Roman Forms of Crucifixion

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Roman Forms of Crucifixion

Crucifixion wasn't always carried out the way we've seen it typically depicted in paintings and pictures.



Crucifixion wasn't always carried out the way we've seen it typically depicted in paintings and pictures. In fact, as noted in this chapter, a crucifixion victim likely wasn't nailed through the hands, since their structure cannot support the weight of a human body. Most likely victims were nailed through the wrist or, in some instances, had their arms tied rather than being nailed.



Nor were victims always crucified on the kind of cross typically shown in depictions of Christ's crucifixion. Note what The Anchor Bible Dictionary says in its article on crucifixion:



"At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a 'T' ( crux commissa ) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism ( crux immissa ). The victims carried the cross or at least a transverse beam ( patibulum ) to the place of execution, where they were stripped and bound or nailed to the beam, raised up, and seated on a sedile or small wooden peg in the upright beam...



"Executioners could vary the form of punishment, as [Roman historian] Seneca the Younger indicates: 'I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the [cross-piece]'...



"In his account of what happened to Jewish refugees from Jerusalem [in the Jewish war of A.D. 67-70], [first-century historian] Josephus also lets us see that there was no fixed pattern for crucifying people. Much depended on the sadistic ingenuity of the moment" (David Noel Freedman, editor-in-chief, 1992, Vol. 1, pp. 1208-1209).



"The accursed tree"



The Roman historian Seneca, describing the horror of crucifixion, argued that it would be better to commit suicide than endure such a tortured death. "Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross" (ibid., p. 1209).



Seneca's reference to "the accursed tree" is strongly reminiscent of Peter's words when he speaks of Jesus, "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.



See All...; compare Acts 5:30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.



See All...). In some cases crucifixions seem to have been carried out on a literal tree, albeit one that was basically only a trunk from which the branches had been cut away.



In these crucifixions the condemned victim would be nailed to the upright trunk or would carry his own crossbeam, which would then be fastened to the trunk and him nailed to both. It's possible that the "cross" Jesus carried to His execution, carried part of the time by Simon of Cyrene, was simply a large beam of wood.



Shape of the cross not spelled out



The word translated "cross" in the New Testament is the Greek word stauros, which "denotes, primarily, 'an upright pale or stake'" ( Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, "Cross, Crucify").



"Both the noun and the verb stauroo, 'to fasten to a stake or pale,' are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed 'cross'" (ibid.).



The Bible contains no specific description of the stauros on which Jesus died. The word stauros was used in nonbiblical writings of the time to refer to pieces of wood of various shapes, with and without crosspieces. If it were important that we know its exact shape, the Gospel writers could have easily provided us that information—yet none of them do. What is important for us to know is the willing sacrifice Jesus made of His own life for our sakes.



If we don't know whether Jesus was executed on a stake or a cross, or what shape of cross, how did the t-shaped cross come to be the most popular symbol of Christianity?



Vine's explains: "The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith.



"In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches...and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau, or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the 'cross' of Christ'" (ibid.).



Thus we see that the most common symbol of Christ and Christianity was a symbol that long predated Jesus and biblical Christianity.

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

One of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was-the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered-is His resurrection from the dead.

"This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses" (Acts 2:32).
One of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was—the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered—is His resurrection from the dead.
His followers were convinced that He was the Messiah and the Son of God. His miracles, His sinless life and His teachings all proved to them who He was. But His resurrection confirms every claim Jesus made to all people for all time.
What is astounding is that Jesus put everything on the line with His own statements that He would die and be raised to life again. He foretold His own resurrection on several occasions. "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31).
When the scribes and Pharisees wanted a sign from Him, He said only one sign would be given: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).
It is quite risky to foretell your own resurrection. Yet Jesus not only foretold His resurrection, but announced precisely when He would be resurrected.
So it comes down to this one event. How do we know that Jesus' resurrection from the dead happened? If it didn't happen just as He said, then we have no reason to believe that the way of life that Christ brought was any better or more right than any other religion. There would be nothing earthshaking about Jesus of Nazareth; He would be simply another religious fraud.
But if it did happen, there is one great difference between Jesus and all other religious leaders: Jesus' teachings are true, and everything He said is true, and He is exactly who He claimed to be.
In his book Reasonable Faith, Dr. William Craig gives three great, independently established facts on which the evidence for Jesus' resurrection rests: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the origin of the Christian faith (p. 272). Let's examine the details and implications of each of these.
Did Jesus really die?
That Jesus died and was buried is one of the best-established facts about Jesus. The Bible says again and again that Jesus died. Some critics have argued that Jesus wasn't completely dead when He was entombed. The Koran, considered holy by Muslims, claims that Jesus only seemed to be dead. Some skeptics have claimed that He merely appeared to be dead, possibly drugged, but revived while in the tomb and escaped to convince His disciples that He had risen from the dead.
But when we examine the facts, what such theories suggest is physically impossible. The extent of Jesus' tortures and wounds was such that no man could have survived the crucifixion and three days and nights isolated in a dark, cold tomb.
To say that He was drugged ignores the record. He turned down the painkiller that was usually given to crucifixion victims (Mark 15:23). Later He was offered a sip of sour wine from a sponge, but there is no indication of a drugging effect on Jesus from this because of His obvious agony and final death cry (verses 36-37).
Death at the hands of Roman torturers and executioners was certain and could come from several causes. Journalist Lee Strobel, in an interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell, describes the death of Jesus from a medical point of view ( The Case for Christ, 1998, pp. 193-200).
Jesus had been beaten repeatedly and lashed with a Roman scourge before His crucifixion (Matthew 27:26). The leather scourge, a type of whip, was designed to inflict maximum pain and damage on the victim. It was braided with pieces of bone and metal woven into the ends that tore into the flesh with each stroke. The scourge would rip into the underlying muscles and produce strips of quivering, bleeding flesh.
Eusebius, a third-century historian, reports that "the sufferer's veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure" (quoted by Strobel, p. 193). Many victims would die from the scourging before they could be crucified.
The extreme pain, coupled with loss of blood, would often cause the victim to go into shock—his blood pressure would drop and cause fainting, collapse and intense thirst. The Gospels record that Jesus experienced these symptoms on His way to Golgotha. Weakened to the point of collapse, He couldn't bear the weight of the beam He was carrying and a bystander, Simon of Cyrene, was forced to carry it part of the way for Him (Mark 15:21). When He was crucified, He said, "I thirst" (John 19:28).
He had already suffered savage beatings before the scourging. At His trial before the Sanhedrin, "they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, 'Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?'" (Matthew 26:67-68). When they turned Him over to the Roman soldiers, they further brutalized Him, beating Him with their fists, slapping Him and shoving a crown of thorns on His head (Matthew 27:29-30; Mark 15:16-19; John 19:3).
The extent of this beating is indicated in the prophecy of Isaiah 50:6: "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting" (NIV).
Another prophecy in Isaiah 52:14 is even more graphic: "His form, disfigured, lost all human likeness; his appearance so changed he no longer looked like a man" (REB). What this tells us is that He was so badly beaten, so bloodied and maimed, that He was scarcely recognizable as a human being.
Pilate appears to have thought that when he had Jesus brought out to the crowd after the beatings and scourging, He would present such a pitiable spectacle that it would satiate His accusers' thirst for blood (John 19:1, 4-6). But their hatred of the bloodied man from Nazareth would not be satisfied. They insisted He be crucified.
The agony of crucifixion
Because of the terrible effects of these beatings and the scourging, from a medical standpoint Jesus would have already been in serious to critical condition even before He was taken away to be crucified (Alexander Metherell, M.D., quoted by Strobel, p. 196).
In a crucifixion, the Romans typically used iron nails, five to seven inches long and about three eighths of an inch square, driven into the victim's wrists and feet to fasten him to the wooden members. The Bible says nails were driven through Jesus' hands, but in the language of the day the wrist was considered part of the hand. Nails were driven into the wrists, between the arm bones, because the hands themselves could not support the weight of the body.
This placement of nails is supported by the 1968 discovery in Jerusalem of the bones of a man who had been crucified and buried in a first-century tomb. His right heel bone still had a large iron nail embedded in it, and one of his right forearm bones had a groove and wear marks consistent with a nail being driven between the two arm bones near his wrist.
The nails pounded through the wrists would have crushed the median nerve, the largest nerve going to the hand, causing indescribable pain. "The pain was absolutely unbearable," says Dr. Metherell. "In fact, it was literally beyond words to describe; they had to invent a new word: excruciating . Literally, excruciating means 'out of the cross.'
"Think of that: they needed to create a new word, because there was nothing in the language that could describe the intense anguish caused during the crucifixion" (quoted by Strobel, pp. 197-198). Nails driven through the feet would have brought similar pain.
We can't know for sure whether Jesus was crucified on a simple stake or a cross with a crossbeam. Either way, being hung by His arms would have caused great stresses on His body. His arms would have been stretched several inches and both shoulders likely were dislocated.
The prophecy of Christ's suffering in Psalm 22:14 refers to His tortured condition: "I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; it has melted within me."
Dr. Metherell continues with a description of the agonies Jesus endured: "Once a person is hanging in the vertical position...crucifixion is essentially an agonizingly slow death by asphyxiation. The reason is that the stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones.
"After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again he'd have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn't be able to push up and breathe anymore" (Strobel, pp. 265-266).
What was the cause of Jesus' death?
Many people assume that Jesus simply expired from the trauma or suffocated, which were the common causes of death in crucifixion. Various medical doctors have studied execution by crucifixion and come to similar conclusions. Some theologians and churches have taught that Jesus died of a broken heart. Can we know what actually killed Him?
Zechariah 12:10 contains a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion. Referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it says: "They will look on me, the one they have pierced" (NIV). Time and time again the Scriptures speak of the importance of Christ's shed blood (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 9:11-14; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Jesus Himself said that the wine of the New Testament Passover represented "my blood...which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28, NIV).
Clearly a central focus of Christ's sacrifice was His blood, which He shed as a sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. Regrettably, this is obscured somewhat in John 19:30-34, which makes it appear that Jesus died and then later was stabbed by one of the Roman soldiers, "bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" (verse 34, NIV). However, there is a problem if this were the specific order of events, because dead bodies, once the heart has stopped its pumping action, no longer bleed like that.
This problem is resolved when we consider many older manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel, which contain words that appear in a few Bible translations but were left out of most modern versions. These missing words tell us the proper sequence of events.
The Twentieth Century New Testament, which includes these words, reads: "And about three [o'clock in the afternoon] Jesus called out loudly: 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani'—that is to say, 'O my God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?' Some of those standing by heard this, and said [mistakenly]: 'The man is calling for Elijah!'
"One of them immediately ran and took a sponge, and, filling it with common wine, put it on the end of a rod, and offered it to him to drink. But the rest said: 'Wait and let us see if Elijah is coming to save him.' However another man took a spear, and pierced his side; and water and blood flowed from it. But Jesus, uttering another loud cry, gave up his spirit" (Matthew 27:46-50).
The missing words, noted here in italics, show that Jesus was stabbed in the side with a spear, uttered a loud cry and then died. Other versions that contain the missing words include the Moffatt Translation and the Rotherham Emphasized Bible, and various other Bible versions include a footnote or marginal reference noting the omitted words.
So does Matthew's account conflict with John's? No. Both describe the same events, but from different perspectives.
Matthew jumps immediately from Jesus' death to a description of the temple veil being torn in half, while John focuses on the fact that, in contrast to the two criminals crucified with Jesus, not one of His bones was broken. John then explains parenthetically how Jesus had already died so that His bones did not need to be broken—His side had been pierced with a spear (John 19:31-34).
John then tells us in verse 36 that this took place in fulfillment of Psalm 34:20 and the symbolism of the Passover lambs, which were to be slain and not have a single bone broken (Exodus 12:6, 46; Numbers 9:12). The Passover lambs that had their blood shed to save the Israelites (Exodus 12:6-7, 13) pictured Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
The final fatal blow
Continuing in John 19:37, John explains that the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 that Jesus' body would be pierced was fulfilled. What was this final, fatal thrust like that ended Jesus' life?
John Lyle Cameron, M.D., explains: "The soldier was a Roman: he would be well trained, proficient, and would know his duty. He would know which part of the body to pierce in order that he might obtain a speedily fatal result or ensure that the victim was undeniably dead...
"The soldier, standing below our crucified Lord as He hung on the cross, would thrust upwards under the left ribs. The broad, clean cutting, two-edged spearhead would enter the left side of the upper abdomen, would open the...stomach, would pierce the diaphragm, would cut, wide open, the heart and great blood vessels, arteries and veins..., and would lacerate the lung.
"The wound would be large enough to permit the open hand to be thrust into it [compare John 20:24-27]. Blood..., together with water from the...stomach, would flow forth in abundance. The whole event as described by St. John must, indeed, have happened, for no writer could have presented in such coherent detail so recognizable an event, unless he or someone had actually witnessed its occurrence" (quoted by R.V.G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: John, 2000, pp. 212-213).
The idea that Jesus didn't really die, that He fainted or was drugged and was later resuscitated, has no basis in fact when you consider the clear statements that He died. The apostle John had been an eyewitness to that death, having been right there with others as these events unfolded (John 19:25-27, 35).
The Roman soldiers, too, knew He was dead. They may not have been medical experts, but they were used to seeing executions and knew when someone was dead. Before releasing the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate confirmed with the centurion overseeing the execution detail that Jesus was indeed dead (Mark 15:43-45).
Even if we assume Jesus could have physically survived the crucifixion, how could He then have lived for three days and nights in a tomb, sealed away from any kind of medical care or treatment?
There is one other point we should make here. Assuming the seemingly impossible notion that a man could somehow have lived through all this, the accounts of Jesus appearing to His disciples after the ordeal would have been just that much more impossible. And even if He had somehow managed it, He certainly couldn't have appeared as One who would inspire His disciples to proclaim that He had been resurrected to a glorious and powerful state. He would've been a severely broken, wounded man—psychologically traumatized, physically crippled and maimed for life.
Any theory to explain that Jesus really didn't die cannot be taken seriously in light of the clear evidence we have.
Jesus' burial
Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a new tomb that Joseph had reserved for himself.
Because Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the same Jewish high court that condemned Jesus, he is unlikely to be a Christian invention. Mark's Gospel tells us that "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member,… taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus" (Mark 15:43).
Given permission to take the body, Joseph "bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb" (verse 46).
No one trying to contrive and pawn off a fabrication would have invented a person who did not exist and say he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jewish nation. Members of the Sanhedrin were widely known. Because Joseph was a respected public figure, many people would have known the location of his tomb. If Jesus had not been buried in his tomb, the ruse would have been all too easy to expose.
Notice also the precautions taken to make sure nothing could happen to the body of Jesus once it had been placed in the tomb: "The next day...the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, "After three days I will rise again."
"'So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.' 'Take a guard,' Pilate answered. 'Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard" (Matthew 27:62-66, NIV).
Roman guards were placed around the tomb the day after Jesus' burial. Surely they would have noticed had Jesus awakened from a near-death state or His body been stolen by His followers. Their orders were clear: They were to make sure nothing happened to the body of Jesus. If they failed at this duty, they could be put to death just as Jesus had been.
Both the Jews and the disciples of Christ would have known the location of this tomb. The women who would figure prominently in the discovery of the empty tomb observed where the tomb was and that Jesus was in fact laid inside it (Luke 23:55). They also knew a massive stone had been rolled over the entrance of the tomb (Mark 15:46-47) and knew it had to be rolled back when they returned to the same location to apply the burial spices they had prepared (Mark 16:3).
There was no question in the mind of the women and His other disciples that Jesus was in that tomb.
Women discover the empty tomb
Mark also records for us the detail that three women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome—approached the tomb before sunrise to anoint the body of Jesus with spices. Finding the heavy stone rolled away, they entered the tomb and were shocked and afraid when they saw "a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side." The man told the women, "He is risen!" and instructed them to go and tell Jesus' other disciples (Mark 16:1-8).
In the society of the day, the testimony of women was held in such low regard that they were not even permitted to serve as witnesses in a court of law. How remarkable it is, then, that women were the acknowledged discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb!
Had someone fabricated the story at a later date, as many critics assume to have been the case, the plot surely would have made male disciples such as Peter and John the discoverers of the empty tomb. That it was women who were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb is best explained by the straightforward truth that the women named were indeed the actual discoverers.
The Gospel writers faithfully recorded what for them was an awkward and potentially embarrassing detail.
Jesus' enemies acknowledged that the tomb was empty
What was the reaction of Jesus' enemies to the disciples' stunning declaration that Jesus was alive again after having been publicly executed?
Their reaction is very revealing. Did they respond that the disciples were lying, that Jesus' body still lay in the rock-hewn tomb? No. Did they claim that the disciples were hallucinating? No. Instead, they bribed the Roman soldiers responsible for guarding the sealed tomb to spread what they knew was a lie . They told them to spread a cover story, to claim that Jesus' disciples had come and stolen His body while they slept, and that they would cover for the soldiers if they got in trouble with the Roman governor.
Read the account in Matthew 28:11-15. This was the best excuse the authorities could come up with to explain why Jesus' body was missing and could not be found!
Here we have evidence from the very enemies of Christ that His tomb was empty. The best rationale they could come up with they knew to be a lie. There is no other explanation for how the tomb became empty except that Jesus was resurrected bodily and left the tomb.
Eyewitness accounts of His appearances
On multiple occasions and under various circumstances individuals and groups of people saw Jesus alive after knowing He had died.
Notice what the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church: "He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:5-8).
How did Paul receive this information? He was acquainted and had spoken with the people involved. He had heard the account in their own words. Most who could verify it were still alive. He is making this assertion knowing he could be proven wrong if it were not true!
Such eyewitness accounts cannot be dismissed as fantasy. They must refer to actual events that were witnessed by many people alive at the time of Paul's writing. Paul even lists the names of the best known of the witnesses so others could verify the facts of Jesus' resurrection for themselves!
Appearances in bodily form
All of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in the Gospels are in bodily form. "Why do doubts arise in your hearts?" He asked His apostles when He appeared to them, as recorded in Luke 24:36-43.
He invited them, "Behold [look at] My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." When they still did not believe, perhaps because it was too good to be true, He asked them for food, which He took and ate in front of them.
Then there is the occasion when Jesus appeared to all His apostles, including Thomas, who apparently was missing on the previous occasion. Thomas was adamant that he would not believe unless he saw Jesus' wounds with his own eyes and felt the wounds with his own hands (John 20:24-29). Yet he was absolutely convinced when Jesus appeared to them all and specifically invited Thomas to verify that He was indeed the same Jesus whom Thomas and the rest had known for so long.
On yet another occasion Jesus appeared to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. On this occasion He performed a miracle, fixed and ate a breakfast of bread and fish with them and gently rebuked Peter for returning to his life as a fisherman rather than taking care of the far more important business of tending to His Church (John 21:1-23).
It's been suggested that these appearances were merely hallucinations on the part of the disciples. But this theory cannot account for the fact that the appearances were in different places, at different times and in front of different groups of people. Jesus appeared in ways that were convincing to all the apostles. These appearances left no doubt in their minds—including that of Thomas, who staked out his position that he wouldn't believe unless he literally saw and felt the Jesus whom he knew.
The disciples' astounding transformation
One of the major proofs of the resurrection of Jesus is the dramatic change in the lives of His disciples.
The Gospel accounts are not flattering to the apostles (which is further evidence that they didn't fabricate the story). At the time of Christ's arrest and trial, all His apostles forsook Him and fled (Matthew 26:56). Peter, who vowed that he would always stand by Jesus, even cursed and swore in denying that he knew Him (verses 69-75).
Jesus, we remember, foretold Peter's weakness and even forewarned His apostles that they would also stumble because of their association with Him (verses 31-35).
Within a short time, however, we see a dramatic change. We find the apostles speaking to large crowds and openly declaring that Jesus had risen from the dead. Far from running away and hiding, now they boldly confronted the civil and religious authorities with the fact that Jesus had been killed and raised to life again.
They defied orders threatening them with imprisonment if they continued to speak about this man Jesus (Acts 4:1-23). They courageously faced beatings and endured death threats because they preached that Jesus was alive and was the Messiah (Acts 5:17-42).
Whereas only weeks before they had denied they even knew Him, now nothing could stop them from openly publicizing what they obviously knew to be true. Only one explanation for their new unshakable belief even in the face of imprisonment and execution is plausible: They saw Jesus Christ alive after they knew He was dead. They spoke with Him, ate with Him, received extensive instructions from Him, spent time with Him and touched Him.
These men gave the remaining years of their lives, and ultimately life itself, for the One they knew had conquered death. Had they all been only participants in a giant hoax, could we believe these men would give their lives for something they knew to be a lie?
Peter's remarkable change
The apostle Peter is the best known of the disciples whose lives were so remarkably changed. His boldness on the Feast of Pentecost was amazing. At the temple he addressed a huge crowd of people, from which 3,000 became disciples of Jesus the Messiah.
Peter spoke to people who lived in Jerusalem and all of Judea as well as many other parts of the Roman world. They were in Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Pentecost, also called the Feast of Weeks, as God had commanded in Deuteronomy 16:16. Peter reminded them that they all knew who Jesus was and what had happened to Him seven weeks earlier at the Passover feast (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.

See All...).
Peter, who had denied his acquaintance with Jesus before He died, now fearlessly proclaimed to the people that they were the ones who had crucified the promised Messiah— but that God had raised Him up.
The reaction of the people is quite telling. There is no denial, no outcry, no attempt to stone Peter for this apparently outrageous charge. Many of them knew of the events surrounding the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. They knew that many—perhaps even some of those standing there listening to Peter—had shouted for Christ's blood. They knew of the strange disappearance of the body from the tomb, a mystery no one had been able to solve.
They knew or had heard of other strange events that took place at the time: the mysterious darkness that descended on the land as Jesus was being crucified, people being resurrected from the grave and walking the streets of Jerusalem, and the massive veil in the magnificent temple tearing from top to bottom with no apparent cause.
How were these events to be explained? What did they mean? Peter was giving them the amazing explanation—an explanation that would require them to make a decision that would affect the rest of their lives.
Peter contrasted the empty tomb of Jesus with the nearby tomb of Israel's greatest king, David. "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day" (Acts 2:29). His point was unmistakable: Everybody knew where David's tomb was and that this was where the king's body was buried. But Jesus, unlike David, was no longer bound by the grave!
Jesus of Nazareth, Peter declared, had been raised up by God, and many witnesses could testify to that fact. Once again there was no argument from the crowd. On the contrary, the people asked what they should do now that they, too, were convinced that Peter was right. Peter replied that they should repent and be baptized and that they also would receive the Holy Spirit, as the disciples had on that very day (Acts 2:37-38).
The only way to explain the dramatic transformation of the disciples from a frightened band ready to throw everything away and flee back to Galilee is that Jesus left behind dramatic and powerful evidence: an empty tomb and then multiple bodily appearances. Ordinary men from ordinary walks of life, who had denied their Master and failed Him miserably, suddenly changed almost overnight into dynamic leaders of a Church that was to defy and challenge the ancient pagan world.
James, half brother of Jesus, becomes a believer
Perhaps an even more remarkable transformation took place in the life of James, the half brother of Jesus (James was the natural son of Mary and Joseph while Jesus was the son of Mary and God the Father). Notice how J.P. Moreland describes events in James' life as recorded in the Bible and contemporary history:
"Why did these men change? Why did they undergo hardship, persecution, pressure, and martyrdom? Consider James the brother of Jesus. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, tells us that he died a martyr's death for his faith in his brother. Yet the Gospels tell us that during Jesus' life, he was an unbeliever and opposed Jesus.
"Why did he change? What could cause a Jew to believe that his own brother was the very Son of God and to be willing to die for such a belief? It certainly was not a set of lovely teachings from a carpenter from Nazareth. Only the appearance of Jesus to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) can explain his transformation.
"As with James, so it is with the other disciples. One who denies the resurrection owes us an explanation of this transformation which does justice to the historical facts" ( Scaling the Secular City, 1987, pp. 178-179).
Paul the persecutor is transformed
The apostle Paul is another remarkable example. As a devout Jewish rabbi and strict Pharisee, he was resolutely convinced that Jesus' resurrection had not taken place. Paul persecuted members of the early Church for believing in such nonsense. He staked his whole mission in life on his conviction that the resurrection was a fabrication and the movement was a threat to every tradition he held sacred.
This new movement, he was convinced, deserved to be stamped out by any means, including imprisonment and execution (Acts 22:4)—and this would be his personal crusade. Then something happened. Jesus Christ appeared to Paul and spoke to him.
Paul was not a man given to the vivid imaginations of superstitious people. He was a levelheaded intellectual. Yet he later was prepared to defend his zeal for Christ before hostile mobs as well as governors, kings and other rulers. In the end Paul was prepared to die for what he knew was true: Jesus was indeed the Messiah and was alive and well at the right hand of God.
The existence of the Christian Church
Dr. Moreland puts it this way: "What cause can be postulated to explain the fact that the Christian church transformed the world of the first century? The odds for its success were antecedently poor. Several religions existed in the first century and some of the elements of Christianity can be found in them. Why did Christianity succeed, especially when it was such an exclusivist faith which frowned on syncretism? What caused the church to get started? There never was a form of Christianity which did not emphasize the centrality of the death and resurrection of a divine Jesus.
"The resurrection of Jesus is the explanation the church herself gave, and it is the only adequate one. Cambridge New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule argues this way: 'If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?'" (ibid., pp. 180-181).
That Jesus Christ really was resurrected from the dead is the only truly reasonable conclusion.

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Why This Death Didn't Count

article by Good News Editor

Hate crime legislation and politically-motivated reporting can have a staggering effect on what news is reported to the public.

Most Americans, and many in other countries, have heard of Matthew Shepard, the 21- year-old Wyoming college student who in October 1998 was robbed, beaten and left to die on a fence in an alleged antihomosexual "hate crime." Details of his death and the trials of his murderers were recounted endlessly in newspapers and television news programs. He became a cause célèbre for hate-crime legislation and the subject of several books and at least two made-for-TV movies.
Few, however, have ever heard of Jesse Dirkhising. That's not surprising, since the Arkansas seventh-grader's tragic death less than a year later, in September 1999, and the circumstances surrounding it were not considered newsworthy by those who shape the news we hear.
The difference, as some media watchers have pointed out, is that the two men who tied up and blindfolded 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising, gagged him with his own underwear and repeatedly sodomized him before he suffocated were homosexuals. When Mr. Shepard was murdered, a great outcry arose for more hate-crime legislation. When Jesse Dirkhising was murdered, not only was there no outcry for hate-crime legislation, there were extremely few news sources that even carried the story.
A writer for The New Republic , himself a homosexual, reported on the media double standard in the April 2, 2001, edition. ". . . You've probably never heard of this case," he wrote. " The New York Times has yet to run a single story about it. The Washington Post has run only a tiny Associated Press report-and an ombudsman's explanation of why no further coverage is merited . . .
"In the month after Shepard's murder, [the media reported] 3,007 stories about his death. In the month after Dirkhising's murder, [the media reported] 46 stories about his. In all of last year, only one article about Dirkhising appeared in a major mainstream newspaper, The Boston Globe. The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ignored the incident completely. In the same period, The New York Times published 45 stories about Shepard and The Washington Post published 28. This discrepancy isn't just real. It's staggering . . .
"So why the obsession with Shepard and the indifference with regard to Dirkhising? The answer is politics. The Shepard case was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law. The Dirkhising case was ignored for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed anti-gay prejudice, and the lack of any pending interest-group legislation to hang a story on.
"The same politics lies behind the media's tendency to extensively cover white 'hate crimes' against blacks while ignoring black 'non-hate crimes' against whites. What we are seeing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths-if they affect a politically protected class-are worth more than others. Other deaths, those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion. The leading gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign-which has raised oodles of cash exploiting the horror of Shepard's murder-has said nothing whatsoever about the Dirkhising case."
Examples like this-and many more that can be found through searches of alternative media sources on the Internet-demonstrate that most major media outlets often aren't reporting the full spectrum of the news, but only the news they want you to hear . GN

Related Content

Who's Telling You What to Think? - (Article)

Jerold Aust

Some people accept the news they read in newspapers and watch on television as the gospel truth. Is such trust in our mass media justified? Do you really know who's telling you what to think-and why?

Behind the Headlines... First Hand Account: Africa's Deadly AIDS Crisis - (Article)

Cecil Maranville

First hand letters from a doctor working in Africa depict a grim scene.

How to Seek God's Will - (Article)

Good News Editor

Many leaders are imploring us to pray for God's help. Indeed we should. But let's be realistic enough to realize that God will hear us only if we are willing to hear Him.

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Who's Telling You What to Think?

article by Jerold Aust

Some people accept the news they read in newspapers and watch on television as the gospel truth. Is such trust in our mass media justified? Do you really know who's telling you what to think-and why?

Consider for a moment what might happen if someone you knew who died in the 1950s or '60s, perhaps your mother or grandmother, suddenly came to life and sat down with you to watch some of today's evening television shows. What would she see? What would she think?
Imagine letting her take your favorite chair and handle the remote control. Since you probably receive TV programming from a cable or satellite company, listen to her shocked disbelief as she hears the profanity and crudity spew forth. Notice her face as she hears the actors and actresses blurt out vulgarities with an ease and indifference the likes of which she would have never heard only a few decades earlier.
You might well find yourself on the defensive, trying to explain why modern television programming so openly promotes casual sexual encounters, gratuitous violence and foul language. She might question why you would voluntarily allow such crudeness to enter the sanctity of your home. She might ask why you feel no sense of alarm at the filth and vulgarity you allow into your children's minds. She might urge you to "turn that trash off"-and she'd be right on the mark.

Spiral to depravity

Steve Allen, the longtime actor, comedian and songwriter who died in 2000, wrote thoughtfully and perceptively about the depraved vortex of television programming in his book Vulgarians at the Gate: Trash TV and Raunch Radio .
"There has always been a market for vulgarity and licentiousness," he observed, "but at present it is undeniable that motion pictures, theater, television, radio, the recording industry, and, to a lesser degree, journalism are enthusiastic participants in the general collapse of standards and behavior.
"Some people may find it hard to believe that television was a morally admirable medium as recently as the 1950s. With a few exceptions it was largely administered by gentlemen and ladies, and although it was, from the first, apparent that inferior cultural merchandise was likely to become quite popular, given the notorious imperfections of human nature itself, television programming in general at least consisted of fare that could be watched by the entire family . . . It is clear that the medium has changed . . . Corporate America, granting exceptions, has not only largely given up its former admirable participation in the maintenance of society's general sanity but has joined those who would undermine it . . ." (2001, pp. 32-34, emphasis added).
For those who believe in character and high moral standards, some obvious questions come to mind: Where have we gone wrong? Why have we gone wrong? What, if anything, can be done about our self-initiated spiral into media-induced depravity?
What messages are those who spoon-feed us through the media presuming to tell us? What do they want us to think?
Today's mass media-radio, television, movies, audio and video recordings, books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet-shape our perception of reality. But how accurate is that perception? Is it true? Sometimes media moguls would like us to believe that our perception-a perception they carefully craft and provide- is reality.
But it's important for us to differentiate between viewpoints that arise from standards that are healthy for us and based on a moral foundation and those that are rooted in amoral thinking. As the Bible cautions us in Proverbs 4:23: "Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts" (Today's English Version).

News slanted to tell you what to think

The New York Times , with the largest weekly circulation in the country, is the most influential newspaper in the United States if not the world. But more than just a newspaper it is also a news organization. It owns more than 20 regional newspapers and even network-television affiliate stations across the country. Each issue of the International Herald Tribune (the international newspaper published primarily for American travelers and expatriates) is published in conjunction with The New York Times and The Washington Post , including a selection of articles and editorials from both of those papers.
The Times 'reach, however, is far more vast and influential than even these facts would indicate. The New York Times Syndicate and its news service, which distribute the paper's opinion pieces and news articles, reaches more than 2,000 other media clients in 50 countries on five continents. No matter where you are in the world, glance through your local or regional newspaper and odds are you'll find articles, editorials and opinions generated by the staff of The New York Times.
That wouldn't be a problem if the Times -and other newspapers and news organizations, for that matter-did their job of simply reporting the news. The danger is when they selectively report the news or slant it to promote their social agenda (see "Why This Death Didn't Count," page 6).
Journalist William Proctor wrote an illuminating book titled The Gospel According to The New York Times. Mr. Proctor examines the profound effects the paper has on America and the world, playing a major role in shaping our thinking and values.
The New York Times, he writes, is a welldesigned belief system that touches every aspect of your life. "In effect, you are being exposed to a gospel, but one that is a far cry from the traditional good news of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather, this gospel is rooted in a kind of secular theology that purports to convey infallible social, moral, and political truth -a truth that the paper fervently promotes with all the zeal of the fieriest proselytizer" (2000, pp. 11-12, emphasis added).

Journalism to reshape

Mr. Proctor shows how the Times carefully communicates, as its slogan puts it, "all the news that's fit to print."What Times editors feel is right for Americans will wind up as stories on the front page. Yet they are careful not to be too overt in their secular religious fervor. For example, they might place a story on the front page and then support it in the op-ed (opinioneditorial) pages. This practice can repeat itself on alternate days.
There is also the problem of skewing stories to fit the editors' personal beliefs and agendas. Mr. Proctor continues: "It's reasonable to assume that a decidedly slanted or partisan report about a new pill that induces abortions, coupled with proabortion editorials and op-ed columns, represents a journalistic package designed to nudge the reader into changing social policy positions and personal beliefs" (p. 36).
Citing examples, his book documents many of the ways journalists slant their reporting to subtly change the way readers think. To be fair, the Times is not the only media outlet that tries to reshape our values and morals. Still, its influence reaches farther than most (see "The Media's Alternative Gospel," page 7).
Mr. Proctor quotes the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to indict modern media distortions: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20).

Naturalism usurps morality

What is the basis for so much of the media's upside-down thinking? A pseudoscience known as naturalism forms part of it.
Phillip Johnson, author and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has written several revealing books on the uncritical acceptance of evolution in modern society, replacing creationism and belief in the Bible (among them Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, 1998, and The Wedge of Truth, 2000). As Dr. Johnson puts it, naturalism is a philosophy that substitutes unintelligent nature for an intelligent God.
His analysis of naturalism is straightforward: "This philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. If God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them.
"This philosophy controls academic work not only in science but in all fields, including law, literature and psychology. It is promulgated throughout the educational system and the mainstream media, and government backs it" ( The Wedge of Truth , pp. 13-14, emphasis added).
The media live by this no-God doctrine -if not deliberately, certainly by effect. This is one reason that science reporting in the mass media is overwhelmingly proevolution in its fundamental premises.
What happens when a society progressively abandons its belief in God? Can it self-destruct? The words of Abraham Lincoln in 1837, before his becoming American president, warn of the danger we have brought on ourselves: "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide" (emphasis added).
Although astonishingly farsighted, even the reputable Abraham Lincoln likely could not have foreseen the enormous stakes behind the self-absorption, hedonism and self-destruction that are outgrowths of naturalism and the modern media.

Behind the scenes

Who-or what-is ultimately behind these circumstances and trends in our mass media? Who is trying to tell you-and your family-what to think?
The Bible reveals the reality of an enormously powerful presence hard at work behind the scenes trying to influence every man, woman and child on earth to a different way of thinking-a way of thinking built on a foundation of lies.
The apostle Paul calls this unseen force "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Other verses refer to him as "the dragon, that serpent of old, . . . the Devil and Satan" (Revelation 20:2).
The apostle John tells us how successful Satan the devil has been in his manipulative, deceptive work. He writes that "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" and that this evil being "deceives the whole world" (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9, emphasis added throughout).
Of course, Satan doesn't present his ways as they really are-harmful and destructive. (This is spelled out in greater detail in our free booklets Why Does God Allow Suffering? and Is There Really a Devil? ) Instead, the devil "transforms himself into an angel [messenger] of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).
In other words, Satan presents his ways as enlightened and wise when in truth they are the opposite. He cleverly appeals to our human nature, which is hostile to God (Romans 8:7) and, for the most part, concerned only with itself (Galatians 5:19).
In reality, Satan wants to permanently shipwreck the future God has planned for you. This is a fact. When you come to know the big picture of the spiritual forces at work on earth, such knowledge will sober you. Mankind stands in Satan's way. By virtue of the fact that we are alive, we threaten his position and power.
Satan was once an "anointed cherub," a kind of superangel serving at the very throne of God (Ezekiel 28:14). But he rebelled, and God cast him down to earth. When the devil realized he could not overthrow God and take over the universe, he became "Apollyon," meaning "the destroyer" (Revelation 9:11)-the enemy of God and all God's creation, especially humanity (1 Peter 5:8).
Since God will not allow Satan to destroy mankind directly (compare Job 1-2), Satan has concocted devious ways to influence us to destroy ourselves. He inspires men to lead nations into war, hoping to kill off thousands and millions. Short of war, but even more devastating, he has deceived humanity into substituting the false god of science as mankind's savior.
False religions, naturalism, the theory of evolution and related belief systems have kept humanity in darkness for centuries. Satan reasons that, if he can't kill mankind off wholesale, then he will work at keeping mankind deceived. Paul tells us the devil has successfully "blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4, New International Version).
These are the big stakes in the battle our arch-adversary is desperate to win. He is determined to keep human beings confused, filled with harmful and distorted biases and separated from God, cut off from right knowledge.
Paul elsewhere calls Satan "the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:2, New Revised Standard Version). Writing many centuries before the advent of television and radio, Paul showed that the devil transmits what we might call a spiritual broadcast of moods and attitudes to which human minds are tuned.
Of course, as the god of this age, influencing human minds everywhere, he is also the ruler and manipulator at work behind the scenes in the world's electronic broadcasts and other media sources, using them to promote choices and behavior that are directly contrary to our Creator's instructions. But we are not helpless before the devil. With God's help, we can resist these negative spiritual forces (James 4:7).

Right media, right advertising

Because God created us, He knows what makes us tick, how we best learn and what is mentally healthful for us. The world's media outlets aren't inherently good or evil; they are simply means of communicating information. However, the way they are used, and the content they carry, can be helpful and positive, neutral or enormously destructive.
Paul said we should be aware of conditions around us (1 Thessalonians 5:1-8). However, before you accept an important headline or story as gospel truth, question it and reserve judgment-and maybe even take time to research it if it pertains to an issue that is important to you. Compare it with other sources and perspectives on the same subject.
With some digging you may find other media sources, such as better-researched newspaper and magazine articles, that can supply you with a more-accurate perspective on the story. Some Internet sources, such as NewsMax or the Media Research Center, often cover stories ignored by most media outlets and present alternative perspectives on many major stories and situations.
Major TV networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, and major newspapers such as The New York Times , do present many stories that are unbiased. But, when it comes to stories that bear on moral values and ideology-and these are the most important stories-the major networks often present them with a liberal or ungodly spin that does not well serve their audiences. Fox News is currently the only conservativeleaning major television news network.
Of course, your best source for the unbiased truth as it relates to the world we live in is your Bible. It is the source that shapes the perspective of The Good News. This magazine's subtitle, A Magazine of Understanding, is there for good reason. Our primary purpose is to help you see major trends and events through the perspective of the Bible, helping you see them as God views them. It is our goal to make it the most biblically relevant and revealing publication on earth. But we encourage you to check the Bible references-to make sure we accurately present what God has to say.
Who is telling you what to think? It should be God's Word, not shortsighted and misguided human beings motivated by their social or moneymaking agendas. God alone possesses the wisdom we need to give us a clear perspective of what's going on around us in these dangerous times. Jesus, in praying to our heavenly Father, said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). He also says to us, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).
More and more, modern media direct us away from the truth of God and toward Satan's widespread deceptions. What can you do? You can turn to God in prayer and ask Him to open your eyes to His truth, to set you free from the subtle darkness that envelops "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4). God promises to answer those who sincerely set their hearts to find Him (Jeremiah 29:12-13).
You then need to allow God to instruct you-first through your own study of His Word, the Holy Bible. The publishers of The Good News offer biblically based media sources-such as this magazine, our Bible Study Course and booklets on many topics-to help you see and understand things from God's perspective. If you have a computer, we also urge you to become a regular follower of our Bible Reading Program on the Internet so you can learn even more by digging directly into God's Word.
With our individual cooperation, God can teach us what to think and do and how to avoid seduction by the dangerous messages of the modern mainstream media.
As you consider whether to accept the newspapers' or television news programs' gospel truth, or whether to view the violence and vulgarity on television and movie screens, or hear the seductive, suggestive lyrics of many songs, be sure to ask yourself who is telling you what to think- and whether you should listen. GN

Related Content

The Media's Alternative Gospel - (Article)

Good News Editor

The major media news organizations and outlets, says journalist William Proctor, have their own lists of rights and wrongs that they support or condemn through their editorials and reporting.

A Telling Profile of Media Professional - (Article)

Good News Editor

The entertainment establishment-writers, producers and stars of the movies, TV programs and music we consume-are overwhelmingly liberal in their political outlook.

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Should You Believe All the News You Hear?

article by Jerold Aust, Scott Ashley

Many people's outlook on current events, culture, society and the world is shaped by the news they read and hear. But how truthful is most reporting? Can you-and should you-believe everything you hear?

The credo of professional journalists is to report facts and events objectively. Yet several recent books document journalists slanting their reporting to favor their biases and further their prejudices, especially left-leaning agendas.
Longtime CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg realized how deep media bias can run as he reviewed a February 1996 story presented by fellow CBS reporter Eric Engberg. In his best-selling book Bias, Mr. Goldberg expressed his shock at the way Mr. Engberg's report poked fun at presidential candidate and Forbes -magazine publisher Steve Forbes' proposal for a flat tax rate.
"Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir good for everything that ails us,"Mr. Engberg began. He then proceeded to interview three supposed tax experts, all of whom opposed Mr. Forbes' proposal to overhaul the massive U.S. tax code. He then referred to the flat-tax idea as "wacky" and a "giant, untested idea" that should be "test[ed] out someplace-like Albania" (2002, pp. 16-18).
As Mr. Goldberg points out, Mr. Engberg could easily have found respected economists who supported Mr. Forbes'flat tax- especially since two Nobel-prize-winning economists and various conservative university economics professors were on record as supporting the idea.
Mr. Goldberg concludes: "From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS put it on the air? Well, news fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants - anything! Just keep calling until one of the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you'll be right down with your camera crew to interview him.
"If you find an expert who says, 'You know, I think that flat tax just might work and here's why . . .' you thank him, hang up, and find another expert. It's how journalists sneak their own personal views into stories in the guise of objective news reporting. Because the reporter can always say, 'Hey, I didn't say the flat tax stinks- the guy from that Washington think tank did!'" (ibid., p. 20).
Mr. Goldberg also notes that too many reporters, editors and columnists live in their own insular world, isolated from other views and sources of information. He cites the example of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment when Richard Nixon beat liberal candidate George McGovern in the 1972 U.S. presidential election. "How can that be?" she exclaimed. "Nobody I know voted for Nixon."Yet Mr. Nixon had carried 49 of the 50 states in a landslide election victory.

Slanted news reporting

William McGowan, former reporter for Newsweek and the BBC and a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal explains in his recent book Coloring the News that the news media's crusade for a favorite liberal cause-diversity- has corrupted American journalism by promoting homosexual rights, feminism, affirmative action, race and immigration over objective debate and honesty.
He recounts that in December 1992 he attended the Diversity Summit Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America. From that point forward, he notes, media coverage underwent a major and lasting change.
"The cause of diversity had become a crusade across the length and breadth of the American media, and would be a defining and dominating force in journalism in the decade to come. Almost every day after that 1992 meeting, one could hear echoes from it in newspaper stories and nightly network broadcasts. Diversity was the new religion, and anybody who wanted to be anybody in the news industry had to rally behind it" (2001, pp. 9-10).

From media darling to pariah

Another revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.
Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In it she explains that "what began so many years ago as a noble cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's people . . . who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive' point of view . . .
"There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group" (2001, p. 4).
The result is that "the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired [or] sued . . . Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down" (ibid., pp. 2-3).
Not surprisingly, all three books have been generally ignored in the mainstream media, even though Bias has become a best-seller in the United States.

Bias affects reporting

How do such media biases affect everyday reporting? One notable example involved coverage of the campaigns leading up to a recent national election. The major liberal candidate was consistently portrayed by the mainstream media as a deep thinker and intellectual heavyweight. The leading conservative candidate, on the other hand, was typically portrayed as something of an amiable dunce, a man generally incapable of speaking clearly and presenting ideas coherently.
Seldom compared by the media were details of the academic backgrounds of the two candidates. Both had graduated from Ivy League schools, one from Harvard, the other from Yale. However, from there the "smart" one went to Vanderbilt Divinity School, where, according to a biography and column in The Boston Globe "he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters" before dropping out. He then enrolled for a brief stint at Vanderbilt Law School before again dropping out and entering a lifetime of politics.
The other candidate, depicted as an intellectual featherweight, went on to earn an M.B.A. from Harvard, no insignificant accomplishment. He flew fighter jets in the National Guard. In spite of an impressive showing since assuming office and the most-sustained high approval ratings of any person occupying that office in history, reporters and columnists still occasionally snipe at President George W. Bush for his supposed lack of intelligence.

Mass-media alienation

Most media firms are, in fact, businesses that promote strong liberal biases. Such leanings reflect a warped worldview and lead them to assume their views are normal while the perspectives of those who disagree with them are abnormal. Significantly, several media corporations have been fast losing audiences, some say because of their profound bias.
Many Americans appear to be increasingly aware of the distorted diet the majority of media outlets feeds them in the name of news reporting. Columnist Jack Kelly's perception of modern mainstream media is telling:
"For people who are convinced we're awfully smart, we journalists can be pretty stupid. We've been driving away customers. In 1980, 75 percent of Americans routinely watched evening newscasts on ABC, NBC, or CBS. Last year only 43 percent did. In 1980, 67 percent of adults customarily read a daily newspaper. In 1999, only 57 percent did.
"Television news has lost 43 percent of its audience, newspapers 15 percent of ours. In other businesses, such losses would trigger massive changes. Heads would roll. If word spread McDonald's was using rat feces as filler in hamburgers, McDonald's market share would drop. Viewers and readers are deserting us in droves because they think our product is shallow and biased" ("Media Is Its Own Worst Enemy," Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2002).
But not all journalists remain loyal to liberal biases. Bernard Goldberg, cited above, is perhaps the most popular television journalist who has stood against media bias. Radio-talk-show hosts with countering views, such as Rush Limbaugh, have become nationally popular by riding a wave of dissent against the mainstream media's liberal biases, as have conservative-leaning commentators such as the Fox network's Bill O'Reilly. Fox has been built on mainstream media's abandonment of any vestige of unbiased objectivity. Fox's motto itself is revealing: "We report; you decide."
Today a sentiment grows that the very media outlets that rose to greatness during World War II through most of the last half of the 20th century have begun to engineer their own demise by failing to fulfill their promise of objectivity in reporting.
There also exists a growing belief that the owners of the vast majority of network news outlets are more interested in promoting entertainment personalities and products, along with issues and views popular in related fields, than in promoting and providing unbiased reporting. As a result,Western society often is informed only of news and issues that harmonize with the opinions of those who control the media. This approach leaves in its wake a distorted view of reality as its most disturbing consequence. GN

Related Content

Who's Telling You What to Think? - (Article)

Jerold Aust

Some people accept the news they read in newspapers and watch on television as the gospel truth. Is such trust in our mass media justified? Do you really know who's telling you what to think-and why?

The Media's Alternative Gospel - (Article)

Good News Editor

The major media news organizations and outlets, says journalist William Proctor, have their own lists of rights and wrongs that they support or condemn through their editorials and reporting.

Links of Interest: Attacks on Religion and Freedom

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.


Links of Interest: Attacks on Religion and Freedom

by Darris McNeely

 

Looking at my inbox this week shows several accumulated articles that point to further erosion of religious freedom and tolerance that should be noted.
First, Steve Myers and I did a BT Daily this morning highlighting the Obama administration's effort to dictate to religious bodies how they define health care benefits. The enacted health care legislation that begins next year says to churches and religious bodies they must provide benefites to employers for birth contral and abortion. The Catholic church is up in arms about this. This issue crosses religious lines and impacts all faiths. Former presidential candidate and Baptist minister, Mike Huckabee, is quoted as saying "we are all Catholics" over this issue.
I wouldn't use those words but at least on this issue we would all find common ground. Government legislation that tells a religious body they must provide funding for decisions that violate their belief is a serious breach of liberty. We discuss this in our video.
Then I saw an article in the Financial Times that describes Hungary's curtailing of official recognition for more than 300 denominations. Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government action has caused concern in both the EU and US. With no consultation of established churches Hungary enacted a law which acknowledges 14 "historical churches. Those recognized include, Catholic, Calvinist and at least three Jewish denominations. Those stripped of offical status include Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witness and local Church of England groups. Also no longer recognized are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Bahai groups.
These churchs can appeal their status but it is lengthy and culminates in Parliament, which involves in the end a political decision based on who holds the majority. Crisits say this violates basic ungarian law and is a serious infringment on religious liberty. Given Hungary's long history of struggle for liberty this action is surprising. Anything can happen when a majority hold power.
One final piece comes from California where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a California propositiont that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 had been voted on and passed by citizens in a recent election. This case deals with finer points of constituional law but it effectively opens a path to review by the United States Supreme Court. There, it promises to be decided by a narrow majority of only one vote. It will be interesting to watch.
This case represents actions by a court to define not only public morality but the institution of marriage, the building block of any stable society. It further opens the door to a redefining of marriage into something far beyond what the Bible clearly defines–a sacred union between a man and a woman. Its ramifications will be devastating for the nation.
Religious freedom, free from any intrusion by government, is a legal right in America, long defended in many cases. To circumvent basic tenets of this historic God-ordained right is serious. While these listed today may not prevent any of us from freedom of assembly according to our conscience they can represent the first steps toward intolerance and persecution, and even in a free society this must we vigilently watched.
The apostles James and John were threatened with punishment when they preached the truth of Christ's resurrection to the people of Jerusalem. When told to cease by the religious authoritties they gave an answer that echoes down to us today: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
There will be a day when many of us will have to make the same declaration. God give us the strength to follow in their footsteps.