THIS IS HOW THE MASONS APPLY SCIENCE

Standing erect, a spear in his hand

and a shield at his side, Saint Demetrios is shown ready

to protect the Christian faithful. The name of the popular Byzantine military saint is inscribed in two parts in Greek. Martyred in Thessaloniki,

the second most important city of the empire,

in the early centuries of the church,

he has long been the patron saint of that metropolis. The cleft in the base of the frame, may have supported a standard for carrying the image in processions or into battle.

Source: http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/465946

CHAPTER A

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

a. Incorrect application

In the recent years,

positive sciences developed dramatically.

This has led the world to a stance of admiration.

But also to a misconception.

Everything that came from a natural scientist,

was blindly admitted.

And everything

that a representative of the positive sciences

said that could not be "scientifically proven",

was rejected as false,

as something that is not worth of paying any attention!

Let's see two examples:

a. At a university, a professor teaches philosophy.

A student is questioning him provocatively:

- What you tell us, can you prove it scientifically?

- With the methods of natural science,

of course not! the professor replies.

I'm neither ... chemist, nor ... physicist!

The students laugh at him!

- And then, they tell him, why are we siting for so long

and talk about this and we waste our time?

Do you think, that we can believe everything we hear?

Are we going to fall, down to the "Believe and do not research" level?

Why did they say that?

They blindly believed in an authority that is called science!

b. A preacher while travelling by airplane,

starts chating with the person siting beside him. He talks to him about Christ.

He tries to convince him, that Christ is our God and Savior.

Another passenger overhears the conversation and intervenes.

- Father, he says, I would not like to be in your position!

- Why;

- Is it ever possible, father, to prove this scientifically?

Playing the fool, the preacher asks:

- So? ...

- So? ...

-Really, what do you do then?

We will see that, later.

b. The correct application

1. They make the dictinction. They classify things by topic.

Without such a distinction, can there be serious thinking and debate?

So.

It is another thing to be a leatherworker; another shoemaker; another dermatologist

another bookbinder; another judge of the cassation court!

Of course all of them have one thing in common: they all deal with "leather".

(p.s. in the greek language, the word “τομάρι” = skin, or leather,

also applies for “scum”, for the criminal elements in society)

But each of them, deals with different kinds of leather.

And from a different point of view. And with a totally different science.

And for these reasons, they have different opinions about the same subject.

Their opinions must differ. And they are all worthy of our attention.

But each from her point of view.

• We are damned, if we are talking about medical dermatology

and we go for advice to a leatherworker or to a shoemaker!

• We are damned,

if for treating a dermatological disease

we count on the opinions of shoemakers and tanners!

• And they are damned, if the tanners

get as their special adviser for their art

the president of the court judge,

based on the "correct" view

that out of all those who deal with "leather" (τομάρια), he is the wisest!

2. Still.

It is another thing, to be an astronomer;

another to be an astrologer;

another to be a villager that looks at the stars to find out if it will rain or not;

and another to be a gypsy, who tells the fortune!

All these four know something!

But your damned, if you ask

for the distances between stars,

which are measured in "light years", the villager;

and for your fortune, the astronomer!

Unfortunately today,

despite so much knowledge and progress,

many still live in the stone age.

And that's why they do not know, how to distinguish,

which is the science, that deals with the subject, they are concerned with;

nor which method they should use, if they want to come to the conclusion valid and true.

3. They say

that the Emperor of Rome, Honorius (395-423 AD)

had a parrot, whom he called "Rome".

This parrot was quite an amusement for the emperor.

And this is why, Honorius loved his "Rome" very much.

One day a high ranking State official,

after greeting Honorius, told him very sadly.

- Oh my King, your Rome is gone!

- What, did the parrot die?

Honorius asked with anxiety.

- Calm down, my king!

This "Rome" is well! And is singing!

it is the other Rome, I refer to!

Our poor Rome, which slowly fades away!

• What a difference between one Rome and the other!

• What tragic misconceptions are created,

when we do apply due diligence, to make the proper distinctions. [1]!

c. What is scientific?

1. The famous Harvard University Professor, James Conant writes:

Science is a chain of conclusions and theoretical constructions,

as a result of experiments and observations,

on which a scientist can rely,

to make further experiments and observations [2].

Do you see what he says? To have science

it is not enough to have the results of experiments or observations.

We must be able to rely on them!

How do scientists test the validity of a view,

how do they understand, whether they can rely on it or not?

They make experiments that test them!

This is the method of natural sciences.

2. They tell me, that oil does not dissolve in water, like the wine does.

I have not seen it. And I want to see it.

I take a pot of water; I throw in some oil; and I observe:

The oil stays on the surface above the water. It does not dissolve in the water!

I get a big fork and I steer it as fast as I can.

Score zero. The oil does not dissolve in water! In no way!

This conclusion is a natural observation.

d. The historical-judicial method

1. But we are not just talking about chemistry and electricity.

We are talking about other things too.

And most of all for ourselves, for our lives.

What will I do, when I want to prove an event from my life?

How will I prove that I served in the army?

That I have studied literature?

That I went for a walk yesterday?

That I talked to someone?

Can I prove one of these, with the method we have discussed above?

Is it ever possible, to prove something that happened in the past,

with something that will be done in the present?

No!

Conclusion: the method of science,

has nothing to do with the life of man!

And then; what do we do?

The Stone of Pilate, discovered by archaeologists in Caesarea of ​​Pontic, Palestine.

It proves beyond any doubt that persons mentioned in the narrative of the Gospel are historical.

Similar archaeological finds brought to light objects

related to Caiafas, to Alexander, the son of Simon the Cyrenaios,

who helped Christ to carry His Cross to the hill of Golgotha, and others.

2. Concerning the life of man

another method is applied, which is called historical-judicial.

It is called historical, because it deals with history-related facts, which happened in the past;

and judicial, because as if it were in a court, it makes a judgement

based on evidence, which it tested, and found them to be reliable and correct

(eg an army book, with the seal of the Army HQ and the signature of a known officer).

According to the historical-judicial method, a view is correct when:

a. it is based on authentic evidence.

b. it does not raise objections that are historically justified and documented (it is beyond reasonable doubt)

(for example, they arrested someone as a criminal-slaughterer during the civil war period;

but quickly he was released; for he made a documented objection.

He proved with authentic evidence, that he was then a young child and was abroad!).

e. Evidence

1. To document a historical event, there are three types of evidence:

a. oral testimonies.

b. written testimonies.

c. the actual evidence.

By the historical-judicial method I can prove,

that I went for a walk,

that I drunk a glass of mile in the morning,

that in the Church I cordially talked to the priest.

2. For historical issues, the method of the natural-positive science does not apply.

It is totally useless. Prove to me by the method of natural-positive sciences:

• Has William Shakespeare existed?

• Was Martin Luther King a Rebel?

• Was Alcibiades smart?

• Was Aristide righteous?

• Was Socrates a philosopher?

• Was Lenin a Communist?

• Was Sofia Vempo a good woman?

• Did Peter the Apostle believe in Christ?

All of these questions are outside the sphere of physical evidence.

They can not be proven

• neither by means of chemistry,

• nor by means of astronomy,

• nor by means of electricity.

But they can be tested.

• By the criterion of the historical-judicial method.

3. And something else:

The historical-judicial method, is completely in agreement

with the basic principle of Christianity,

that only what man accepts voluntarily, and with full freedom of choise, is valid.

That is why Christianity, wants every man to think and to investigate.

In Matthew 21:37-39, Christ says to the Pharisees,

that the “kingdom of the heavens” will be removed from their nation,

and in John 12:23 Christ says, that He he will be glorified by the nation of the Greeks.

Investigate!

But do not be Absurd! Research is not absurdity!

What is scientific absurdity?

• Show me God with the telescope!

• Show me the soul under the microscope!

• Show me, if it is the Son is con-substanced with the Father, with chemical experiments!

Rightly, the Russian archi-presbyterian Nikolay Deputatof observes ironically:

If you want to use chemistry and telescope to Christ,

use them first to Alexander the Great and to Napoleon.

And, when you are sure about the effectiveness of your method, come to apply it to Christ!

In order for someone to join the "Hagiotaphite Brotherhood",

both his parents must be Greeks.

f. Conclusion

The Russian Marxist Yuriy Sreder writes:

"The meaning of life is found in the deep faith

to man and his forces, to the advancement of science.

I believe in a bright future that is being built by people. "

Of course, the 70 years of trying to build the "bright future"

from the people by the science,

proved that this Marxist reasoning was wrong.

But the paradox is, that Yuri Sreder himself,

continuing with obvious skepticism about the correctness of his words,

makes the following invaluable observation:

"The belief that science is true,

and that scientific "truth" is something undisputed,

is a typical form of superstition!

And it is terrible to change science so comfortably,

from a critical analysis body,

ie from a method of testing the validity and correctness of the various views,

into a medium and an instrument of forcing certain views"[4]!

Well, Yuri! Well done!

The use of science

for any propaganda is a propitiation of science.

REFERENCES

[1] Deputatof, Nick, (proto-presbyterian-professor), Bogosanne, Ed. Platina Cal. 1975, p. 151 (in Russian).

[2] Conant, James, Sciences and Common Sense, New Haven 1951, p. 25.

[3] Deputatop, N. et al. p. 151.

[4] Shredder, Yuri. Nauka-uosthenic zanya suvervri (The science source of knowledge and superstition), in Novy Mire (New World), Moscow 1969, 10 (Russian). It was received from the Archiepiscopal. Ioann. Σ.Φ. (Sakhovsky), Moskovski Radzvor, Besmert, New York, 1972, pp. 108-111.

CHAPTER B

WHAT WILL WE INVESTIGATE?

a. Examine the Scriptures

1. Jesus Christ lived on earth about 2,000 years ago.

This means that we can only find the truth about His person

using the historical-judicial method:

researching (seriously and honestly) the information

given to us, by valid witnesses for His person.

• Valid witnesses are those who testify events.

The most valid witnesses, are the eyewitnesses and these who heard by their own ears:

these who have "their own first hand experience", for what they are witnessing.

Those who have heard from others are less valid.

• Witnesses who express their opinion, are not valid at all.

Anyone can have an opinion!

In particular, completely of no value, opinions

opposing what the eyewitnesses and witnesses who heard with their own ears,

deliver to us as facts; as the objective truth.

2. For Christ we have testimonies;

• From pagan sources (Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius);

these are very few, and only testify that Jesus is a historical person. Nothing more.

• From Hebrew sources; they are the Talmud and Toludeth Jeshua,

books of a later age, written from three to twelve centuries later,

books written passionately against Christ.

They testify that Jesus is a real person; that he did many and great miracles;

that he was crucified; that he was resurrected;

and try to give their own explanation for all of these.

• From Christian sources and especially from the holy Gospels!

The holy Gospels, books written by the eyewitnesses,

and by the witnesses who heard with their own ears,

give rich information about Jesus,

which, if they are true, we have to make

a great Copernicean turn in our lives, and to follow Him faithfully!

3. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says about the Scriptures:

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:

and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39).

In other words: You are exploring the holy Scriptures,

because you have the impression that you will find in them eternal life.

But this is your fault.

You will not find eternal life in the Scriptures;

simply because you will study the Scriptures. I am the Eternal life.

If you did not find Me in the Scriptures, you would not find eternal life.

But precisely in this, is the importance of the holy Scriptures:

in that they speak of Me; and they bear witness to Me.

So, search the Scriptures! To find Me!

Because, only then, you will find the eternal life.

4. But for this very reason,

because they bear witness to Christ,

the credibility of the holy Gospels,

has been challenged in the last few centuries, by various atheist scholars.

They were saying: What the Gospels say, cannot happen! They are myths!

It's a lie! They are idealizations!

Which they inserted at a later time!

When there were no more eye-witnesses, and witnesses who heard with their own ears!

Because these witnesses, would not tolerate the falsification of the truth!

These ideas, by many and in many forms,

had been considered great, for some time!

But the research of serious scientists,

has literally deplored all the arguments of disputers!

5. Here is what Will Durant, the great researcher of World Cultural History, writes:

One of the most extensive activities of the modern spirit

was the "Higher Critisism" of the Bible,

which was a progressive attack against its authenticity and its truth.

But it was rebuked by that heroic attempt,

which proved that the foundations of Christian faith are historically reliable.

The results are very important.

And they can prove as revolutionary as Christianity itself has been [1].

The arguments of the "higher criticism"

today are outdated. Once and for all.

The Greek world in which Christ was born,

which arose from the campaign of Alexander the Great.

Galilee, in which Nazareth is located, had many Greeks,

as well as a pure Greek area of ​​Decapolis, in the East,

with ten Greek cities (Scythopolis, Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Jerash, Dion, Ganatha, Damascus, Rafana) , many with Greek names, and with many Greek residents.

In the south of Galilee was Samaria, which was also not Jewish (it was colonized by Babylonians).

To the south of Decapolis was Perea (a Greek name that today has an area outside Thessaloniki).

Judea, as shown on the map, is south of Samaria.

The consequence of the Greek presence in the region

was that the four Gospels were written in Greek,

and that 11 of the twelve disciples of Christ (except Judas) were Greeks.

6. But that does not mean they were forgotten.

The are still in circulation,

in books with cheap (of no scientific value) content (eg G. Kordatos, Ampelin, Maras, etc.)

as well as from mouth-to-mouth by "progressives", who live a century behind their time!

- Study the Gospels, I once said to a "progressive".

You will see what Christ really is. And you will love Him.

- The Gospel? A book perforated!

- It is not enough for Man, to know too much. He must have knowledge.

(*** by the real and Christian meaning of the term, and not referring,

to the Cabalistic Da’at (=Gnosis) of the Luciferian masons,

which is the satanic knowledge given to Eve by the snake in the garden of Edem,

which resulted in the fall from the state of grace,

and was then passed on to Solomon, by his numerous wives,

which resulted in the split of the jews in the state of Israel and the state of Judah***).

That is, you must know, if something you learned is true or not. Otherwise ...

- Otherwise? ...

-... you know one half of the story. And knowing one half of the story,

you are worse than him who knows nothing!

(*** this is the double ignorance, that Socrates spoke of, referring to him,

who although he is ignorant, has the false impression that he knows.

The double ignorance is a handicap, against the person who knows nothing.

The person who knows nothing, and is aware of this fact (single ignorance), can start learning immediately.

But the person with the double ignorance, cannot start learning,

until he arrives at the realisation, that he does not know. ***)

Well, these things that you hear or read, did you test them?

- Of course ...

- By what criteria?

- Criteria; What criteria? ...

- But they are strictly defined! And generally accepted!

He did not know a thing, and he had an opinion, he thought

that the credibility of books is something similar to politics,

where everyone adopts without any test, the slogans that he likes!

7. The criteria by which we examine whether a book is valid and reliable are:

a. the bibliographic test;

b. external testimonies;

c. internal testimonies.

Let us follow with patience, to be sure of our views.

b. The bibliographic test

1. What does the phrase "bibliographic test" means? Behold.

Let us assume that we find an old manuscript in a library,

which has not been published yet and nobody knows!

It is full of information, narratives and ideas.

How do we deal with them?

Will we accept them blindly?

Or will we reject them blindly?

We have to check! We have a duty to examine:

• Where was this book found?

• How did it reach us?

• Who is it from?

• Is it authentic? Is it the one that it’s writer wrote? or is it a copy?

• As a copy is it a fake? What is it’s age?

The examination of these issues is called bibliographic test.

2. How is bibliography tested?

When we find that some text is the original prototype,

the text is automatically considered authentic and bibliographically reliable.

Such texts are papyri (= letters of individuals from the period 100 BC - 500 AD).

found buried in the dirt of Egypt

and are called papyri, because they are written in "papyrus").

But the great books, were saved in later manuscripts,

which after 1500 AD were printed in books.

What do we rely on, to say if the book is trustworthy?

We examine:

a. how many manuscript codes have been saved

(because the more codes saved, and from different regions,

the harder it is for it, to be altered);

b. how old are the saved codes

(because the closest they are, to the time that the original book was written,

the more unlikely it is, that they were tampered with, in the copying process).

A. The number of codes.

a. What is the number of the codes saved, concerning the books of the Holy Bible?

2,500 codes contain the whole of the Holy Bible. (Old and New Testament).

25,000 codes contain large pieces of the Bible. (Usually only the New Testament).

Where did these codes come from?

From the whole Christian world!

b. What about other ancient writers?

Aeschylus has only 50 manuscripts.

Sophocles 100.

Thucydides only eight (8).

Of Plinios 200.

Of Oratius 500.

c. So in terms of the number of codes,

the Scriptures prevail to an unbelievable extent

from all the surviving ancient books.

B. The age of the codes.

a. And in terms of antiquity the codes outweigh to an unprecedented extent.

• History of Thucydides chronicles the events of the period 460-400 BC

The original (autograph) of Thucydides has not been saved!

Only eight manuscripts, all written after 900 AD, are saved,

at least 1300 years later! ...

• Aristotle's Poetics. It was recorded in 343 BC.

The most ancient code, with Poetics, comes from the year 1100 AD,

that is 1400 years later!

• The Gallic War of July Caesar. It was recorded in AD 50.

It is saved in a few codes, all written after 1000 AD.

Does anybody dispute the authenticity of these books? Nobody!

• The New Testament. Written between 50-70 AD

25,000 codes are saved.

The earliest (Sinaitic, Alexandrian, Vatican) were written around 250 AD,

less than 200 years later! ...

In other words: in terms of the antiquity of its codes

the New Testament is the most trustworthy book in the world.

b. After the Holy Bible,

second in credibility, in terms of bibliographic test, ancient book, is the Homer's Iliad.

643 codes are saved.

All written after 1200 AD

That is, the distance between the writing of the Iliad, and the writing of the codes is over 1800 years!

In other words: The New Testament codes

are 1600 years closer to writing the original!

Does it stand to reason?

to biblically accept the Iliad and

to question the Gospels?

c. Conclusion: Regarding bibliographic test

the books of the Holy Bible (and especially the Gospels)

are the most reliable books in the world.

3. Let us now see, what the great scientists had to say:

• William Albright (William O'Briath) writes:

No work of Greco-Roman antiquity

relies as firmly on handwritten tradition, as the New Testament.

For the New Testament there are many more ancient manuscripts

than for any other classical writer.

And the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament that are saved

they are younger from their prototypes, only by two centuries [2].

• Fr. Kenyon (Frederick Kenyon), director of the British Museum,

who systematically dealt with bibliographic tests

and is considered the greatest authority in this matter, writes:

When the time passed between the manuscripts and the writing of the book is too long,

we have every right to question its credibility.

But especially for the New Testament, there is no excuse to doubt,

that the text we have, is the same as the original!

The question of the authenticity of the New Testament books is definitely answered! [3] ...

• John Harold Greenlee (John Harold Greene)

a specialist in the Greek language of the New Testament, writes:

When the scientists accept, as reliable and genuine,

the books of ancient classics (which we mentioned),

then we have the right to argue that:

the New Testament is the most trustworthy book in the world [4].

The official journal of the Rosicrucians in the June 2009 issue

informs us that they accept the doctrine of the Pantheism,

the fallacy of the ancient Chaldean astrologers

who thought that the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, the planets,

the constellations, the rivers, the springs, the forests,

have life, and if it seems that Mercury goes on retrograde trajectory,

it affects our present and future.

They considered that nature in general, was a god,

which the Hindus called Brahma, but who has no consciousness of himself,

but exists, in the same way as a bucket of water exists.

Aristotle in his "Metaphysics", when the pantheists told him,

that nature is self-regenerating and there is no creator,

answered them, wonderful, then I will leave here a pile of wood,

and I will come tomorrow to find a bed.

Pantheism, worships the Creation, instead of Creator,

painting instead of the painter, the statue instead of the sculptor.

c. External testimonials

1. We call external testimonies

everything that is not been written in the book, under examination,

but comes from another book, person, or other source of information (eg archaeological finds, etc.)

and has some relevance to the book we are talking about.

Such external testimonies are:

a. The testimonies of other writers,

b. archaeological finds,

c. any coincidence or analogy with other books.

Let's look at the external testimony in an order:

2. Let us first see what they are telling us in their books

the earliest writers who speak about the Gospels.

These are Papias and Irenaeus.

a. Papias, Bishop of of Hierapolis Phrygia,

a student of St. John the Theologian, around 130 AD writes:

The elder John, among other things, had also told us the following:

Mark follows Peter. His Gospel records what Mark has heard from Peter.

He records them with precision and fidelity;

but not in exact chronological order; not in the order in which

the works of Chist took place, or the words of Christ were spoken.

And that, because Mark himself never followed Christ. Nor did He ever listen to Him preaching.

But later, he became a follower of Peter. And as we know, Peter made preaching purely practical.

Without ever taking care, that his preaching was a systematic exposition of the teachings of our Lord.

So it's not Mark's mistake, that he wrote, what he had memorised from the teachings of Peter.

And he did that deliberately: because he did not want,

neither to omit anything, nor to alter something, of what he had heard from Peter.

b. St. Irenaeus, bishop of Loughunus (177-204 AD), writes:

The Matthew Gospel, as you know, was written by Matthew.

He wrote it for the Jews. And of course in their language.

He wrote it, when the apostles Peter and Paul, were in Rome,

and were founding the Church there (ie, the year 61-64 AD).

After the death of these two apostles,

Mark, a pupil and spokesman for Peter's positions,

also wrote his Gospel, which contains what Peter used to say (year 68 AD).

At the same time, Luke, who was a companion of Paul, wrote his Gospel in a book also.

Luke wrote in his Gospel, what Paul taught (68 AD).

A little later, that is, when John, the beloved disciple of the Lord,

the one who, in the secret dinner, stood on the breast of Jesus,

was living in Ephesus (around 75 AD) wrote his Gospel too [6].

c. It is very difficult, to find in the world literature,

another book with so many authentic external testimonies, about it’s writing time,

as the testimonies of Papias and Irenaeus, about the holy Gospels.

The Satanist Dion Fortune, who considers the Jewish Cabbalah as the "Yoga of the West,"

writes in her book "The Secret Kabbalah," that while there are many Yoga schools,

and the students of each school follow their own system,

nevertheless, they all recognize, that the other Yoga schools,

lead to the Union (that is, yoga) too, with the “Bucket of water”,

as the Pantheists understand their god, whom they call "Brahma".

The New Age Pan-religion, which worships Lucifer, under the mask of "living nature",

wants to convince us, that we all "love the same god", which is an absolute lie.

The notion of the divine, is the one that shapes the perception each of us has,

about the morality, about the essence of what is good and what is evil.

In a previous article we analysed, why the theory of reincarnation,

is the joy of ANTINOMIAN MAFIOSOS.

Christ, however, has shown us, the best way to become a saint,

that is, a victor and triumphant of his passions,

to defeat sin (greek αμαρτία = miss the mark, for a bowman),

which is, the failure from the real purpose of our life.

3. Let us now see, what the archaeological findings tell us.

• Joseph Free, an eminent American archaeologist, says:

Archeology has blessed many testimonies of the Scriptures,

even those that the deniers-critics

were rejecting as totally anti-historical,

and as profoundly opposite to the historical events [7]!

• Bruce, F. (Bruce), another prominent American archaeologist, writes:

We have every right, to say that archaeological finds, validate the New Testament.

Today all the passages of Apostle Luke,

which former historians considered to be untrue,

thanks to the external testimonies of archaeological research,

it has become fully admitted, that they are true and reliable [8].

• A. N. Sherwin White, an investigator of ancient history, writes:

Today we have so many evidences,

proving that the testimonies of the New Testament are true,

that we consider them perfectly sufficient. We do not need more!

Today any attempt to challenge the historical credibility -

even of the most insignificant detail in the Scriptures - is an obscene malice [9]!

The questioning of the historical credibility of Christianity, comes from people who are biased.

And it is based on arguments that demonstrate, a lack of consciousness.

4. Finally, let's see what some world-class scientists say about the external testimonies.

a. Millar Burrows (Miller Barrow), of Yale University (USA), writes:

Comparing the language of the Gospels,

with the language of the papyri, coming from the first century AD,

has established his conviction,

that the New Testament books were written in the first century;

and that they were saved until our time, without being altered.

These findings (Papyrus of the 1st century),

have raised the credibility of the New Testament, in the eyes of scientists [10].

b. W. Albright, a world-renowned biblical archaeologist, writes:

Now we can say with absolute certainty,

that there is absolutely nothing, to compels us to say,

that - even a single - book of the New Testament, was written after 80 AD [11].

Albright is crystal clear, when he writes:

All the New Testament books were written,

by Christians of Jewish origin between 40-80 AD.

And more precisely between 50-75 AD [12].

c. Sir William Ramsay, is commonly accepted as the greatest archaeologist of the world.

He was saying, that “The Acts of the apostles” were written after 150 AD.

He considered, that the view, that the Acts were written around AD 60,

was not serious and worthy of attention.

But he was forced to change his mind.

What forced him? His excavations in Asia Minor.

What he found there, compelled him to declare;

• that up until then he was wrong;

• that the Acts of the Apostles are a first-rate historical book;

• that their author, apostle Luke, must be classified

amongst the greatest historical writers of the world!

• that all the information he provided to us, were absolutely accurate [13]!

d. Today all scientists accept that all the New Testament books are authentic.

That is, they were written by the apostles, whose names they bear, between 50-80 AD.

It goes without saying, that those who are drafted in the anti-Christian propaganda, do not agree with this.

They still keep repeating, the opinions of various writers of the last century,

to people who do not know, what science has discovered in the meantime.

This is how Yiannis Kordatos (Marxist-atheist) works, Maras and others.

d. Internal testimonies

1. Internal, are the testimonies concerning a book, given to us by the book itself.

The Internal testimonies are of particular value.

Because they were written, without the authors bearing our problems in mind.

So let's see;

• what information do the writers of the New Testament books give us? and

• Do we have the right, to question their truthfullness?

2. In the New Testament we read,

that everything it writes, comes directly,

from eyewitnesses and witnesses who heard with their own ears.

Let's see some examples:

a. Luke 1:1-4.

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,

to set forth in order, a declaration of those things,

which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as,

they delivered them unto us,

who from the beginning,

were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also,

having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,

to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,

wherein thou hast been instructed.

b. 2nd epistle of Peter 1.16.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,

when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,

but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

c. 1st epistle of John 1: 1-3.

1 That which was from the beginning,

which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,

which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,

and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us:

and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

d. John 19: 34-35.

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,

and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:

and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

e. Luke 3:1-2

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (14-37 AD),

Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,

and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,

and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis,

and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, …

Note: not "once"; not "once and for all";

but the 15th year of Tiberius; the year 29 AD!

3. When someone says,

that he heard something with his own ears and saw it with his own eyes,

it can not be ruled out, that he misquotes some facts.

But the Apostles, testifying about the facts,

on which they founded their faith, and which they announced publicly,

they do not refrain in saying, "we heard and saw them" ...

but turning to their persecutors and their opponents, they remind them:

- You know it well, that this is the truth!

These are neither misquotes, nor trivial details!

Let's see some of these words:

a. Acts. 2:22-24

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words;

Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,

which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,

ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:

because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

b. Acts. 26, 24-26.

24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice,

Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus;

but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely:

for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him;

for this thing was not done in a corner.

In other words:

When the Apostle Paul spoke of the resurrection of Christ from the dead

Lord Festos told him in "great voice":

- You crazy, Paul! It seems, that knowing too much made you lose your sanity!

Paul replied:

- I'm not crazy, your excellency Festus. What I say is all true.

These are words, that one can say, only if he has a sound mind.

I appeal for this, to the testimony of King Herod Agrippa.

Because as a Jew, he understands them very well.

And this is why, I speak to him with such courage.

Because nothing will ever be able, to make me admit,

that there is in what I preach, something that he does not to know:

Because, these are not things that happened in secret, in a dark corner!

From these words it becomes crystal clear,

that the life, the miracles, the death and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ

had been a public knowledge [14].

4. In other words, our apostles say:

• We have seen Him with our eyes.

• We heard Him with our ears.

• We touched Him with our hands.

• Our preaching is a reality, beyond any possibility of reasonable doubt.

• This is very well known, even by our opponents.

Do we have the right to question the truthfulness of the holy apostles?

1. Do we have a just cause, to say that maybe,

the disciples misquoted the words of Christ?

In response, let us first resume, all that we have said so far (paragraphs c'-d ').

And bearing them in mind, let us see, how three prominent world-class scientists

have answered this question:

2. Bruce, a professor at the University of Manchester, says:

The first preachers were forced to cope

not only with friends, but also with enemies,

who knew all the incidents of the life and death of Jesus,

equally well as they did.

The disciples never said in their public preaching, anything that was inaccurate.

If they did, their enemies would attack them on the spot,

because this is exactly, what they were waiting and longing for.

The power of the preaching of the holy apostles,

was in the fact, that they were addressed to people, who knew the things very well!

This is why, they were not saying: "we know ..."

but they were saying "as you yourselves also know ..." (Acts 2.22).

It is certain, that if they misquoted the truth, even to the minimum extend,

their opponents would not miss the chance to hit them,

accusing them of misquoting the facts [15].

3. Lawrence Mc Ginley, Professor at St. Peter College, writes:

We should never forget,

that when the apostles began to preach

and when they wrote the gospels, the eyewitnesses were still still alive!

And the eyewitnesses were not just friends and believers.

They were also furious and fanatical opponents, of the new religious movement.

The tradition affirms to us,

that the preaching of Christian faith was generally done in open space,

and before people, with a hostile stance towards Christ,

who could intervene and express opposing views,

if the apostles did not describe just the facts [16].

4. The famous William Durant,

who devoted his entire life to the analysis of the documents of antiquity, writes:

"The Evangelists also describe facts,

which, those who want to idealize a situation, would hide them!

e.g. the desire of the apostles to occupy great offices;

Peter's denial;

the debate among the Jews about Christ, that he is crazy;

that Christ once called the apostles foolish, and slow in their hearts; and much more.

Whoever reads these texts understands,

that the apostles show the true person (of Christ and of themselves).

And in any case,

the most unlikely and unacceptable miracle would be,

to accept that a group of such simple people -

as the twelve apostles were, as we see them in the gospels -

they managed to invent;

• such a bright form, as Jesus;

• such a high moral, as the Christian one;

• such an inspirational image of human brotherhood,

that a better one, has never been invented!

Even though, for two centuries now,

there is a systematic attack of “high criticism” against the holy gospels,

the image they give us, for the life, the character and the teaching of Jesus Christ,

is so wonderful, that it is the most charming page in the history of Western man [17]!

5. What else could the greatest apologist say?

f. Are the words of Christ misquoted?

1. Can we be certain, that Christ's words have not been misquoted by His disciples?

Don’t we have, the right to think, that they heard one thing, and they have written another?

2. Let's see what two great scientists are saying to us:

a. A.H. Mc Neile, a professor at the University of Dublin, England, writes:

Today, we have learned not to respect, the teachings of our teachers,

And we got used, to misquote them, as we like every time!

But this was strictly forbidden,

from the Hebrew Spiritual Tradition of the Talmud (Mishnah, Abu 2,8),

which says: The good student should look like a sealed container,

from which, even if you shake it as much as you like,

it is not possible to squeeze a single drop [18].

This sensitivity, not to alter the word of the Lord, is clear in the words, of Paul the apostle:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:

and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not,

and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,

and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:

else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart.

A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:

but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?

or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one,

so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.

Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,

but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it:

but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman:

likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord:

yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress,

I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.

Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;

and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

(1 Corinthians 7: 10-28)

In other words,

for married Christians the command (of the Lord, not mine) is: do not divide!

for non-Christians, my opinion, not the command of the Lord, is ...

for those who want to live in purity and virginity, they are not commanded by the Lord.

but I, as a man, whom I have mercy on our Lord to believe in Him,

I have the following opinion …

b. The well-known Albright writes:

Only our contemporary so called "humanists" scholars,

(as they atheists are confused to call themselves, whether they are Marxists or capitalists)

who do not know, neither what history is, nor what historical method is,

nor what the historical perspectives are, they can say such chatters,

which (in a supposed form of criticism!)

have literally overwhelmed the media, (newspapers, magazines, etc.)

(*** with systematic and organised misinformation ***) about the holy Gospels [19].

g. Conclusion

Instead of a conclusion, we cite the words of Pietro Parente

an eminent researcher of the life and personality of the Lord:

Today NO MAN, with education and seriousness,

DENIES the validity and credibility of the Gospels.

The Gospels have withstood, all forms of the most terrible criticism!

REFERENCES

[1] Durant, Will (historian-researcher), World History of Culture, vol. C ', Athens 1958, p. 648.

[2] Albright, William Foxwell (eminent contemporary archaeologist),

L 'Archéologie de la Palestine, Paris (Gd. Du Cerf) 1955, p. 259-260.

[3] Kenyon, Fr. The Bible and Archeology, New York 1940, p. 288-289.

[4] Greenlee, J.H., Introduction to the New Testament Textual (Criticism), Grand Rapids 1964, p. 16.

[5] This passage is preserved in the book: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History C, 39,15 (P.G., vol 20, 299).

[6] Irenaeus, Bishop of Lougdunus, C, 1,1,4-7 (P.G., vol., 7, 844).

[7] Free, J., Archeology and Bible History, Wheaton III. 1969, p. 1.

[8] Bruce, F. F., Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament,

in Carl Henry, Revelation and the Bible, Grand Rapids 1969, p. 331

[9] Sherwin White, A.N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford 1963, p. 189.

[10] Burrows, Millar, What Means These Stones, New York 1956, p. 52.

[11] Albright, W.F. Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, New York 1955, p. 136.

[12] Albright, W.F. Christianity Today, Vol. 7, Jan. 18, 1963, p. 3.

[13] Ramsay, William,

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, London 1915, p. 222.

[14] Schneider, Gerhardt, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2 Teil,

Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum N.T., Herder V., Freiburg 1982, p. 377.

See also, Saint John Chrysostom, In The Acts Speech NB, 4.

[15] Bruce, F.F .: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Downers Grove and Leicester, Inter Varsity Press, 1961, p. 16.33.

[16] Mc Ginley, Lawrence, Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narrations, Woodstock Maryland 1944, p. 25.

[17] Durant, Will., World History of Culture, vol. C ', Athens 1958, pp. 648-649 (simplified speeches).

[18] Mc Neile, A.H., An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament,

London, Oxford University Press 1953, p. 54.

[19] Albright, W. F., From the Stone Age to Christianity (second edition), Baltimore 1946, p. 297-298.

[20] P. Parente, L' Io di Cristo, Brescia 1958 ², p. 14.

Source: Excerpt from the project

WHAT IS CHRIST, Metropolitan of Nicopolis Meletius

http://agiameteora.net/index.php/digital-books.html?id=841

Minas G. Malakos, for the "Greeks helping each other"