Arkiv | juni 2016

We are still risking GOD’s WRATH if we sin – penal substitution is wrong


Jesus did satisfy God’s wrath

God is not like an unruly child prone to throw tantrums whenever things do not go his way. The idea that his wrath can be ”satisfied” by letting someone else take the blame, for whatever caused his anger, does not make much sense. So God the Father would pour out wrath on his son, and then all things suddenly change for the better and we will never risk his wrath again? No, Jesus died as a sin offering for our sins (compare with the animal sacrifice system in the Old Testament which was also in relation to sin offerings). God would not pour out wrath on an innocent person and pretend that this would somehow fix the guilt of mankind. Jesus shed his blood for us to REMOVE our sins (not to literally take our sins on or in himself) but this will not happen automatically but rather when we REPENT for our sins.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested TO TAKE AWAY our sins; and in him is no sin.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD.

Hebr. 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared TO PUT AWAY SIN by the sacrifice of himself.—28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Rom. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I SHALL TAKE AWAY their sins.

Ps. 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he REMOVED our transgressions from us.

Notice the difference between these two descriptions about the atonement of Christ. The first one can lead to serious misunderstandings:

”Jesus paid for our SINS on the cross and died instead of us and in our place. He also took our punishment instead of us and satisfied God’s wrath”

”Jesus died as a sin offering for all mankind (a high price), and by doing so enabled whosoever to be saved on the condition that they believe and repent”

Examples of God’s wrath till active today and in the future

If Jesus truly ”satisfied God’s wrath” or ”took God’s wrath on himself and instead of us”, then none of us would have to risk being affected by God’s wrath ever again – but that is not the case. The Bible tells us that God will show wrath on those who refuse to believe and/or those who do evil and it does not say that Christians are exempted.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven AGAINST ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MEN, who hold the truth in unrighteousness

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and IMPENITENT HEART treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But IF THOU DO THAT WHICH IS EVIL, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to EXECUTE WRATH UPON HIM THAT DOETH EVIL

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDES IN HIM.” (NASB)

”Children of disobedience” are adults who walk according to the course of this world, according to the lusts of their flesh, fulfilling the desires of their flesh and mind, etc. They are certainly not BORN that way but they can start bad habits and thus ”by nature” be rebellious and sinful. No one is of course able to fulfill the desires of their flesh and mind before they even have either flesh or minds. This is rather self-evident, but I am saying this due to those who believe that ”children of disobedience” are chosen to be exactly that before the world even began and before they are even born. Besides, many of those Christians to whom Paul wrote behaved in the same way, but they did not continue with this lifestyle. Those Christians were evidently not ”non-elect” even though they earlier in life behaved just like children of disobedience. Just like the name/term suggests, it is all about disobeying – and Christians do not get a free card if they choose to live in disobedience.

Eph. 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Eph. 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Col. 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

It is possible also for ”sanctified” believers, for whom Jesus died, to be affected by the wrath of God and they will lose their salvation unless they repent:

Hebr. 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Just like Christians are not exempted from God’s wrath if they no longer live holy lives, also God’s chosen people Israel were in trouble due to disobedience and many of them did not enter the promised land. They were also expected to place trust in God due to his wondrous works, but they disappointed God by being rebellious.

Ps. 78:31 The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.32 For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.

He that COMETH to God must BELIEVE that he is – Hebr. 11:16

regeneration 3But without FAITH it is impossible to please him: for he that COMETH to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

It is rather clear that God requires us to have faith in him and believe in him before we come to him (we would not come to him unless we believed in him). We must carry faith/belief with us when we come. Calvinists, however, believe in Total inability (as in T in TULIP), so they believe that all people are born with a natural inability to believe in God, and that God consequently must ”open their eyes” in order to make them believe. This results in God actually choosing whom to save and whom to damn (before we are even born), because God does not enable all to believe in him. Hebr. 11:6 does not suggest that God starts out making some of us believe. It is rather we who must make sure to believe and come to him. If we do, we have wonderful things in store for us! The Bible does not teach anything close to Calvinism. We are ALL given light when we come into this world and we are requested to believe and to follow him in order to not walk in darkness:

John. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was THE LIGHT OF MEN.—9 That was the true Light, WHICH LIGHTETH EVERY MAN THAT COMETH INTO THE WORLD.10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.12 But AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, TO THEM GAVE HE THE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GODeven to them that BELIEVE on his name

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON ME should not abide in darkness.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light OF THE WORLD: he that FOLLOWETH ME shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 3:21 But he that DOETH truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

2 Cor. 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them WHICH BELIEVE NOT, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Notice above that God chooses to blind the minds of them WHICH BELIEVE NOT. That is a similar story as in Rom. 1:18-32, where God in v. 28 is told to give people up to a reprobate mind because of their refusal to retain God in their knowledge.

Pay special attention to John 1:12 which says:


The order of events is 1) believe/receive him, leading to 2) becoming the sons of God. Not the other way around.

People who COME must believe, and they might not always DO the things of God or remain with him

Jesus asks:

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and DO NOT the things which I say?

According to Calvinism I thought it was not even possible to NOT do the things which the Lord says? So why does Jesus imply that it is possible to act contrary to his requests? He continues:

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and DOETH them, I will shew you to whom he is like: 48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.49 But he that heareth, and DOETH NOT, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

I thought all people everywhere always did the sayings of the Lord? Yet here we can see that some people COME to the Lord, HEAR his sayings and yet choose to NOT do the sayings of the Lord. It certainly does not seem like we always act as God would want us to act. The blame for ”not doing” is further on man and not on God. Notice that the parable is about men who builds something – their own houses – which means that their own choice of building construction will depend on

Ja. 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.–40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and BELIEVETH ON HIM, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.—51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if ANY MAN EAT of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Parable of the great banquet – where people are requested to COME and yet they do notvälja liv2

 Below we can see that the Master of the house asked his servant to go out and bid many to a great supper. The servant was asked to say to those who were bidden to ”COME, for all things are now ready”. The Master in this parable could be likened to God the Father, and as we can see in the parable people who were initially invited to come found excuses for not coming!

The servant was then asked to ”bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind”, which is something the servant had already done. It seems like these groups of people (rather unfortunate people here on earth due to their poverty and physical shortcomings) had an advantage here because they were singled out as specifically welcomed, but we are not told that every single one of them chose to come. Just that there was still room left also after these groups had been invited. (The case could also be that people who are poor and maimed have a higher tendency to seek God compared to people who have always lived in comfort and luxury.)

The Master became ANGRY when those who were initially bidden declined to come. The blame for not coming must be placed on them and not on the Master (God) because the Master truly wanted all invited to come – yet they did not. The Master said of those who declined to come: ”none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper”.

Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

After having told the parable, Jesus continues to explain that if we do come to him we must ”hate” our father and mother, which means that we should not act like the unwise people in the parable who offered up various excuses for not coming to the Supper, such as marriage, when they were compelled to come. Nothing should prevent us from coming to God if he calls us! Not even if it is about our father and mother. Naturally marriages,   parents, newly bought land, etc are important matters, but compared to God and his calling we must still prioritize correctly and place all other things in second place. A condition for being a disciple is to bear our cross and follow Jesus. He does not say that he will do this for us and instead of us so that we will not have to.

He goes on to explain that it is our job to count the cost before we choose to come! Do we have sufficient motivation to be his disciples? Will we be able to love God before anything/anyone else and carry our cross? If not, coming to Jesus will not save us if we are not prepared to forsake other things which might be in the way when we become his disciples. We must be eager to follow him and obey his commandments, which will truly show that we love him. It might seem like a difficult task, but we are not asked to cease living in this world or to avoid having families and possessions. We are just asked to be prepared to place God before anything else – and if we love him we obey him. The holy Spirit is our helper! Salt is good but even salt can lose its’ savor, which indicates that we are not unconditionally saved:

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.34 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Parable of the wedding banquet – where people on the wedding invitation refuse to come

 There is one verse in the below parable which Calvinists often quote, and that is ”For many are called, but few are chosen”. This verse read in a vacuum might sound like God is the one choosing whom to save, but not only does the verse not say this, but the context shows that those who are called ”chosen” are those who accept to come to the King’s wedding feast for his son! This means that we can all end up in the great wedding feast if we choose to accept the invitation and also make sure to show up – dressed in proper clothes. It is our responsibility to go to the party that we have been invited to, and if we decline and/or do not show up it is our fault and certainly not God’s fault for not ”choosing” us. We can all be among the chosen, and God should not be blamed if we find ourselves on the outside.

Let us also remember that Israel was ”chosen”, but not all Israel will be saved. When we read about groups of people or individuals being ”chosen”, it does not necessarily mean ”chosen to believe”. In fact, there is not one such case in the Bible. This parable clearly shows that many people who had their names on the guest list for the wedding feast chose not to come, even though the King expected them to come and was angry when they gave excuses for not coming! God would want all people to be saved, but man has a free will and is responsible for his own decisions and actions. Good and bad people are invited to come, which means that also unrighteous people have a chance to enter the kingdom of God. The condition, however, is repentance in order to be forgiven and cleansed, and if we repent we will also get the proper wedding garments. 

Matt. 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and THEY WOULD NOT COME.4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Sverigedemokraternas historia och bakgrund FRÅN DERAS EGEN KÄLLA!

sd 66

Att döma slarvigt och sprida förtal – ok om det bara gäller SD?

Vad spelar det för roll om vi överdriver och vinklar information om folk om det bara är sverigedemokrater det handlar om? Då gäller väl inte Guds bud att inte förtala, ljuga, döma orättfärdigt och att använda olika måttstockar när vi dömer? Visst tycker väl Gud om när vi öppet uttrycker att sverigedemokrater förmodligen inte kan vara kristna och att man helst inte bör ha något samröre med dem, eller vara vän med dem, eller ens äta lunch med dem för att tydligt visa hur vi avskärmar oss från ”det onda”? För om man är emot massinvandring så är man väl per definition rasist och ser ner på folk med mörk hudfärg?

Ibland verkar det som en del kristna tänker exakt så, samt är övertygade om att de gör något gott för Guds rike när de förtalar, mobbar och orsakar splittring bland kristna baserat på frågan om Sverige behöver massinvandring eller ej. SD blir som ett legitimt mobboffer som det är ok att sparka på, eftersom man bestämt sig för att sverigedemokrater står för en lång rad ondskefulla åsikter.

Det är sorgligt att även kristna faller för frestelsen att döma SD baserat på information från SD:s motståndare, som ju inkluderar gammal-media (och definitivt den kristna tidningen Dagen). Skulle vi själva vilja bli bedömda baserat på åsikter av människor som hatar oss? Visst stämmer citat, men bör vi kristna inte döma RÄTTFÄRDIGT genom att försöka se hela kontexten? Innebär inte det att vi bör försöka efterlikna Jesus och vara varandras försvarsadvokater i stället för åklagare? En duktig försvarsadvokat förnekar inte fakta, men gör vad han/hon kan för att korrigera falska påståenden och lyfta fram förmildrande omständigheter. Om vi dessutom träffar på människor som vi menar är syndare och bör omvända sig, då är det väl bäst att förklara exakt vad synden består av så att personerna vet vad de ska omvända sig ifrån? Att ropa ”rasist” hjälper inte om man inte samtidigt bevisar att det är ett sant och passande epitet. (Det har jag aldrig sett Stefan Swärd, Micael Grenholm och deras svans av SD-ogillare lyckas med.) Är det verkligen tänkt att vi ska göra vad vi kan för att hitta fel hos en viss grupp människor medan andra grupper inte har samma strålkastare riktade mot sig? Är det verkligen ett tryggt sätt att döma människor genom att använda sig av avarter som mönster för hela gruppen? Inte skulle väl vi kristna uppskatta om vi blir dömda baserat på udda människor som visserligen kallar sig kristna men som lever helt tvärt emot vad Bibeln lär?

tummen-uppOm SD hade ”nazistisk grund” som så många påstår så borde väl detta framkomma i något deras partiprogram eller andra gemensamma centrala dokument? Om det i stället var enskilda personer som hade rasistiska åsikter så är det väl inte samma sak som att hela partiet startades på den grunden och hade nazistiska drivkrafter och mål? Om vi anklagar någon för att vara nazist/fascist/rasist borde vi kristna inte vara otroligt säkra på vår sak innan vi uttrycker en sådan allvarlig dom mot vår nästa, eller räcker det med att säga ”Det vet väl alla”, eller ”Det har jag läst hos EXPO”? Om nu några medlemmar i historien haft rasistiska åsikter (vilket dagens SD-ledning aldrig förnekat), hur länge ska dagens medlemmar bli straffade för vad som hände i partiets historia i början på 1990-talet då de själva kanske fortfarande var barn/tonåringar? Inte ansluter man väl sig till ett parti baserat på enskilda medlemmars beteenden för 20-25 år sedan, utan man studerar väl snarare SD:s partiprogram och dess ledning? Avarter finns väl i alla partier, så varför ska just SD stå ut?

Nu finns i alla fall chansen att döma på ett rättvisare sätt genom att låta den anklagade själv få chansen att försvara sig, precis som det fungerar i en rättvis domstol. Jag kan rekommendera youtubeklippet här nedan med SD-riksdagsledamoten Mattias Karlsson. Han berättar bl. a om de odemokratiska behandlingarna som de fått utstå genom årens lopp, eftersom de till skillnad från andra partier haft svårigheter att boka lokaler, få sina röstsedlar distribuerade, tala på torg och i skolor, etc. Politikern Richard Jomshof blev vid flera tillfällen av med läraranställningar pga sitt SD-engagemang trots att han var en mycket omtyckt lärare. Många gånger har SD-politiker blivit hotade och fysiskt attackerade (faktiskt nära att bli dödade!), och det är dystert att tänka på att detta har skett och sker i Sverige och inte DDR eller Nordkorea.

De övriga länkarna leder till skriftlig information om SD:s historia. Att gå till källan direkt betyder inte att man lugnt kan luta sig tillbaka och lita på allt som sägs, men det är en chans att låta den som attackerats få försvara sig och det KAN vara så att informationen och faktauppgifterna stämmer helt med verkligheten. Faktauppgifter såsom årtal och innehåll i partiprogram går dessutom att kontrollera. Mattias har ansträngt sig för att undersöka SD:s historia grundligt för att få korrekta uppgifter, men han är ödmjuk nog att förklara att det är historien från hans synvinkel. Andra personer kanske har andra infallsvinklar.

SD-kuriren med Sverigedemokraternas 25 års jubileumsskrift

SD:s hemsida om SD

Stellan Bojeruds kortfattade förklaring om SD:s historia

Exempel på text om JESUS från utombibliska ej kristna källor såsom Josefus, Plinius och Tacitus

jesus grave

Varför inte lita på kristna källor om Kristus?

Tänk om folk inte skulle lita på information om den svenska historien såvida inte historieuppgifterna också är bekräftade även i några andra länder i form av självständiga uppgifter – ej hämtade från just Sverige? Det skulle inte finnas särskilt mycket information kvar att lita på. Det är inte konstigt att just Sverige och svenskarna genom tiderna vet bäst om Sverige och skrivit ner flest uppgifter om landet och dess historia. Det är heller inte märkvärdigt att vi inhämtar bäst information om golf från just golfkretsen som intresserar sig för just golf.

Om vi vill lära oss om inbördeskriget i USA eller om Mayflower, är det verkligen vist att utelämna uppgifter från amerikanskt håll och i stället lägga tilltron till andra länders uppgifter om dessa händelser? Eller kanske välja att inte lita på amerikanska uppgifter såvida de inte också är bekräftade från annat håll? Det vore på samma sätt ologiskt att inte sätta tilltro till uppgifterna om Jesus och hans första anhängare av det enda skälet att uppgifterna nästan bara återfinns i Bibeln och andra kristna källor. Visst kan det vara så att vinnaren skriver historien, men vad gäller Jesus existens så handlar det inte om olika länder eller folkgrupper som kämpar mot varandra i krig och det finns inga skäl att försöka mörka hans existens efter att han gått ur tiden. Jesus lära spred sig snabbt och mest information återfinns självklart från kristna källor (förutom Bibeln) i form av lärljungar till apostlarna, de äldsta kyrkofäderna, etc, men här nedan handlar det källor som inte är kristna.

Josefus  (Josef ben Matitjahu/Flavius Iosephus) – Judisk historiker, ca 37-101 e. Kr.

Josefus nämner Jesus ett par gånger i sin bok Jewish Antiquities. Josefus skriver om en bestraffning av Jakob (James) utmätt av en judisk sanhedrin, och denna Jakob var broder till den så kallade Kristus. Den uppgiften stämmer bra ihop med bl. a Gal. 1:19 där vi kan läsa att Herrens broder är Jakob. Jesus kallas Kristus.

”But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.” Antiquities 20.9.1

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Antiquities 18.3.3

Många experter anser att Josefus skrev stommen till detta men att någon kristen person sedan reviderade texten någon gång mellan ca 300-400 e. Kr. De tror detta eftersom Josefus inte var en kristen och det är svårt att tro att någon annan än en kristen person skulle kunna ha gjort ett sådant uttalande. Samma experter betvivlar inte andra avsnitt i Josefus böcker! Det som dessa experter främst menar är förändrat i Josefus text är något som de tror är ett tillägg ”if indeed one ought to call him a man”, eftersom det antyder att Jesus var något mer än en människa. Ett annat argument den använder för att texten ändrats (förutom att texten stöder Jesu gudomlighet), är att Josefus inte borde ha kallat Jesus ”Kristus” på ett ställe och ”så kallad Kristus” på ett annat. Men varför inte? Påståenden talar inte emot varandra på något sätt, och det skulle snarare se konstigt ut om Josefus nämnde Jesus som ”så kallad” mer än en gång i stället för varje gång som han talar om honom. I texten ovan talade Josefus även om ”kristna”, och då kan det vara lämpligt att skippa ”så kallad” och nöja sig med bara ”Kristus” som ju kristna anhängare tror på och fått sitt namn efter. Även om vi tar bort det som dessa experter inte gillar så har vi ändå en bild kvar av en vis och ovanlig man som hade många anhängare. Trots att han blev korsfäst (som få experter betvivlar), så fortsatte anhängarna att tro på honom och var t o m villiga att dö för honom. Om man tror att en person är en lögnare och bedragare så är man inte villig att offra sitt liv för en sådan person. Läs mer om Josefus ord om Jesus här.

Publius/Gaius Cornelius Tacitus – romersk historiker och senator, ca 56-117 e. Kr.

Tacitus informerar om kejsar Neros beslut att klandra de kristna för att genom eld ha förstört Rom 64 e. Kr.

”But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Tacitus är på det klara med att ”kristna” har fått sitt namn efter ”Kristus”, som han alltså betraktar som en historisk person. Denne Kristus var enligt uppgift utsatt för extremt straff vilket självfallet kan handla om korsfästelsen som var en romerska straffmetod. Detta sägs ha inträffat under kejsar Tiberius tid och genom Pontius Pilatus inflytande. Allt detta stämmer bra in på det vi lärt oss från Bibeln. Tacitus nämner också att Kristus lära spreds över hela Judeen och ända till Rom. Jesus lära spred sig tydligen snabbt.

Plinius den yngre – romersk guvernör av Bithynia i Mindre Asien, ca 62 – 113 e. Kr. pliny

I ett av breven som Plinius den yngre skrev till kejsar Trajanus så ber han om råd om hur man bäst bör utföra rättsprocessliga åtgärder vad gäller personer anklagade för att vara kristna. Plinius förklarar i sitt brev att han behöver goda råd eftersom en stor mängd människor i alla åldrar, samhällsklasser och kön misstänktes för att vara kristna, vilket kan tyda på att ”problemet” var stort med risk att eskalera. Han beskrev de kristna såhär:

”They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”

(Plinius den yngre, Letters 10.96-97 – to the Emperor Trajan)

Uppenbarligen så möttes de kristna regelbundet en gång i veckan för tillbedjan, och denna tillbedjan var riktad till Kristus ”som till en Gud”, vilket visar att de såg Jesus som mer än en människa. Om man skulle påstå att gudstillbedjan av allehanda gudar var vanligt vid denna och att de kristnas gudstillbedjan därför inte var något anmärkningsvärt, så ändrar det inte på att Plinius inte verkar dela denna uppfattning eftersom han bad om råd för att råda bot på problemet. Dessutom ändrar det inte på att dessa kristna faktiskt uppfattade Jesus som en Gud, och denna Jesus var en historisk person. Vidare kan vi se i Plinius brev att de kristna uppenbarligen hade höga etiska krav på sig själva eftersom de tagit ed på att undvika synder. Det låter precis som anhängare som valt att leva efter Jesu bibliska rättfärdighetslära. Plinius kommentar om att de kristna brukar dela måltid med varandra handlar troligtvis om Herrens måltid/kärleksmåltiden.  Kommentaren att det var av en oskyldig variant kanske beror på konspirationsteorinm att de kristna samlades för någon form av rituell kannibalism.

Plinius förklarade att han tvingade de kristna att häda Kristus, vilket en sann kristen person aldrig skulle göra. Han förklarar att det redan tidigare funnits kristna som förnekat Jesus pga hot om dödsstraff:

”Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.”

(Plinius den yngre, Letters 10.96-97 – to the Emperor Trajan)

Om Jesus vore en mytisk person så skulle det självfallet vara svårt att hitta människor som var villiga att dö för denne person, och likaså vore det svårt att tänka sig att en riktig person vid namn Jesus skulle ha lärljungar och efterföljare som var villiga att dö för en person som var en vanlig människa och inte levde upp till sina egna profetiska löften.

Babyloniska Talmud (en samling texter från judiska rabbiner från ca 70-500 e. Kr.)

Det finns några referenser till Jesus i Babyloniska Talmud. Ett omnämnade om Jesus inom perioden 70-200 e. Kr är:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald … cried, ”He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”

(The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, citerad av Habermas, ”The Historical Jesus”, s. 203.)

”Yeshu” (eller ”Yeshua”) är Jesus uttalat på hebreiska. Termen för hängd/upphängd kan fungera som synonym för ”korsfäst”. Gal. 3:13 menar att Jesus var upphängd, och Luk. 23:39 använder termen för rövarna som var korsfästa med Jesus. Talmud menar att Jesus var korsfäst/upphängd under påskaftonen. Informationen om att Jesus skulle stenas kan ha varit det som de judiska ledarna ämnade att göra med Jesus i enlighet med lagen om hädelse. Vidare säger texten att Jesus praktiserade trolldom och lockade Israel till avfall. Eftersom denna information kommer från en källa som kanske är avogt inställd till Jesus så kanske det kan förklara varför informationen är vinklad på ett annat sätt än i Nya Testamentet. Men Jesus anklagades mycket riktigt för sådana saker från sina judiska motståndare. Enligt Bibeln så anklagade judar Jesus för samröre med Belsebub när han drev ut demoner, och han anklagades också för att vilseleda hela nationer med sina läror (Luk. 23:5) Även om Bibeln menar att Jesus är oskyldig till anklagelserna så intygar i alla fall Talmud att anklagelserna åtminstone inträffat.

Lucian av Samosata, grekisk satiriker, ca 125 – 180 e. Kr.

Han skrev följande:

”The Christians … worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…. [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”

(Lucian, ”The Death of Peregrine”, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. s. 82)

Även om Lucian låter lite nedsättande om de första kristna så framkommer en del information om både dem och den person som de valt att följa. Det handlade tydligen om en man som introducerat helt nya traditioner, vilket ledde till att han blev korsfäst. Enligt Lucian så kallades hans följare för bröder när de konverterat, vilket också innebar förnekelse av de grekiska gudarna, tillbedjan av den korsfäste och efterlevnad av hans lagar. Eftersom de nekade till förekomsten av andra gudar för att kunna tillbe Jesus så ansåg de uppenbarligen att Jesus var en större Gud (den riktiga Guden) än någon av de grekiska gudarna.


Baserat på ovan information får vi en bekräftelse även utanför Bibeln att de kristna fått sitt namn efter Kristus, att de tillbad Kristus som till en Gud, att de träffades regelbundet för att tillbe samt äta kärleksmåltiden, att de bestämt sig för att leva utan synd, att de blev förföljda för sin tro men gav ändå inte upp sin tro på den korsfäste och uppståndne Jesus, etc.