heretical group. Not to be recommended!

Son of God

Son of God, My Take (spoilers alert)

I went to see the movie Son of God recently. I was very impressed. This movie was based somewhat on the TV miniseries I believe of last year called The Bible. I took issue with some of the liberties of that miniseries, but I must say, I think maybe they listened when doing this film. It is very accurate. Is it perfect? Of course not, and I’ll get to that.

The film begins with the apostle John narrating. He’s recalling what he wrote in John 1. They quote him accurately: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (v. 1). I’m glad they got that right. The Word was God. Not the Word was a god as the Jehovah False Witness Bible has it. No, the Word was God. The movie is called the Son of God, but it could easily be called God the Son.

The first miracle they show Jesus doing was the healing of the man who was dropped through the roof (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5). I know that wasn’t his first miracle. Changing the water into wine was (John 2). But it’s okay. The film makes a big deal about when Jesus told the Pharisees, “Is it easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Get up and walk’?” That is important, because right from the beginning, we see that Jesus is not just another rabbi. He is the Son of God.

The character of Nicodemus is a bit odd. He is pretty tight with Caiaphas, the High Priest, throughout the film. It is not until late in the film that he goes to Jesus for his “You must be born again” talk. In fact, it takes place after Palm Sunday. I don’t think he went to see Jesus that late in his ministry. I think that’s inaccurate. But do I know for sure? No. So it’s not a big deal.

When Jesus first meets Peter, he gets into Peter’s boat. Peter is rather surprised. Peter tells him there are no fish in the water that day. Jesus doesn’t tell him to go out and cast his nets again; Peter just does it. And he is shocked when the fish nearly come leaping into the nets. He questions Jesus about what he wants with him. Jesus tells him that he wants to make him a fisher of men. Peter asks, “What are we going to do?” Jesus replies, “Change the world.” Now, I know Jesus didn’t say it like that, but you have to admit, it’s a great line. And the fact is that Jesus was going to change the world with Peter and the other apostles.

Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times. We see two of those denials, but for whatever reason, we don’t see the last one. Yet Peter later says he had denied Christ three times.

Jesus doesn’t do as many miracles as you find in the Gospels. Of course, that would make for a very long movie if he did. They show him raising Lazarus. They compress that scene quite a bit. Nothing is said about Jesus taking his time to get there or about Mary and Martha telling Jesus that if he had been there, their brother would not have died. But the raising of Lazarus is pretty cool. And the people are so very happy to see him.

They show the scene in John 8 about the woman caught in adultery. Again, they compress the scene quite a bit. And yes, I know the better manuscripts do not contain this. Did this actually happen? I don’t know, but it’s so in character with who Jesus is that it very well could have. I don’t have a problem with its inclusion. It is in most Bibles.

Most of the other scenes in the movie are pretty biblically accurate, although they leave out some details. Would I have done it that way? Hard to say. I know they’re up against time constraints. They do get the essence of what actually happened, so I really can’t fault them.

The crucifixion was hard to watch. They do show it in detail. One part that I think was inaccurate was when Pilate orders him to be whipped with “40 lashes.” That was a Jewish thing. (See Deuteronomy 25:3.) The Romans didn’t care a bit how many times someone was beaten.

When the High Priest comes to Pilate to ask about the writing that will be put on the cross, Pilate hasn’t written it yet. The High Priest objects to what he will write. Pilate says, What I’ve ordered, I’ve ordered. The Bible says the religious leaders came after Pilate had written it to question what was written (John 19:22). Inaccurate, yes, but not a big deal.

After Jesus was raised, the scene with Thomas is not quite the way it happened. They take out the part where Thomas isn’t there and says he won’t believe it unless he sees for himself. Again, yes, it’s inaccurate, but not that big a deal.

The movie lasts 2 hours 18 minutes. How many of you know the time listed on a movie always includes the credits? It does. It was time well spent. It’s sad that I was the only one in the theater to see this movie. Please go see it if you can. You won’t be disappointed. Or get it on DVD when it comes out. This is a keeper. Jesus is the Son of God.

God's Not Dead

God’s Not Dead (spoilers alert)

I recently went to see the movie God’s Not Dead. This is a fantastic movie. Perhaps the best I have ever seen. I’m sure you’re at least somewhat familiar with the premise: a college freshman (Josh Wheaton, played by Shane Harper) is in a philosophy class where the professor (Radisson, played by Kevin Sorbo) has made it clear to his students that God is dead. By that he, says, it’s not that God was once alive. No, the very idea of God is a myth. He does not and has never existed. In the first meeting of this philosophy class of the semester, he points out many atheist thinkers who agree with him. These include Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertram Russell, John Stuart Mill, and even Ayn Rand, among many others. He hands out paper to all the students and instructs them to write on the paper, “God is dead” and then sign it. Then they can get on with the rest of the semester having dispensed with the formality of getting over this God business. As he collects the papers, he sees that one student has written, “god is dead,” with a lowercase “g.” He toys with giving that student extra credit. Then he sees that one student, Josh Wheaton, is fumbling with admitting the premise. He challenges him. Wheaton says he’s a Christian and that he cannot agree with what the professor is saying. “Then you will have to defend the antithesis,” Professor Radisson explains.

So Josh does. And he is challenged on many fronts. His parents don’t want him to do this, although we never see them say this. But his girlfriend, Kara (played by Cassidy Gifford), who claims to be a Christian, tells him that this will be the end of his law school plans if he pursues this. And the end of their relationship. Sadly, it is. She leaves him because he won’t give up on defending God.

Josh convinces his professor to let him defend his view and let the class be the jury to decide if he’s right. The professor agrees. But he does not let up on giving Josh a hard time about believing what he considers nonsense.

As Josh goes before the class on three occasions, he gives very good evidence to prove his point. He quotes people like John Lennox (you’ll want to look him up) and even Fyodor Dostoevsky, who famously said, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” What that means is that if there is no God, there must be no morality. We can live like the animals. Murder and other crimes aren’t really crimes if there is no God.

As with any good story, there are several threads in this one. And you know they will all come together; you just don’t know how or when. I won’t give away how they do; you’ll have to see the movie to see that. But they all do intersect in terrific ways.

In addition to Professor Radisson, there are several other nonbelievers. Amy Ryan (played by Trisha LaFache) is a well-known blogger who loves to get interviews from believers and mock them. She gets one interview with Willie Robertson (yes, the Willie Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame). Willie is not at all flustered by her questions. He makes clear what he believes. This is a good part of the movie. Some see this as a paper thin thread of the movie, but I don’t. Willie is a common man who believes in God. And nothing can shake his faith. He gives Amy a big smile and goes into a church with his wife after inviting her to come with them. She declines.

As I said, I don’t want to give away the subplots and how they intersect. There is one subplot in which a young Muslim girl is secretly a Christian. Her younger brother sees that she is listening to Franklin Graham on her iPod. She makes him swear not to tell their father. But he does. And when her father finds out, he kicks her out. That kind of thing does indeed happen. Maybe not as much in America, but it does happen around the world. Where will she go? Has she made a mistake? We’ll have to see.

There was only one part of the movie that I objected to. Near the beginning, there were several scenes where the camera angle shows a woman’s attractive legs or other body parts. I wondered what that was all about. It was clear that we were supposed to notice these physical parts of the women. I don’t think that was necessary. As I said, it was near the beginning, and it did not continue throughout the film.

Perhaps the best part of the movie is the end, where we see the Newsboys in concert. They have a special place in my heart. Although the group has changed a few faces from when I first started listening to them in 2002, they are still a strong Christian group and have a terrific presence in the movie. And they’re not bad actors, either. They sing the title song, God’s Not Dead, which honestly brought tears to my eyes. No, God isn’t dead. He is at work in my life and I suspect in yours too.

The very end of the movie is quite tragic. I won’t give it away, but it’s terribly sad. Yet it really demonstrates God’s amazing grace.

You have got to see this movie. In fact, this is a keeper. When it comes out on DVD, I will get it. No, God’s not dead. He’s surely alive!

Heaven Is for Real

Heaven Is for Real (spoilers alert)

I finally went to see the movie Heaven Is for Real. It was quite a disappointment, but I’ll get to that. I like to be positive if I can, so I’ll start with the positives.

The acting in this movie is quite good. Todd Burpo (played by Greg Kinnear) is a fine actor. I was not familiar with many of the other cast members, but they did a good job. There is some good Christian music, and I especially enjoyed Amazing Grace. That has always been one of my favorites. The script was well written too. And the scenery was very good. You may take that for granted, but the movie takes place in Nebraska. I’ve been there. Nebraska is flat and covered with crop fields all over. Not much to see. But somehow the director got in some good and very beautiful scenery.

The foundation for the movie doesn’t really begin until 25 minutes into the movie. That is a long time to build up to the story. What takes place in that first 25 minutes is that we meet the Burpo family. They are a normal, hard-working American family who is just trying to get by. Todd (the father) is a pastor, but he has two other jobs. He also works with the fire department, and he repairs garage doors. The family is having a hard time financially. It is hard to see how the bills will be paid.

Suddenly, Colton (the four-year-old boy who becomes the focus of the story) is seen throwing up. They take him to the hospital and they find out that he has appendicitis. They must operate immediately. So they do. At no time is the boy in any serious distress. He does not die on the operating table. He does not have a Near Death Experience (NDE). That fact is established at least 3 times during the movie. But something did happen.

In the days that follow the operation, Colton starts talking about what he saw during his operation. He says he went to Heaven. He says he saw Jesus and sat on his lap. More on that later. He also says he met his dad’s grandfather and said that he is young. “Everyone is young in Heaven,” Colton reports. He also says he met a little girl who turned out to be his sister, a sister that his parents lost before she was born. She has no name because his parents never named her. What? So God didn’t give her a name? I find that incredulous.

So Todd is in quite a crisis. He talks about it somewhat at church, and the leaders are concerned that their church may be turning into a sideshow. They don’t want that. They are even thinking of replacing Todd as the pastor. But Todd doesn’t back down. He believes his son.

There are a couple things I find interesting about this story. I haven’t read the book and don’t intend to, but there is no mention of the Bible at all. Sure, they show the Bible on the pulpit when Todd is preaching, but there’s no talk of what happened to Colton in light of what Scripture says. The church they go to is a Wesleyan Church. I’m not a Wesleyan (I’m a Presbyterian), but as far as I know, Wesleyans still believe the Bible. Except, apparently, in this movie. There is only one verse mentioned. I honestly can’t remember what it is right now, but when I remember, I’ll let you know. I do know that the verse had nothing to do with Heaven. Later on in the movie, Todd mentions part of the Lord’s Prayer. But it’s clear that Scripture takes a back seat to what Colton saw.

Another interesting fact is that it is clear that Colton did not die or have an NDE, as I mentioned before. Yet at one point Todd is Googling “Near Death Experiences.” He wants to find out more, and he even goes to a psychologist for help. It is a short visit. The psychologist is not a believer in any religion, so it appears she’s little help.

Colton also did not have a vision of Heaven. That is quite clear in the film. He says in no uncertain terms that he actually went to Heaven. He saw Jesus and the angels. The Bible does mention that some will see visions in the last days (Acts 2:17). If the story were about this boy seeing a vision, I would take issue with the fact that he is not a “young man” as Acts says. But I would admit that it could happen. But the story isn’t based on a vision. It is assumed that Colton’s visit to Heaven was real. That’s why I take serious issue with it.

I don’t know what Colton saw. And neither does anyone else. Furthermore, Colton doesn’t know what he saw. Yes, he’s convinced that he went to Heaven. But this clearly is not true. The Bible makes it clear that “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man” (John 3:13, NASB). Proverbs 30:4 says, “Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!” (NASB).

Also, the Bible says clearly that “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18, NLT; cf. 1 John 4:12; Exod. 33:20). John wrote these verses after A.D. 90, probably when no one but he had seen Jesus (all the others who had probably had already died). It’s clear that he is excepting himself. He did see Jesus. Jesus is God, and John clearly spent a lot of time with Jesus.

I will also add that I do not automatically assume that what the boy saw was from the Devil. It may have been. The fact that he talked about his great-grandfather and lost sister could easily be a demonic deception. Do you think Satan didn’t know these people? Satan also has access to Heaven (Job 2:1). It is possible that he knows certain individuals who are in Heaven. Again, I’m not saying Colton’s experience was definitely demonic. But it certainly could have been.

In 2 Cor. 12:1-4, Paul talks about a man (ostensibly himself) who had a vision of Heaven. Paul says that this man “was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (NASB). So apparently Colton is the exception. He speaks voluminously on the subject of Heaven. John went to Heaven too, but that was clearly a vision. Rev. 4:2 says, “Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne” (NASB). John wasn’t actually there. He was there in the Spirit (or a spirit). Finally, 1 Timothy 6:16 says that Christ “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (NASB). Scripture is clear.

You are free to disagree with me, and many have. I’ve actually been surprised at how many Christians say that this boy could have gone to Heaven. Again, no he couldn’t have. Look at the biblical evidence. This isn’t me saying he couldn’t and didn’t go; it’s God saying he couldn’t and didn’t go. So if you disagree, I would like to hear your biblical arguments for why you believe that.

Yes, Heaven is for real. I know that because I have faith in God and his Word, not because somebody tells me s/he’s been there.

“God has reserved a priceless inheritance for his children. It is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay” (1 Pet. 1:4, NLT).