Category: Apologetics

March 29, 2018

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? (Abortion)

As we approach this subject on abortion, I want to say there is hatred on both side of this issue. Some groups have the view that it is the woman’s right to choose and no one should interfere with that choice. Another group says that abortion is murder, and they have no tolerance for an opposing argument. Both of these camps, when let out of their cages, go at each other like two pit bulls in a fighting arena. Is there a middle ground? Or will there always be no agreement on this issue? As Christians and light to the world, where are we to stand on this issue?

I personally have strong beliefs on this issue, but my beliefs are nothing if not centered in the word of GOD. So let me start with you.

How in the world did you get here?

To begin with, your mother and father got together in a sexual union, and sperm and an egg got together in your mother’s body, and life began. From this beginning, 9 months of development had to pass before you became the person you are; that is, before you were born into the world. At which point were you a human being? Dr. John Rice says at the point of conception your sex was determined, the color of your eyes and hair, the way you look, your special talents, all that is you today. The only difference is that you had to develop in your mother’s womb. Now this is the natural process for you and me to become an infant child. As Sen. Paul Ryan said in the Vice Presidential debate,

“If you have any children today you probably have pictures of the baby before it was born, maybe of him or her sucking his thumb or making a fist. Sometimes the nurse would have a hard time getting us their ultrasound picture because they were moving around too much. Just as we were alive in our mothers’ body so was our boy or girl.”

So I ask you, what keeps a baby from being a baby? What would keep us from becoming a baby? Something unnatural must take place to stop the growth of this child, and that something unnatural in an abortion is when the baby is killed. This is the interruption, the stopping of the heart, the seizing of the developing brain waves occurring through a traumatic end. There can be no denying that if the fetus is left alone it will become a child. This is the only way that any of us have been brought into this world. You and I are proof of the miracles of God. He has given men and women the power to procreate, and we are here today because we we’re not a mistake, and that’s because God doesn’t make mistakes.

Now that I have shared these truths with you, I will say to you I am pro-choice.

Shocked?

However, I must say it very differently than the pro-choice of modern politics. My pro-choice is that everyone has a choice to wait until marriage before engaging in a sexual union with another of the opposite sex. You and I have a choice since you can wait until you’re in love with the one person you want to spend the rest of your life with, or have sex now. If you choose to fornicate, and break God’s command, then natural consequences come to that choice. You can get a venereal disease, you can get pregnant, and you can have your heart broken. If you get pregnant, you have already made a choice to break God’s command; so you have made your choice. I don’t believe that you should have another choice to kill the baby.

You have already made a choice.

This is pro-choice, the real choice, but now men and women want to erase their choice by eliminating a child because they choose to have sex outside of God’s place of commitment in marriage. The world (Satan) is teaching us that we all should have freedom to have sex with anyone, and have no responsibility to those we have sex with. But the act in God’s eyes is the act of commitment, and to faithfulness to the one who you have had sexual union with. Having sex outside marriage–and then killing the child–will never be right because two wrongs don’t make a right, and they never will.

Since we have established it is a child in the mother (like we were), and that the developing child will–if it is left alone–become a child. Then, that choice is something you have to make before engaging in sex. Once you have gotten someone pregnant, or have become pregnant, accept the responsibility of your choice. Remember you “had” a choice. Since this child is alive just as we are, then it follows that Christians must choose life and defend the rights of the innocent, the weak (the ones who can’t protect themselves); the unborn! What excuse can you give on Judgment Day for turning away from the little ones? Jesus said if you lead one of these little ones astray it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and be cast into the sea. These laws that condone abortion clinics are not only leading them astray, but killing them! Are you your brother’s keeper? The blood of the innocent cries out to God as it did against Abel.

On to answering the arguments for abortion, and closing the mouth of the lion:

Argument #1: The fetus is not a human life, therefore it may be killed.

The words fetus and embryo are Greek and Latin words that simply mean “young one.” When scientists speak of a human embryo or fetus, they are not putting it in the category of another species, but are simply using terminology for a stage of development (like the words infant, child, adolescent, or adult). A fetus is a very young person developing in the womb. In pregnancy books it is natural and correct to speak of the fetus as my baby or your child.

As we have stated earlier, from conception the child has its own genetic code. Dr. John Rice says at the point of conception your sex was determined, the color of your eyes and hair, the way you look, your special talents, all that is you today. The only difference is that you had to develop in your mother’s womb. The child has a distinctive genetic code separate from the mother; it shows us all that the child is, and that the child is not a part of the mother’s body. The child is thus a distinct individual, living temporally within her body. Ultrasound imaging reveals this to be true. You can literally follow from your child’s fertilization to its birth in baby books. A fetus is in development until it grows into the known recognizable human form.

At three weeks, a developing baby’s heart begins beating and at six weeks a baby’s brain waves are traceable. At eight weeks the arms, hands, and feet are developed with a distinct set of finger prints being formed. The ultra sound can see a baby making a fist, sucking its thumb, watch it kick, spin and make facial expressions by he/or she’s first trimester. By any reasonable standard, a human fetus is a young human being.

Thus, to kill a baby is murder no matter how young. Have you seen the horrific photo’s of aborted babies? Severed hands feet and heads wrapped up in bags and discarded as trash. This should never be hidden from those who support and vote for those who say this evil is a choice. Each person should get an education on the reality of what happens at an abortion clinic by visiting them, getting to know the procedures by watching the process. Reality will awaken the hardest advocate of abortion to the truth. I will explain three procedures in the next e-mail. Unborn children are precious human beings and must be protected, not sides of beef or drum sticks.

Argument #2: The fetus is not fully human because it is dependent on another to live.

The simple truth is that a baby that has been born cannot live without the care and sustenance from an outside source as well. The baby is dependent on others just as the unborn is on its mother. Is a kangaroo not a kangaroo because it lives in its mothers pouch? Of course not, as with human beings the location and situation does not make him or her less human. If dependency makes a person less human, then on these grounds we should have the right to kill infants outside of the womb. We should kill people on dialysis, war veterans with missing arms, people with pacemakers, the diabetics, and people in comas, handicapped people and the elderly. These people are all dependent on something outside of themselves to keep them alive.

Suppose there are two women several months into their pregnancies. One child is born premature and the other remains in the womb, the premature baby girl is utterly dependent upon medical intervention to survive, and the other is dependent upon the mother’s body to survive. How would the hospital staff react if the mother entered the baby ward with a knife to kill the premature baby girl? Is it a right to kill the baby girl? If it is not the right to kill the premature girl, then why is it right to kill the child in the womb? Both are dependent, both are children, both must have legal protection!

Argument #3: A woman has the right to do with her body as she desires.

We affirm that a women has authority over her own body. She should have the choice of who her husband will be, where she goes to college, where she will live, what kind of car she drives, what she eats for breakfast, if she wears makeup or takes a shower (we would frown at missing too many showers though). As stated earlier, a women has a choice to lay down with a man or not, but after she has, there is no right to take back what she/ they did. It is not okay to murder the innocent child. There are limits to what we can do with our bodies; including causing harm to another human being. Abortion involves the death of an innocent child. As in the US court of law, where there is due process before someone can be brought to a judgment, there is even a stricter scrutiny in the law if a person is to face capital punishment (the death penalty). Those babies have committed no crime, and are given capital punishment without a trial. For what? What evil atrocity have they committed? Let’s punish the bad people! Why do these innocent children who have done no wrong face the death penalty?

Now, to argue further that the living fetus is apart of her body, in which she can do what she wishes, I ask what part of the body is the fetus? What organ? When the child’s heart starts to beat, whose heartbeat is it? When the fetus’s brain waves can be traced, whose are they? When the body has arms and legs, whose are they? Now, both the baby and the mother have bodies; than it follows that both the fetus and the mother’s rights must be considered.

Whenever we speak of the rights of human beings, we must guard against the more powerful person taking advantage of the weaker person. It is the responsibility of the more powerful person to protect the weak. It is especially the responsibility of the mother to protect her children. Does any mother have the right to do whatever she wishes with her children? On the contrary, she has the responsibility of caring for them, or seeing that someone else cares for them. Certainly motherhood calls for sacrifice. We should expect adults to make sacrifices of their resources and freedoms when necessary to preserve the lives of children.

Argument #4: Sex and reproduction are a private matter in which we must not intrude.

Human sexuality expresses the deep intimacy that a husband and wife share. Sex has very public consequences. How we exercise our sexuality contributes to the restraint or spread of disease, the treatment of women with honor or rape, the nurture or sexual abuse of children, and the strengthening or dissolution of families that are the foundation of society. Until the sexual revolution of the 60’s adultery was considered wrong and shameful, now it is accepted as normal. This has directly effected the treatment of women and even affected marriage by creating no fault divorce laws. We have seen the moral fabric of this country slowly unwind as we have stepped away from what used to be absolutes. Society therefore should have a compelling interest to guard the dignity of marriage; women and children with respect to sex and reproduction for can see their outward effects.

People sometimes assume that the constitution guarantees the right to privacy in sexual and reproductive matters. That is not the case as you read the constitution. The fourth amendment acknowledges the right of security against “unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant” but nothing about sexuality, children, or abortion.

Someone might sarcastically say, “I thought what I did in my bedroom was my own business.” That should be the case but, what if someone is killing a child in your bedroom? Wouldn’t that merit public intervention by the authorities? Privacy is not an absolute moral right, but killing a child is an absolute moral wrong.

Argument #5: Making abortion illegal would force women into dangerous, back-alley abortions.

The idea of the crudely done abortion resulting in a bleeding, dying mother (and dead child) has been widely used by abortion advocates. In reality, 90% of abortions were performed before they were legal were done by physicians in their offices. The idea of thousands of women dying yearly until abortion was legal is a myth that pushed society for its acceptance. In 1972, thirty–nine mothers died in the United States from abortions. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (March 26th, 2010) admits the legalization of abortion has had no impact on the number of women dying of abortions in the U.S.

In fact, legal abortion is now the leading cause of death related to maternal deaths in the US.

Every woman who dies from a botched abortion is a tragic loss. But so is every child who dies from a successful abortion. We should not make it legal to kill babies in order to make the killing safer for the adults involved. Furthermore, abortion has medical and psychological risks; making it illegal would protect the lives and health of millions and millions of women.

Argument #6: It is better to die before birth than to live as a unwanted child.

To give a human being the power to determine the future life of another individual based on whether he or she is wanted or unwanted is most dangerous. Do we have the right to kill on the basis if we want them or not? Such a view point leads highly-cultured societies to commit genocide against the mentally and inferior races. You see that those who advocate the murder of the unwanted baby will be advocating later–as did Hitler–the murder of others that are unfit or retarded or those who are an extra burden on society. When you justify murder, there is always a next step.

Secondly, is the child never wanted by anyone? Many mothers who did not want their child prior to birth experience a change of heart after birth. There are so many parents that want to adopt a child, therefore these children are very much wanted. To say the child is not wanted now does not mean that the child will never be wanted. Did you know that Apple founder, Steve Jobs, was unwanted by his birth mother and adoptive parents?

Third, this argument has horrifying implications for the “unwanted.” Consider these three “cases” for abortion:

while a woman is pregnant, she finds that the child may be deformed and deaf
another mom finds out her child may be a mongoloid, affected by Down’s Syndrome
another pregnant woman’s boy may be retarded

All of these mothers are considering abortion. Now in these cases we wait until their children are born and find that just one of the children is born with a defect; deafness. Will we kill the baby for it being born deaf? Is this not a good thing because the boy was unwanted? You say that is wrong and we shouldn’t do that! You are shocked at the thought of killing one deaf baby but are not moved when all three of these children were going to be killed by abortion.

Wake up, if it is a right to kill those who may be defective, wouldn’t it be logical to kill those who are already born who are defective, or a burden to society? Using this logic, it is the next step for a society with this worldview.

Finally, what gives us the right to decide whether it is better for a person to live or die? The 14th amendment says no one is to be deprived of life without due process of law. Where is the justification to determine the death of a person without due process? Did you consult the child? Are you the owner of that person’s life? Do you know without a doubt the future of that child? Do not many “unwanted” children overcome severe physical and mental handicaps in their life times and become useful adult citizens? Do not many people in very painful situations choose wisely to live than to kill themselves? You and I don’t know what this child’s life will be so how can we kill a child when she has not committed any crime? In the end, what seems to be a compassionate argument for the “unwanted” child makes no sense at all. At best it is an emotional, illogical appeal; at worst it is a mask for selfishness and a murderous heart.

Conclusion

God’s word in Proverbs 8:36 says, “Those who hate me (GOD) love death.” There are many who claim they love God, yet God is the God of life. If you can vote with or condone murder at any level except for biblical life-for-life are you a Christian? You can say a lot of things but your heart is revealing the truth: you hate your unborn brother and are a murder. Revelation 21:8 says that no murderer has eternal life but will be thrown into the lake of fire. You are called to choose between blessing or cursing, life or death. I beg you to choose life. We all will stand before our Maker and give account. Choose life.

Thank you for reading the answers to a set of hard questions. Jesus said what you have done to the least of these you have done to me: it is the will of God that man protect those who cannot defend themselves. Protect life! There is no greater issue facing the American people than abortion. This is the only issue that is truly a matter of life and death: 53,000,000 have been killed in abortions and counting!

We are able to stop this evil, so don’t vote for, nor support anyone who is for the killing of a child; no matter how young that child is.

You are your brother’s keeper!

God bless you as you defend the rights of unborn children; it is God’s will.

Scott

References

Joel R Beeke. Is abortion really so bad?

John R Rice. Sword of the Lord 1970 & SB.

Please follow and like us:

February 24, 2018

Apologetics: Getting to the Gospel as Soon as Possible

The Definition of Apologetics

Hearing the word “apologetics,” many immediately think of our modern understanding of what it means to apologize for something as an expression of regret. This could be understandably confusing since we are talking about Christian apologetics, potentially implying that we regret being Christians. However, to do apologetics ironically means quite the opposite of “apologizing” for something.

The word comes from the Greek prefix “apo-”, which indicates a separation or a deflection of something, and the word “logos”, which is unsurprisingly where we get our term “logic.” So, the Greek word apologia paints a picture of something that is being deflected by way of logic. The most common definition of the word apologetics is “a reasoned defense.” (Think Jude 3.)

Side note: Imagine how the conversation would go next time you needed to apologize to someone, and you offered “a reasoned defense” of your actions.

There are apologists everywhere. Every political position, sports fan base, and brand loyalty has its apologists. Every religion has apologists who defend their faith as the one true religion. Even the nonreligious have apologists who defend the secular mindset that all religions are ultimately wrong.

When it comes to us Christians, however, we take the role of the apologist to an entirely different level. Christianity is not simply supposed to have apologists; as we shall see, every Christian is supposed to be an apologist. For Christians, apologetics is not something we simply leave to “the experts.” It is something that is very much a part of what it means to be a Christian.

The most famous usage of the word in the New Testament comes from the Apostle Peter. In 1 Peter 3:15 he gives both a directive and a definition of apologetics. There Peter states:

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

The phrase translated into English as “give an answer” is actually one word in Greek. You guessed it: apologia. The command is clear. We are always to be ready with an answer, always ready to do apologetics.

Among a few qualities of what a good answer may look like, Peter zeros in on the main subject—“the hope that is in you.” Christian apologetics is a focused discipline with a singular goal, namely to bring people to the gospel. Jesus commissioned us to go into all the world and preach the gospel; Peter reminds us to be ready with an answer when they have questions about it.

The Need for Apologetics

As much as the world has changed since the first century, the Great Commission has not. All Christians have been tasked with preaching the gospel. The only alternative to evangelism, as they say, is disobedience.

Apologetics has always played a pivotal role in our evangelism. Christian apologist James Patrick Holding observed, “What we call ‘apologetics’ was, in fact, what the apostolic church would have called ‘evangelism.’” He goes on to explain, “Early missionary preaching testified to the historical realities upon which the Christian faith was grounded and called for repentance on those grounds.”

Indeed, if you were to review the evangelism of the apostles, personal and public, there is very little reliance on personal experience or emotional appeal. On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-25), for example, Peter gave a textbook example of what he describes in his epistle. He appealed to Jesus’ miracles, culminating in his resurrection, and his fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies. On the basis of the historical reality of what Jesus had done, Peter calls his audience to repent and believe.

In our post-Christian secular age, the presence of apologetics in our evangelism is as important as it ever has been. Our culture is moving ever further away from a time when people had the same general understanding of God, the Bible, and religion. However, the popular consensus has changed in virtually every category. To talk to someone about the gospel today is a vastly different endeavor than it was years ago. Apologetics professor Travis Dickinson notes,

“More and more, apologetics does the work equivalent to what Bible translators do for an unreached people group. The Bible translator must get the content of the Gospel into the vernacular of the people for an individual to even grasp this content. Could the Holy Spirit miraculously allow the tribesman to understand the Gospel in a foreign language? Absolutely. However, it typically takes the hard work of translation. Likewise, God can bring conviction if He wants, but it often takes the hard work of engaging in apologetic discussion for someone to be able to grasp the content of the Gospel.”

In our evangelism, we declare what the gospel is, and what people ought to do about it. Yet, increasingly people ask why. Why should someone believe in any God, much less the one described in the Bible? Why should someone believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh and that he rose from the dead? If God loves us so much, why do so many bad things happen to us? If God went to such great lengths to save us, why did he put us in a situation in which we need saving? These are precisely the questions Peter was talking about.

Pastor Timothy Keller explains further,

“I’ve heard plenty of Christians try to answer the why question by going back to the what. “You have to believe because Jesus is the Son of God.” But that’s answering the why with more what. Increasingly we live in a time when you can’t avoid the why question. Just giving the what (for example, a vivid gospel presentation) worked in the days when the cultural institutions created an environment in which Christianity just felt true or at least honorable. But in a post-Christendom society, in the marketplace of ideas, you have to explain why this is true, or people will just dismiss it.”

If the only alternative to evangelism is disobedience, which I believe it is, then the only alternative to apologetics is ineffectiveness.

The Point of Apologetics

While apologetics is vital to evangelism, it is also substantively different. There are two major objectives in apologetics that contrast from evangelism.

The first major objective is to provide reasons to believe. While evangelism declares what to believe, apologetics gives people a reason to do so. For example, many people are unaware of the abundance of manuscript evidence that demonstrates the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document. So, as astounding as much of the New Testament narrative is, we can give people reasons to believe what it says.

The second major objective is to remove reasons to doubt. While evangelism warns of the consequences of not believing, apologetics demonstrates that there are no good reasons not to believe. For example, many people have a problem with believing in the miraculous features of Christian belief because they supposedly conflict with modern scientific understanding. Yet, many Christian apologists have demonstrated that there is no real conflict between science and faith.

This is illustrated by one of my favorite metaphors for the relationship between apologetics and evangelism. Apologist Matt Slick gives the illustration of “what apologetics really is.” As he tells it, the gospel is like a garden in the middle of a field. That garden has one gate, which is Jesus. One path takes you right up to the gate. That path is evangelism, leading people to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, for many people the journey to the garden is difficult. There are many paths that appear to head toward the garden but eventually veer off into some other direction. There are massive rocks and heavy brush obstructing the way. Then, in steps the apologist, pointing people back to the right path and clearing any obstacles ahead. The apologist may not be the gardener, and he is definitely not the gate. In fact, he needs the path, the gate, and the garden every bit as much as the people he helps. Nevertheless, he helps as many as he can along the way.

It is important to note the differences between apologetics and evangelism, or else we run the risk of treating apologetics as an end in itself. Even still, noting the differences helps us focus on the primary purpose of apologetics. It is easy to get bogged down and sidetracked by neverending debates and peripheral issues. But, doing so renders our apologetics fruitless.

Here’s the thing…

Apologetics is the process of getting people to the gospel as soon as possible.

It may be more than that, but it should never be less.

Travis Satterfield is a family man, teacher, and blogger. Here’s the thing… is a blend of his personal story of doubt and faith, his professional experience of teaching the Bible, and his passionate insight into theology, apologetics, and culture. Subscribe to receive email updates, follow on Twitter (@h_t_t_blog), and join the conversation on Facebook (@httblog).

Please follow and like us:

January 6, 2018

8 Fulfilled Prophesies Foretelling the Birth of Jesus Christ

PROPHESY: Descendant of Abraham

“And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 22:18)

Prophesied: Around 1500-1300 BC
Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38

The genealogy of Jesus laid out in the book of Matthew and Luke details Jesus lineage through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

PROPHESY: Descendant of Jacob

“A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel.” (Numbers: 24:17)

Prophesied: Between 1446-1260 BC
Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38

The genealogy of Jesus laid out in the book of Matthew and Luke details Jesus lineage through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

PROPHESY: Virgin Birth, Immanuel

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Prophesied: 740 BC
Fulfilled: Matthew 1:20-25, Luke 1:26-35

“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

PROPHESY: A Child Will Be Born

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Prophesied: 740 BC
Fulfilled: Luke 1:32-33; 3:23-38, Matthew 1:1, 6-7

“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

PROPHESY: The Time of Messiah’s Arrival

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” (Daniel 9:25-26)

Prophesied: 605 BC
Fulfilled: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

“(1) This passage tells us when Messiah will appear on the scene. (2) It tells us that after His appearance, Messiah will be rejected by His people, and (3) that Messiah will be cut off temporarily, an obvious reference to the cross.”

“The seven weeks with the sixty-two weeks combine to make 69 weeks of years (483 years) until the coming of Messiah. The starting point for the 483 years was the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This is a reference to the decree given in the time of Nehemiah in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes in 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8). After this, Messiah would appear on the scene.”

“The words ‘until Messiah the Prince’ refer to a time when Messiah would be manifested as the prince of Israel. This would be around A.D. 30-33, so the time of His birth as the Immanuel of God would have to be around A.D. 0-4.” (Keathley.)

PROPHESY: Born in Bethlehem

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)

Prophesied: 742 BC
Fulfilled: Luke 2:1-7; Matthew 2:1-6, John 7:42

“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) […] And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”

PROPHESY: Destruction of the Children

“A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.” (Jeremiah 31:15)

Prophesied: 597 BC
Fulfilled: Mathew 2:16-18

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”

PROPHESY: Return from Egypt

“Out of Egypt I called My Son.” (Hosea 11:1)

Prophesied: 755 BC
Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13-15

“And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”

Download the two-page handout for your next discussion »

References

Lorenz, J. November 2, 2014. Prophecies About Jesus: 6 Birth Prophecies Fulfilled by Christ. Newsmax. Retrieved from https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/prophecies-about-jesus-birth/2014/11/02/id/604203/

Keathley, III, J. Prophecies of the Birth of Christ. Bible.org. Retrieved from https://bible.org/article/prophecies-birth-christ

Chaffey, T. December 24, 2012. Fulfilled Prophecies at the Birth of Christ. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/birth/fulfilled-prophecies-at-the-birth-of-christ/

Please follow and like us:

November 20, 2017

Hippocratic Oath Changed to Allow Abortion

Originally an oath made to Greek healing gods, the Hippocratic Oath is taken by medical professionals around the world as an expression of medical ethics. An important change was made in 1964, however. Notice how the Hippocratic Oath has changed since inception.

Original Hippocratic Oath, translated into English

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

Modern Hippocratic Oath, most used today

In 1964, Dr. Louis Lasagna, former Principal of the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences and Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, drafted a modernized version of the Hippocratic Oath. Notice the references to abortion have been removed. This is the version of the Hippocratic Oath that is commonly used today.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not”, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Please follow and like us:

November 16, 2017

A Fight for the Unheard Minority by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This sanctity of life video employs a powerful message delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his stand against the Vietnam war. Dr. King was adamantly against abortion and denounced it as a form of genocide on numerous occasions.

“Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
April 4, 1967

Given at Riverside Church, New York City, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s address as delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The short excerpt used in this video:

“I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: ‘A time comes when silence is betrayal.’ That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

“The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

“Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

References

Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html, retrieved November 10, 2011.

Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr_-_NARA_-_559202.jpg

(Originally posted at prosanctityoflife.com on November 10, 2011.)

Please follow and like us:

November 16, 2017

Planned Parenthood Admits Abortion Kills the Life of a Baby

In the beginning, it appears everyone was on the same page. Below is a Planned Parenthood pamphlet on family planning, as printed in 1952. Quote:

Is it an abortion?

Definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life.

(Originally posted at prosanctityoflife.com on November 11, 2011.)

Please follow and like us: