Jesus' 5 Evidences that God was/is His Father

  A month ago, I posted 8 Arguments for the Bible's Reliability; now I want to share something that is tangentially related, the reasons that Jesus is recorded to have given for being from the Heavenly Father. John 5:18 says, "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (ESV, emphasis added) In the verses following that, Jesus lists several results of God being his father.  These deal with how his character and his actions reflect those of the Father.

 Then, in John 5:30-47, Jesus gives a series of arguments about why he should be accepted as whom he says he is. These are as follows:

1.  Jesus himself claims God is his father (Jn 5:31, cf vs 17-18).
2.  John the Baptist also attested to this truth (Jn 5:32-36; cf 1:29-35; 3:22ff).
3.  The "works" or actions - including the healing that spawned this discussion - attest to the origin of Jesus (Jn 5:36; cf 3:2; 5:1-17). 
4.  The Father who sent him has also attested to this truth (Jn 5:37-38; cf 12:27-30; Matthew 3:16-17; 17:5).
5.  The Scriptures bear witness to him (Jn 5:39-40; cf Jn 1:45; 2:17).
• Moses' writings, as a subset of Scripture, witness to the person of Jesus (Jn 5:45-47; cf Jn 3:14; 6:32; witnesses about the Christ from Moses' writings).  

  It is interesting that each of these points has support from within the Gospel of John, mostly prior to this account. These are evidences which the listeners could evaluate, events or sayings they were already apparently familiar with. (Mt 3:16-17 shows that God had already spoken from heaven publicly once, in addition to the second-hand recounting of that event that John given in John 1.)

 Now, the connection to the previous posts is a bit clearer. Presuming we accept the Gospel accounts as reliable, then the arguments given here are ones that must be given weight. Jesus did not call on people to embrace his claims in a vacuum or without due consideration. Nor did he simply overwhelm them with the miraculous in such a way that a series of illusions could be the basis of his claim(s). The evidences were varied and often independent. 

  So I ask, what would it take to convince you or I, reasonable people, that the apparently impossible was actually possible? What proofs should we require to believe that God became a man, that the Son of God walked this earth in human flesh? If this is not denied a priori, what would you look for as evidence and how would this relate to the proofs that were given?  

  One final point that should be mentioned is that these are not the only proofs that either the New Testament or Jesus himself is recorded as giving to support who he was and is. The anecdote in John 1:47-51 makes this clear. As well, here's another one I came across in my reading recently.

• Matthew 12:38-41 - Jesus foretold that there would be a parallel between his burial and resurrection and the life of the prophet Jonah. This is not a prophecy by Jonah, but rather Jesus himself prophesying about what will happen and using a familiar story as the pivot point. (cf Mt 17:22-23)

Hidden in Plain View - a lapsed argument on the New Testament's reliability

I suggest that we have such ample evidence for the reliability of these documents that we should consider ourselves privileged rather than burdened when called upon to present it. We should welcome the opportunity to reclaim and maintain the forward position held by the older apologists, for their arguments have been not so much refuted as forgotten in the shifts of theological fashion. (McGrew, 192)

 Drawing heavily on Paley's "Evidences of Christianity" and Blunt's "Scriptural Coincidences" (both free online due to their age), in Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew presented a fresh and compelling argument on the historical reliability and accuracy on Scripture. Apparently this argument of (humanly) "undesigned coincidences" within Scripture  traces back to the 18th and 19th centuries, but it mostly disappeared. Now, due to a cousin's recommendation and the fact that it was available on Kindle Unlimited, I have gotten to read and benefit from this really useful book and argument. Hidden in Plain View was helpful in four areas:

1.  Reliability of Scripture (apologetics)

2.  Dealing with Bible difficulties (apologetics and hermeneutics)

3.  The 'Synoptic problem' in the Gospels (apologetics and hermeneutics)

4.  Insight into New Testament Scripture (hermeneutics)

  For the frequent reader or long-term student of the New Testament, the material in this book will probably be both extremely familiar and regularly surprising. This is particularly true of the first half, which deals with the Gospels. The reason for this is that as we have imbibed the different portions of the Scripture, we have often synthesized them in our understanding. This is obviously a good thing! However, it comes with the downside of not necessarily distinguishing the sources of the pieces of knowledge from each other. Therefore, we may not be  fully aware of many of the cases of Scripture supporting Scripture in the nitty gritty details.

  Again, this unawareness of specific links between is especially true in the four Gospel accounts, where the genres and narratives are so often read in parallel. On the other hand, I found that I was more aware of the subtle links between the accounts in Acts and the Pauline letters. I suspect that this is because each of these is more likely to be studied independently. Conversely, the Gospels, particularly the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke), are frequently studied as a whole. 

 It is in this connection that McGrew sheds light on the so-called 'synoptic problem', which she names 'the synoptic puzzle.' In fascinating details, she shows the independence of the four Gospel witnesses from each other. Most interestingly, as she points out, the details of independence often emerge at exactly the places where the accounts seem most harmonized (dependent?) at a surface level. This perspective also gives a clear response to the common question, 'Why are there four gospels (not just one)? (The apparently similar question of the later, Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas, is quite separate actually.)

The providential provision of four Gospels gives us a three-dimensional view of the events. (p. 193)

 It was also in the Gospel sections, that I felt like there were the most significant insights into passages allowing deeper understanding of the meaning of each passage. For example, the links between John 13 where Jesus washes his followers' feet and Luke 22 where he describes servant leadership and declares, "I am among you as one who serves" are particularly poignant. The strength of this connection will certainly inform my thinking going forward.

  Anyways, this book is definitely worth reading, if not in all the details, at least to get the main argument. It is approachable in tone and, because she usually quotes the passages she is dealing with in their entirety, the argument has greater force as you see the coincidences in the details of the texts. 

  A few additional quotes to stir your interest (bold emphasis mine, italics original): 

But it is particularly noticeable that the Gospel authors often seem to write with the lack of affectation that we find in a person whose primary purpose is getting important information out there, getting down what happened, making it available, rather than in one whose primary purpose is to fit together what he writes in a polished manner. The author of the Gospel of John is certainly theological, perhaps more so than any of the other Gospel writers. But again and again we find him including items in his Gospel without their full explanations, apparently just because he wanted his readers to know that they happened. (p. 44)

What one sees in undesigned coincidences, again and again, are points which “impressed themselves upon the eye” of the spectator and came thus into the accounts we now have. (p. 63)

It’s also worth noting that any intentional connection of this miracle with the earlier miracle could, if both occurred, be attributed to Jesus himself. [...] It’s important not to assume that, if there are resemblances between two events in the Gospels, this automatically implies a literary parallel created by the author. (p. 207) 

~ McGrew, Lydia. Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts 

"Your Father, the Devil": Satan as a Father in the Bible

 As a father of growing and changing children, I want to keep growing in both my understanding and practice of fatherhood. Recently, I was thinking of the fact that Satan is discussed as a father in Scripture. So, it seemed worth exploring what characteristics are associated with devilish fatherhood.

 The images and metaphors associated with the devil are almost always violent or oppressive in some way whether emotionally (hatred, wrath, tempt, incite, furious), physically (contend, death, snare, take away, bound, devour), mentally (deceit, lies, schemes, disguise), or social (accuse, harass). 

Meanwhile, the images and metaphors associated with God may also at times be violent (Genesis 6:13; Exodus 15:3), but they are neither exclusively nor predominately so. Indeed, the names of God particularly associated with fatherhood are of a particularly different variety (Father of the fatherless, Holy Father, our Father in heaven, the Father of glory, the Father of mercy, the Father of lights, the living Father, etc.)  Along with their sources in the Bible, these can be seen in the 'Biography of God' that I posted some years ago.  

So...

In Scripture, what traits are associated with the fatherhood of Satan/the devil / the evil one? 

What qualities in a father are not sourced in the fatherhood of God?

-       John 8:34-47 (38, 41, 44) - The devil and his children...

o   lie, "the father of lies"

o   fight against truth

o   murder; seek to kill

o   cannot bear to hear the word of Christ

-       1 John 3:8-15 (8, 10, 12) - The one who is of the evil one...

o   Makes a practice of sinning; Does not practice righteousness

o   Does not love his brother

o   Hates and murders his brother

-       Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 (38-39) - the children of the evil (one)...

o   intermingled with those of the Heavenly Father and may be indistinguishable from those of the Father’s kingdom even to the angels. (cf 2 Cor 11:14)

-       Acts 13:6-12 (10) - This particular example of a 'son of the devil'...

o   opposed God's messengers and sought to turn another person away from the faith 

o   was an enemy of all righteousness

o   was full of all deceit and villainy

o   made crooked the straight paths of the Lord (cf. Luke 3:3-5; the opposite of John the Baptist) 

  Other references that seem vaguely relevant but not really: Matthew 23:15; Ephesians 2:2-3; 5:6;  John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:14

  If you have any thoughts or passages or disagreements to contribute, I'd be interested to hear them on here or in person.

A Turkish Shepherd Calling His Own Sheep (and someone else's!)

  About a month ago, one of the most interesting videos I've seen came into the news here in Turkey (news article about it). It had been preceded 8 years earlier by the first video which is below. I have transcribed and translated what I thought were the most interesting parts of both videos (except for the shepherd's call itself, which didn't seem to need translation).  

First video: The Shepherd Calls Another Shepherd's Sheep (Youtube)

The interviewer from TRT news channel is welcomed by a shepherd, İlhan Orak. He asks his occupation and how long he has been shepherding, 40-50 years, since he was a child.

The interviewer says (0:33), “And your sheep are here.” The shepherd responds, “These aren’t mine. They are a friend’s. Mine are way down there.”

Interviewer (0:38): The sheep, if you called them, they’d come?
Shepherd (0:40): If we went over there – they’d come right away!
Interviewer (0:42): Then, let’s call these.
Shepherd (0:43): These won’t come.
Interviewer (0:45): Why wouldn’t they come?
Shepherd (0:46): These don’t know me. Mine know me.
Interviewer (0:48): You’ve been a shepherd for 50 years…!
Shepherd (0:49): Mine know me!
Interviewer (0:51): Let’s try and see if they’ll come?

The shepherd demonstrates how he calls his sheep. 

The presenter laughs, “There’s no movement among the sheep. They didn’t even blink.” The shepherd responds, “Vallahi, they aren’t mine! They didn’t look.” Then, the presenter asks whether the shepherd’s own sheep would have come if he’d called them. The answer is yes, if they went over that way. The presenter asks how the shepherd reaches an understanding with the animals. Finally, they begin discussing the shepherd himself.

Second Video: The Shepherd Calls His Own Sheep (Youtube)

In the second video, the same interviewer visits the shepherd again, 8 years later. The shepherd says (0:37), “I’m 63 years old now, and the TRT interviewer came before. Those weren’t my sheep. They didn’t know me. Mine know me." 

The interviewer asks (0:45), If we call yours, will they come?
Shepherd (0:47): Now? ... (calls)
Shepherd (1:05): Look how they are coming. Do you know it? … Last time, those weren’t mine. See, these are actually mine. They know me.

Watch it happen!

  The shepherd is not expressing this out of knowledge of Jesus' words in the gospel of John: in the later parts of the second video, he expresses his Islamic faith. But for those of us who have not grown up around sheep or shepherds, this is a really beautiful way to understand the words of Jesus more deeply. (Incidentally, the shepherd, like most believers in Islam, would probably say that he believed in the gospels, the İncil. Thus, I trust that he would not be bothered by my making this connection.)

John 10:2–4, 14-16, 27

But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 

(ESV)

The Psalms are messianic

A logical extension of the belief that all the Scriptures point towards the Christ is that each of the Psalms is Messianic, not just some of them.  Still it is remarkable the number of Psalms which are directly related to Christ in the New Testament.

 As far as I have been able to find, there are at least 20 of the 150 Psalms that are directly referenced in the New Testament as being related to Jesus Christ. There are several other likely or possible Messianic references as seen in the chart below.

Psalm	Verses	References	Verses	References	Verses	References	Verses
2	1-2	Acts 4:25; (Rev 19:19)	(6)	(Rev 14:1)	7	Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5	9	Rev 19:15; (2:27)
8	2	Mt 21:16	4 - 6	Heb 2:6-8; 1 Cor 15:27
16	8-11	Acts 2:25-28, 31; 13:35
18	(2)	(Heb 2:13b)
22	1	Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34	18	Mt 27:35; Jn 19:24	22	Heb 2:12
31	5	Lk 23:46
34	20	Jn 19:36; (Ex 12:46)
35	11	Mt 26:60 (allusion)
40	6-8	Heb 10:5-9
41	9	Jn 13:18	10	MESSIANIC?
45	6-7	Heb 1:8-9
68	18	Eph 4:8
69	4	Jn 15:25	9	Jn 2:17; Rom 15:3	21	Acts 1:20	25	Acts 1:20
78	2	Mt 13:35
86	(6)	(Jn 10:34)
89	3-4, 35-36	Acts 2:29-30
91	11 - 12	Mt 4:6; Lk 4:11-12
96	(13)	(Rev 19:11)
97	(7)	(Heb 1:6)
102	25-27	Heb 1:10-12
109	3	Jn 15:25	8, 17	Acts 1:20; Jn 17:20
110	1	Mt 22:42; Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42, 43; Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13	4	Heb 5:6, 10; 7:17, 21	(5-6)	(Rev 6:15-17)
118	22-23	Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10-11; Lk 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:7	25-26	Mt 21:9; Mk 11:9; Lk 13:35; 19:38; Jn 12:13
132	11	Acts 2:29-30

A beautiful depiction of the interlocking nature of the Bible's text is available here.

The chart above as an image:

Kindly message me if you see any errors in the chart!
Related post: on the use of the OT