Did Jesus Christ Really Live? By Marshall Gauvin (N.Y., 1925, 34 pp, in PP 1093) Online version: www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
Introduction: According to Independent Publications, "Marshall J. Gauvin (1881-1978) was among this century’s most learned and prolific Freethought authors. Intellectually speaking, he was on the level of Joseph McCabe [a well known figure in Atheism]. Published mostly in
Critique by Mark McFall:
Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in
But first, a preliminary comment: it was at a Wednesday night Bible study class where the nucleus of this critique began to take shape. A non-believing gentleman, influenced by his believing wife to come to the class, came with copies of an essay that argued that Jesus never existed. After about fifteen minutes of listening to this gentleman’s questions and concerns while simultaneously skimming through copies he provided: I asked him if I could keep the essay with the intent to get back to him on it. Soon thereafter, I came to learn that Gauvin’s essay on the historicity of Jesus is rated number #1 on the Internet (as a result of searching that topic on Google). For that reason, though this critique was originally written for a smaller audience, it has now been formatted to fit the needs of a much larger reading public.
On that note, let’s now delve into Gauvin’s popular essay. According to Gauvin, "not only has the divinity of Christ been given up" in contemporary scholarship, but "some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all." Is this true? Or, is Gauvin simply creating the illusion of a scholarly consensus that favors his view?
While the "divinity of Christ" is by no means embraced by contemporary scholarship as a whole, there are certainly a large number of main-line scholars who do embrace the "divinity of Christ." One does not have to look very hard to find scholars who are internationally respected to see that Gauvin’s blanket statement is erroneous.
Furthermore, if we apply Gauvin’s own argumentation to the second portion of his statement, we will find the notion that Jesus did NOT exist "has been given up" by not only the majority of competent modern scholars, but it has even "been given up" by the Skeptical community at large. Indeed, and this is no illusion, the Association Of British Humanist reports that "almost all scholars believe that Jesus existed in the first century CE in
The next point Gauvin attempts to make is that Christianity is "the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind." But what exactly does that mean? Gauvin’s language is much too abstract here to make any specific response. However, if he is asserting the biggest threat to Christianity is knowledge, then Gauvin’s fans are in for some surprises. After all, knowledge is a double-edged sword as this critique will show (see also: What Is Atheism? Review )
Gauvin then writes: "if the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief," and states, "if no evidence for his existence can be found... [Jesus] will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world." For Gauvin, whose prior tendentious desires relegate Jesus to a demigod, the evidence that supports Jesus’ existence is nil.
What about the Gospels? Don’t the Gospels count as some sort of evidence for His existence? Not in Gauvin’s view. For him, there are simply too many problems surrounding the Gospels to recognize them as sufficient evidence. "What kind of problems?" you ask. We’ll address Gauvin’s concerns here in just a moment.
First, Gauvin initially starts us off with a good corrective on how to identify the anonymous Gospels. He comments, "they are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark." While that corrective is instructive, a better way to identify the Gospels would be: "the writer of Mark," "the writer of Matthew," etc... The reasoning behind this type of corrective is the text of the Gospels themselves are anonymous and scholars generally agree the materials that make up each Gospel emerged as units from independent communities rather than from the knowledge of single authors.
Gauvin then writes: "biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four," and states, "the chief reasons for this conclusion [is] that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three," and asserts, "the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the ‘Gospel of Mark.’"
But the notion that the other three Evangelists enlarged their works off the writer of Mark is not an "established fact," rather, it’s an assumption based on a theory that Mark was written first and used as source material for Matthew and Luke. Granted, that assumption is believed by many (but not all) scholars to be the best answer to the question of how the gospel materials became written works. But to what extent did Matthew and Luke use Mark if this assumption is correct? After all, despite the many similarities between the Gospels, there are distinctive differences between them (see ITW Gospel Synopses). In any event, Gauvin’s readers are led to believe this is a "fact" when it really isn’t.
Gauvin’s negativity is then brought out a little further when he writes: "the Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document." This is a bit of misnomer. Bruce Metzger, a recognized serious scholar, comments that "scholars have differed in their evaluation of the historicity of John’s account" (
"Since roughly the middle of the twentieth century support has been growing for the view that the basic tradition underlying John’s gospel may be historically more reliable than previously acknowledged" (pg, 374).
While it is true "the Gospel of John" is more theologically oriented than the synoptic Gospels, the many references it makes to particular buildings and landscapes render it as having historical value.
In relation to the four Gospels, Gauvin views them as depicting different types of theological Jesus’. In his mind, Mark depicts Jesus as a mere "man"; Matthew and Luke depict Jesus as a "demigod"; and John depicts Jesus as "God himself"; Gauvin’s argument is essentially that the Gospels represent stages of theological thought. But how far apart are the theological constructs of Jesus in the Gospels?
Contrary to Gauvin’s view that Mark regards Jesus as no more than a mere man; verse one, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," suggests a divine undertone. Indeed, throughout Mark we see settings where Jesus is addressed as the Son of God (3:11; 5:7; 14:61; 15:39) and where God is recorded as saying that Jesus is His Son (1:11; 9:7). Moreover, can a mere man also know what’s in the heart and mind of others? According to Mark, Jesus not only had that ability, but He was also aware of individual circumstances (2:5, 8;
Gauvin then states that "there is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died." Is this true? And how can we know that our copies are accurate? After all, there are no originals to compare our copies to.
While it is true that we do not have a "present form" Gospel dated within this time period, it is also true there have been important discoveries since the writing of Gauvin’s essay. In that respect, we now have a "fragment" known as "P52" (contains John
Furthermore, despite Gauvin’s attempt to punch holes in the textual reliability of the New Testament, readers should be aware that there are some within the Skeptical community seeking to patch up criticism of this nature. Jeffery Lowder, in his review on The Case For Christ, remarks in reference to textual scholar Bruce Metzger:
"According to Metzger, ‘the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like’ (p. 76). Moreover, as Metzger points out, we have far more ancient copies of the New Testament than we have of, say, Homer's Iliad or Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome. Since I am not aware of any classical scholar who seriously questions the textual reliability of those works, I am willing to accept the textual reliability of the New Testament" (www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html ).
Though Lowder goes on to say that his admission does not mean that he "accept[s] the empirical accuracy of the New Testament," his comments do reveal a rather objective outlook worth consideration.
Gauvin then writes, "we are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D.," and emphasizes, "let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible."
That emphasis, however, is incorrect. The majority of scholars whether conservative or liberal place all the Gospels before 100 A.D. In fact, even G.A. Wells, a scholar who is often favorable to skeptical views, states that he "date[s] all four Gospels at ca. AD 90" (The Jesus Legend, 1996, pg. 71).
Under the illusion that most of the Gospels were written after 100 A.D., Gauvin asks: how can [the] Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived?"
For most scholars, the value seen in the Gospels is that they are documents that assume (at their core) the existence of Jesus. "Is that valid reasoning?" you ask. I think it is. Take for instance the Egyptian god Osiris: though there are developed supernatural elements surrounding what we know of him, scholars (modern: Budge, Faulkner, Goelet; ancient: Plutarch, Diodorus) nonetheless assume that he did live and reign as an historical Egyptian King. The underlining thinking in that regard is the motivation for the writing of texts and the traditions (i.e. ceremonies, identifiable locations of dispersed body parts, etc...) they preserve. In other words, they think Osiris lived and walked this earth by the implications set forth by interested writers rather than disinterested independent sources. What is of comparable interest to us, the general laity, is that scholars base this evaluation on texts written several thousand years after Osiris died. In contrast, the Gospel documents were written within a 100 years of Jesus’ death. In my opinion, Gauvin is playing fast and loose with the evidence for Jesus’ existence.
Nevertheless, in Gauvin’s view: this is hogwash. To him, because the Gospels were merely written "several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts," the Gospel evidence for Jesus’ existence is a joke. But the fact is: there is far less evidence for the existence of the Egyptian King Osiris than there is for Jesus. In that regard, the majority of scholars assume both of these individuals existed despite the supernatural elements that surround them.
Gauvin, changing his tempo, then touches on an inexactitude between Matthew and Luke in order to undermine the reliability of the Bible. On that, Gauvin writes:
"If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these two rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth."
Though Gauvin has identified a deficiency in Luke that does not square with Tacitus and Josephus concerning the sequence of governors in
Nevertheless, if Gauvin sees this as pulling the mat from under the reliability of Luke, then that same mat must also be pulled from under reliable historians like Polybius, Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus. After all, they have similar deficiencies in their writings. The point is Luke is just as a reliable historian as these ancient historians; the proverbial expression, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" seems applicable here.
Gauvin asks: "How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue?" Gauvin’s response is to state that "according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year...[and] was confined almost entirely to Galilee," and, "if John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years....[mostly] in Judea."
Granted, Gauvin may have a point here regarding reported divergences in geographical and chronological detail. But these types of problems only give way to the notion that the Gospels, though similar, have individuality within them: implying that each Gospel writer had access to a somewhat different body of oral tradition. In that regard, scholars tell us these types of placement problems are due in fact to materials within the Gospels circulating orally and in separate units for roughly thirty to forty years before they were put in writing.
Without that consideration, Gauvin pushes on by telling us the writer of John reports "that the driving of the money-changers from the
As we move on, Gauvin writes, "nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion," and states, the Roman "courts were models of order and fairness." In Gauvin’s view, "a man was not condemned without a trial, [and] he [certainly] was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty." "Yet," Gauvin asks, "we are [told] to believe that an innocent man [Jesus] was brought before a Roman court [with] no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him....and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified!" In Gauvin’s words: "surely [this is] not history." Or is it?
Philo, a contemporary of Pilate, mentions that Pilate was a man who was merciless. In fact, Philo notes that Pilate frequently murdered the untried and uncondemned (see, Philo, Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii); and Luke reports similar atrocious behavior (see, Luke 13:1). Again, we see Gauvin creating negative ideas that evaporate in the heat of the facts.
After more comments on how supposedly "worthless" the Gospels are, Gauvin writes:
"Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character."
In Gauvin’s reasoning, the supernatural elements that surround Jesus in the Gospel texts categorize them as entirely fictional despite strata of historicity. To him, non-biblical independent confirmation is needed in order to give a credible rise to the idea that Jesus actually lived. In response to this line of argumentation, Jeffery Lowder again offers those within his own Skeptical community some helpful advice:
"When skeptics question the existence of Jesus, they often assume that anyone who accepts the historicity of Jesus must be able to provide extra-Biblical confirmation of his existence. According to this view, the New Testament does not provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus; independent confirmation is needed...In my opinion, that view is mistaken....First, one should not define 'historicity of Jesus,' as many have done, to mean 'whether the Christ of the New Testament existed -- whether Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, etc.' This is both misleading and ahistorical...., independent confirmation is not necessary to establish the mere existence of the Jesus of the New Testament...It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material," we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed." (www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html )
Gauvin then goes on a rant about how the earliest Christian writer, Paul, knows nothing of Jesus’ sayings or ministry. In Gauvin’s words:
"Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world --that is, if the Epistles may be trusted-- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus....The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to
Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels."
Does Paul really know nothing of Jesus’ sayings? Well, upon a closer look at the writings that bear Paul’s name we find that Paul does show some knowledge of ideas expressed by Jesus (perhaps gleaned from his interview with Peter {Gal.
Furthermore, while Gauvin asserts that the Jesus Paul knew was phantom like (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15), we must not forget that Paul also mentioned that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once (1Cor. 15:5). In light of these two competing perceptions, the writer of John, while stressing a physical resurrection, reports that Jesus was able to pass though walls (Jn. 20:26) and show himself for an inspection of His reality (Jn. 20:27). Similarly, in Luke, we read that while two disciples were walking toward Emmaus after Jesus’ death, "Jesus himself came up and walked along with them" (Lk. 24:16). At first, Luke says, they did not recognize who he was; but when they did finally recognize Him, Jesus "disappeared out of their sight" (vs. 31).
From this type of reporting, we can reasonably glean that Jesus passed into a mode of being out of which he became superior to obstacles in our reality, and that those who witnessed and interpreted resurrection appearances/experiences were doing so by way of what they came to view or know. In other words, those who reported these appearances/experiences had no special insight (other than what they saw) into the properties of this special resurrected man.
Nevertheless, the fact that there are an accumulative of unusual reports surrounding the days following Jesus’ death should cause the average skeptic to take a moment of pause, to, rethink through the literary evidences that point toward the legitimacy of postmortem appearances by Jesus.
Having said that, most of Paul’s writings do steer away from historical references to Jesus, focusing instead on theological and church related issues; but that is unsurprising when we take into consideration that Paul, as Gauvin implies, most likely never met the earthly Jesus. For Paul, his concern centered on developing healthy congregations where sound teaching could be taught in a religious context.
Gauvin, still under the notion that non-biblical confirmation of Jesus’ existence is needed, asserts that out of a total of 42 writers who lived within a century of Jesus: "there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus." Is this true? What about Josephus?
According to Gauvin, the Jewish historian Josephus made no mention of Jesus in his original writings; but that Christian scribes living a couple of hundred years later inserted a reference to Jesus which scholars term as the Testimonium Flavianum (
True, there appears to be a bit of tampering with the text. But Gauvin’s argument was written at a time when the scholarly consensus favored his opinion. Nowadays, however, the scholarly consensus has shifted to embrace the notion that even though there appears to be tampering: it is generally recognized to have a reliable core minus the doctrinal over-tones (see: Testimonium of Flavius Josephus).
In that respect, skeptic Peter Kirby notes that Louis Feldman (a respected scholar on Josephus) "surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980" and found that "4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation." It appears here that Kirby agrees there has been a shift in academic circles (See: www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html ).
Arguing from the stand point that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery, Gauvin then incriminates the church Father Eusebius for perpetrating this alleged wrong. What evidence does Gauvin have for such a serious charge? Gauvin doesn’t tell us explicitly. Instead, he merely says that "Eusebius [is known to have] advocated fraud in the interest of the faith."
Now I’ve come across this charge before, and I’ve also even been presented with citations (De Praeparatione Evangelica, Bk. 12.31; Ecclesiastical History, bk. 8.2) to passages which suggest that Eusebius may have done this. But recent doubt has come to light that one of the quotes attributed to Eusebius may be fraudulent, and the only other quote is an embellishment: the words of a particular critic of Christianity, Edward Gibbon (1737-1795), seem to have taken on a life of their own.
On the latter, the contents of the citations appear to have derived from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (c. xvi) where Gibbon references chapter titles that may well have been indexed by Byzantine scribes, and not Eusebius himself: Eusebian scholars are simply unsure if chapter titles were added at a later time.
On the former, "Ecclesiastical History (bk. 8.2)," this citation is primarily the subject of embellished skeptical interpretation (originating with Gibbon) because Eusebius stated he wasn’t going to record all the vast amounts of Christian interests. Skeptics take this to mean that Eusebius "suppressed" information. But even if that were true, Gauvin’s charge that "Eusebius advocated fraud in the interest of the faith" is still seriously begging the question.
As we return again to Josephus. Of considerable interest is that Gauvin is silent on an important passage found elsewhere in Josephus’ writings:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, who name was James, and some others..." (
Ant., Book XX).
This passage is the single strongest piece of evidence outside the Bible for Jesus’ existence (pending a thorough evaluation of the recent discovery of the so-called "James Ossuary" that bears the inscription: "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus" [dated 63 A.D.]). Indeed, it’s recognized as authentic by the vast majority of Josephan scholarship.
According to Louis Feldman, "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James" (Vol. 10, Loeb, pg. 108). For those skeptics who think I’m creating an illusory scholarly consensus. Steve Carr, of the UK’s Leading Atheist Webpage, acknowledges this same point: "The view that the reference in book 20 is an addition, is a minority view" (Xtianity,
Turning now to the Roman historian Tacitus, and his mention of Christus’ being the founder of a party called Christian; Gauvin comments: "the evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus." But why should we trust Gauvin here if he’s been found to be untrustworthy on similar matters? After all, Paul Meier, who is consider right now to be today’s leading authority on studies related to the historical Jesus, notes that "despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine" (A Marginal Jew, Vol pg 90). Given Gauvin’s track record, something tells me the opinion of an historian is more trustworthy here.
Moreover, Gauvin writes that because "the Annals [of Tacitus] were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time, [that] even if genuine, [it] would not prove anything as to Jesus."
"To Jesus"? I’m not sure what that means. What’s obvious, however, is that Tacitus was an historian and not a current events journalist. In other words, historians rely on what they perceive as reliable hearsay and write from that perspective. Admittedly, the reports of Tacitus serve to a lesser degree in the quest for the existence of Jesus because of their lateness and lack of new information. But at the very least, the comments of Tacitus (if genuine) serve to demonstrate that there was a body of believers by the time of A.D. 120 who had based a religion around a man who was believed to have lived during the time of Pontius Pilate.
In our brief review of Gauvin and his analysis of Jesus, we find that Gauvin has bent over backwards in an effort to discredit the Gospels as evidence even though he thought they hardly counted as evidence. Gauvin also frequently appealed to scholarly consensus that didn’t pan out when checked. Also, he used confusing and abstract language to create negative impressions. We observed Gauvin leading readers to believe something was a "fact" when it really wasn’t. We witnessed Gauvin making serious blunders while supposedly identifying positions within Christian scholarship. We noticed that Gauvin became confused on the distinctive emphases found in the interpretive portraits of the Gospels in relation to Jesus’ life. We read that Gauvin stands alone on the late dates he gives the Gospels when both the majority of liberal and conservative scholars place them before 100 A.D. We watched Gauvin appeal to deficiencies in geographical and chronological data in order to erode the reliability of the Gospel documents, but we are now aware that other ancient historians have similar deficiencies in their texts and are still considered reliable. We observed Gauvin demand non-biblical references to confirm Jesus’ existence, but we read from a popular skeptic who offered a corrective in that regard. We saw Gauvin appeal to the scholarly consensus that favored his view of the Testimonium Flavianum, but we have learned that the scholarly consensus has now shifted to embrace the notion that despite tampering there appears to be a historical core minus doctrinal overtones. In addition, we witnessed Gauvin by mere assertion (where reasonable doubt is present) accuse Eusebius of perpetrating that forgery. Interestingly however, we did not see Gauvin make any mention of Book 20 in Josephus which is a very telling silence since it is the single strongest piece of non-biblical evidence on the existence of Jesus.
In short, Gauvin’s argumentative layouts reveal his hidden desire to mislead the average churchgoer, or anyone else who may be investigating Christianity. His negative attitude towards Christianity shows he was never out to present an objective analysis on the evidence for Jesus’ existence in the first place. For Gauvin, the axe that he was grinding was theological and not related to historical quests. In Gauvin’s closing words:
"The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love."
Like many hardcore skeptics of today, Gauvin’s predisposition caused him to criticize the Gospels and the portraits they paint of Jesus Christ. The concern here is not about correcting his anti-Christian approach - after all it is too late for that. But for those who have been persuaded by his work, the concern and hope is that they see Gauvin’s negative analysis for what it is, and therefore make their own honest survey of the Gospels for the man that was first identified as Jesus of Nazareth.
-----Postscript------
Paul alluding to known sayings of Jesus....
Paul |
Jesus |
Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not (Rom. |
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you (Mat. |
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean ( |
Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man (Mat. |
In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in the spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ (1Corn. 5:4) |
For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their mist (Mat. |
And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Corn. 13:2) |
...because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you (Mat. 17:20) |
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing (1 Corn. 13:3). |
...one thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me (Mk. |
Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ–I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! (2 Corn. 10:1). |
Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls (Mat. |
They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they with to shut you out, in order that you may seek them (Gal. 4.17). |
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, or do you allow those who are entering to go in (Mat. 23:23). |
Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you (1 Thes. 4:8). |
He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me (Mat. |