Return to Index Page

 

Truth (Part Two)

By Richard Gunther

  

12

Will the Real Church please stand Up?

The "New Reformation Review" on the InterNet is a good source for information on home-churches. The following has been drawn from their site.

"The Protestant Reformation gave the Bible and the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer back to the people. The problem was that the people received the doctrine but never the reality. Roman Catholic priests were simply replaced by Protestant priests or pastors with essentially the same offices and duties. The Bible was returned but the priesthood was never returned."

There are many 'heroes' of the Reformation - men, and sometimes women, who faced the religious network of power-play, the church hierarchies, the strangleholds of tradition and superstition - and fought until freedom came. We usually speak with admiration about Martin Luther, who stood against the traditions of the Roman Church.

But what has happened to the Church today? It has become strangled by tradition and buried under a huge weight of Man-made forms and ornaments. A wave of liberation is sweeping through, drawing out believers who want to do things the way the Bible teaches, but there are millions who either don't know how far they have been taken into captivity, or who have some idea but are too scared to make a break with what they are familiar with.

Acts 2: 40 - 47 describes the early Church in terms of preaching, teaching, baptising, studying the Bible, fellowshipping, meeting for common meals in each other's homes, having signs and wonders, meeting each other's needs, expanding and growing in numbers rapidly . . . ask yourself this : when your fellowship meets, do you spend time just enjoying each other's company or do you go straight into The Service? Do you meet in each others homes, or do you have a large building with many seats to fill? Do you meet for a shared meal, or do you go back home after the Service to eat alone and apart for the other believers? Do you all share some spiritual gift with the other believers, or does only the pastor, minister, or whatever speak? Are you aware of the material or other needs of the other believers, or do they just have to make ends meet?

How far is your fellowship from the original pattern set by God?

13

The Truth about Pastors

 

Truth is very important. It can decide the difference between life or death. Heaven or hell. If the wrong label is stuck on a bottle of poison, a person may die. If a road sign is knocked over, someone may drive off a cliff. If a theory by Darwin is accepted, people may commit suicide because they think life is meaningless, babies may be murdered because people might think the foetus is not human, scientists may expect 60 feet of dust on the moon, sincere astronomers may look for life on other planets, Communists might slaughter millions because they think the strongest should destroy the weakest . . . as God Himself said "My people are destroyed for (because of) lack of knowledge; Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me;" Hose. 4:6.

Think of some of the situations where truth makes a huge difference.

Navigation - if the compass lies, the ship may be lost.

Politics - if the speech is false, the votes will fail.

Science - if the facts are wrong, the conclusions will be wrong too.

Medicine - if the doctor prescribes the wrong drugs, the patient might never recover.

Law - if the witness fails to tell the truth, the innocent may be imprisoned.

War - if the report is inaccurate, the battle may be lost.

Trust - if adults fail to keep their word, children may become cynical.

Religion - if a god is Man-made, millions may go to Hell trusting in a lie.

One outstanding piece of misleading theology is the fabrication concerning the Pastor. This title and position has been generally accepted by the whole of Christendom, just as the position of Pope has been celebrated sincerely by millions of Catholics. A true Catholic would never think of challenging the title of the Pope. Sure, this man and his successors are in a place ordained by God?!

In the NT and in the early church, up till about 150 AD there was no such thing as "the Pastor". In every fellowship there were two or three people elected as elders, and in most respects, all the believers were equals.

But just as the people of Israel were not content to have God as their king, but instead pleaded with Samuel to give them an earthly one, there were people in the church who were not content with shared equality. The position of Pastor was elevated and a hierarchy grew up which began to strangle the life of the believers - because as soon as you allow any single human (however sincere and wonderfully gifted) to take over the steering of a fellowship, you damage the freedom of the weaker, and less outgoing believers.

The truth is that pastors are called by three different words in the Greek NT. All three words refer to the same office.

Pastor = 'poimen', elder = 'presbuteros', overseer = 'episkopos'. (KJV says 'bishop')

A pastor is an elder, a pastor is an overseer, an elder is a pastor, an elder is an overseer, an overseer is a pastor, an overseer is an elder.

Elder = overseer, as in Titus 1:5 where Paul instructs Titus to "appoint elders in every city" and then tells Titus that an overseer must be reproach. Now cross-reference with 1Tim.3:2 with 1Tim. 5:17. Also 1Pet. 5:1,2 where peter equates "elders" with "oversight". Also Phillippians 1:1 where Paul addresses the "overseers" and "deacons" instead of "elders" and deacons. Paul is obviously referring to the elders of the church, yet he calls them "overseers". Lightfoot says : "in every one of the extant commentaries . . . whether Greek or latin, this identity (of overseer and elder) is affirmed."

To prove that elder = pastor see 1Pet. 5:1,2. In verse 2 "pastor" is often translated "shepherd". The Greek word is 'poimen' which means to feed, to shepherd, and to pastor.

Logically, if an elder is an overseer, and an elder is also a pastor, then a pastor must be an overseer too.

One-pastor churches?

1. Watchman Nee said : "Nowhere in God's Word do we find anyone referred to by the name of pastor."

2. Not one NT letter is addressed to "The Pastor".

3. Paul and Barnabas weren't received by "The Pastor" at the Jerusalem Council - Acts 15. They were received by the "apostles and elders."

4. The apostles appointed "elders" Acts 14;23, Titus 1:5, but never "pastors."

5.The poor-relief collection was brought by Barnabas and Saul to "the elders" of the church at Jerusalem, not the "pastor" Acts 11"30.

6. It is "the elders" who are rewarded with double honour for ruling well. 1Tim. 5:17.

7. Acts 20:17 and 20:28. Paul invites the Ephesian "elders" to Miletus. In verse 17 he tells these same elders that they are "overseers" and that they are to "pastor" the church of God. It is all plural. There is no single man at the top.

So where does this leave us? Knowing the truth do we do act on what we know, or do we sit back and do nothing? Martin Luther King stood up for equality among blacks and whites. He saw the truth in the Bible and fought for it. Wilberforce fought for freedom for slaves. John the Baptist fought for righteousness with Herod. Jesus took a whip to the Temple.

The name Pastor and its present-day connotations is just one small tip of a huge iceberg of ornamentation and decoration which presently festoons Christendom. Here are a few more words, titles and position-related names which have grown up over the past few hundred years. Some of these words are Biblical, but now have more meaning added to them than they originally carried, others have been changed in meaning to mean something quite different from their original meaning :

CHURCHDOM ministry, apostleship, priesthood, prelacy, hierarchy, clerical, episcopalian, archbishopric, archiepiscopacy, prelacy, diocese, deanery, canonry, prebend, benefice, incumbency, glebe, advowson, living, rectorship, deaconry, chaplaincy, cardinalate, abbacy, presbytery, holy orders, ordination, institution, consecration, induction, reading in, preferment, translation, presentation, popedom, papacy, apostolic see, council, conclave, college of cardinals, convocation, synod, consistory, chapter, vestry, sanhedrin, ecclesiastical courts, consistorial courts, call, ordain, induct, prefer, translate, consecrate, present, elect, bestow . . .etc.

CLERGY clericals, ministry, priesthood, presbytery, the cloth, the pulpit, divine, ecclesiastic, churchman, priest, hierophant, pastor, shepherd, minister, clerk in holy orders, father, padre, patriarch, reverend, confessor, eminence, reverence, elder, primate, metropolitan, archimandrite, archbishop, bishop, prelate, diocesan, suffragan, dean, subdean, archdeacon, prebendary, canon, rural dean, rector, parson, vicar, perpetual curate, residentiary, beneficiary, incumbent, chaplain, curate, preacher, lay reader, lecturer, capitular, missionary, Jesuit, revivalist, field preacher, churchwarden, sidesman, clerk, precentor, almoner, verger, beadle, sexton . . .etc.

CHURCH TITLES ( mainly Roman Church) Pope, Papa, Holy Father, pontiff, high priest, flamen, penitentiary, spiritual director, cenobite, conventual, abbot, prior, monk, friar, lay brother, beadsman, mendicant, pilgrim, palmer, canon-regular, Fransiscan, Friars minor, Minorites, Observant, Capuchin, Dominican, Carmelite, Augustinian, Gilbertine, Austin friars (also Black, White, Grey, Crossed, Crutched), Bonhomme, Carthusian, Benedictine, Cistercian, Trappist, Cluniac, Premonstratensian, Maturine, Templar, Hospitaller, canoness, mother superior, nun, sister, novice, postulant, Levite, Rabbi, scribe, the Reverend, the very Reverend, the right Reverend . . . etc.

CHURCH BUILDINGS cathedral, minister, kirk, chapel, meeting-house, bethel, tabernacle, conventicle, basilica, fane, holy place, chantry, oratory, parsonage, rectory, vicarage, manse, deanery, glebe, church house, Vatican, bishop's palace, shrine, chancel, nave, quire, aisle, transept, lady chapel, crypt, cloister, triforum, clerestory, churchyard, sepulcher, stall, pew, sitting, pulpit, ambo, lectern, confessional, prothesis, credence, baldachin, jesse, apse, belfry, chapter-house, presbytery . . . monastery, priory, abbey, friary, convent, nunnery, cloister . . . etc.

14

Getting it Right

This is not to say that a church is not to have structure, with people appointed to do different tasks. Every home church should recognise where the different gifts lie with each member, and there is nothing wrong with giving a task a name or title, but the question we should ask every time is "How does this line up with the model of the early church? Is it an addition to what Jesus started? Is it a detraction from what he started?

In the OT king David and thirty thousand other people decided to bring the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem, but they put it on a "new cart" and the "sons of Abinidab" accompanied it. God's anger flashed out against this event, sincere though it was, and David learned that it was better to do things the way God wanted them done. 2 Sam. 6. The lesson is plain and obvious. Thirty thousand people thought they were doing things the right way, so did the king, so did the huge number of people playing instruments, so did Uzzah, who put out his hand to steady the cart, but God was not pleased. Uzzah died. All the people should have died with him, but God is merciful.

There is a strong message here to the Main-line Protestant churches.

There used to be an advertisement on TV in which a group of men faced the view while a voice asked, which of these men is wearing (a certain) brand of hair cream? Gradually a wind picked up, until only one man's hair remained flat on his head. Today the Lord is blowing across the heads of his Church, looking for the Christians who are using the Bible as their standard, rather than the traditions of men. If the wind blows through your church doors, will there be believers whose hair is not ruffled?

15

The Poison of Traditions

People will tolerate changes to their music, their clothes, their Government, their roads, their tax, their shopping centre, their road surface, their local Park, their milk deliveries, their dog-licensing fees, their local Council, and a hundred other things, but woe betide the person who dares to change the traditions!

"Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites!" - Jesus, in Matt.15:6.

What will people do to uphold their traditions, even when the truth is openly revealed before them? Sometimes they will force truth to change itself into error, as in the case of Galileo, who challenged the Roman Church on the matter of the earth and the sun.The Roman church made him sign a recantation, putting the earth at the centre of the solar system. Sometimes they will spit, and slap, and revile and nail the truth to a cross - as in the case of Jesus, and some of his followers. Sometimes they will kill the truth violently, as in the following excerpt from 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs' (Page 77) :

PARTICULARS OF WILLIAM GARDENER

"William Gardener was born at Bristol, received a tolerable education, and was, at a proper age, placed under the care of one Paget, an eminent merchant. When twenty six years of age, he was sent to Lisbon. Here he applied himself to the study of the Portugese language, conversed privately with a few whom he knew to be zealous Protestants, and, at the same time, avoided giving offence to any who were Roman Catholics.

A marriage being concluded between the king of Portugal's son and the Infanta of Spain, upon the wedding-day the bridegroom, bride, and the whole court went to the cathedral church, attended by multitudes of all ranks of people, and, among the rest, William Gardener, who stayed during the whole ceremony, and was greatly shocked at the superstitions he beheld. He therefore formed the design of making a reform in Portugal. He settled his worldly affairs, paid his debts, closed his books, and consigned over his merchandise.

On the ensuing Sunday he went to the cathedral church, and placed himself near the altar, with a New Testament in his hand. In a short time the king and court appeared, and a cardinal began mass.

At that part of the ceremony in which the people adore the wafer, Gardener, springing toward the cardinal, snatched the host from him, and trampled it under his feet. The whole congregation was thunderstruck, and one person, drawing a dagger, wounded Gardener in the shoulder.

Thinking that he had been stimulated by some other person to act as he had done, the king demanded who was his abettor, to which he replied "My conscience alone. I would not hazard what I have done for any man living, but I owe that, and all other service, to my Creator.

Hereupon he was sent to prison, and a general order issued to apprehend all Englishmen in Lisbon. This order was in a great measure put into execution, and many innocent persons were tortured, to make them confess if they knew anything of the matter.

Gardener himself was tortured in the most excruciating manner. Being sentenced to death, a large fire was kindled near a gibbet; Gardener was drawn up to the gibbet by pulleys, and then let down near the fire, but not so close as to touch it; for they burned, or rather roasted him by slow degrees.

Some of the sparks were blown from the fire toward the haven (harbour), where they burnt one of the king's ships of war, and did other considerable damage. The Englishmen who were taken up on this occasion were, soon after Gardener's death, discharged."

16

Meanwhile, in France

In 1572 an event took place in France called the massacre of St. Bartholomew. It started with the martyrdom of a Protestant, called Coligny. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, page 83 goes on to say : "The martyrdom of this virtuous man had no soon taken place than the armed soldiers ran about slaying all the Protestants they could find within the walls of the city. This continued for several days; but the greatest slaughter took place during the first three days, in which above 10,000 men and women, of all ages and conditions, are said to have perished.

These brutal deeds were not confined within the walls of Paris, but extended into other cities and quarters of the realm, especially to Lyons, Orleans, Toulouse, and Rouen, where the cruelties were unparalleled. Within the space of one month 60,000 Protestants are said to have been slain in France alone, as is credible reported by those who testify of the matter.

When intelligence of the massacre was received at Rome, the greatest rejoicings took place, and a medal was struck to commemorate this victory of the faith. The pope and his cardinals went in solemn procession to the church of St. Mark, to give thanks to God. A jubilee was also published, and the ordnance fired from the castle of St. Angelo. To the person who brought the news, the cardinal of Lorraine gave 1000 crowns. Similar rejoicings were also celebrated all over France for this imagined overthrow of the faithful.

The following are among the particulars recorded of the above enormities :

2000 were murdered in the city of Poictiers in one day, and the licence of massacre continued several days afterwards.

At Meldis 200 were cast into prison; and, being brought out as sheep to the slaughter, were pitilessly cut to pieces.

At Orleans 1000 men, women, and children were slain.

The citizens of Augustbona, hearing of the massacre at Paris, shut the gates of their town that no Protestant might escape, and cast all they suspected into prison, who were afterwards killed.

At Lyons 800 perished most miserably; the children hanging on their father's necks, and the fathers embracing their children. 300 were slain in the archbishop's house, and the monks would not suffer their bodies to be buried.

At Toulouse 200 were murdered.

At Rouen 500 were put to death."

(And so the list goes on. The whole book by Foxe is a testimony to the atrocities committed in the name of Christ - atrocities which the Bible nowhere sanctions, and which are contrary to the example and behaviour of Christ. The horrible irony of these things is the fact that people from both the Protestant and Catholic sides were known to be zealous in their attacks on each other, and both claimed to be following Christ!

Where, for example, does the Bible say that Christians are to conduct Crusades? Where does it say that Christians are to bear arms and march on unbelievers - in this case Protestants (on the way) and Turks (when they got there)? Where does it say that children should form an army and march for a pope? When did Jesus ever suggest that Christians should persecute or destroy people who did not want to become Christians? Nowhere at all. Only if one discards the Bible and looks to Man can one find some reason for such behaviour.

17

Meanwhile, in England

In 'The Reformation in England' by J.H. Merle d'Aubigne, the author describes the war between the Bible-believers and the Catholics. One small excerpt from volume two concerns John Nicholson Lambert :

"Lambert, during his residence on the Continent, had become thoroughly imbued with the principles of the reformation. He believed that it was only by entire freedom of enquiry that men could be convinced of the truth. But he had not wandered without a compass over the vast ocean of human opinions ; he had taken the Bible in his hand, believing firmly that every doctrine found therein is true, and everything that contradicts it is false. On the one hand he saw the papal system which opposes religious freedom. freedom of the press, and even freedom of reading ; on the other hand protestantism, which declares that every man ought to be free to examine Scripture and submit to its teachings."

Lambert was later burned to death.

Cain killed Abel because Abel was righteous. Cain wanted to keep his tradition, Abel wanted to stick as close as possible to what God required.

As soon as we acknowledge that the war has always been between what God says and what Man says, we can see why history is such a blood-stained path. It is as simple as that. If we are not on one side, we are on the other. There is no middle or safe ground. As long as people refuse to obey God, there will be trouble.

As Jesus himself put it : "If you love me, keep my commandments . . . . If anyone loves me, he will keep my word . . . he who does not love me does not keep my words" John 14:15, 23,24.

Do we keep his word? Or do we keep our traditions, and mix a little of his word into them? Do we stubbornly carry on doing things which we are not specifically commanded to do because we are afraid to change?

"The fear of man brings a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord shall be safe" Proverbs 29:25. A snare is designed to catch something, with the result that whatever is caught will be killed. Traditions are constantly snaring people, churches are constantly dying, Christians are constantly giving up their faith. One reason why is the fact that they are not keeping to what the Bible says, and often the reason for this is the overwhelming influence of traditions. Truth cannot grow where people hold on to error.

 

18

Twisted Truth

CULTS

What makes a cult? A cult forms when one or more people either add or take from what the Bible says. The result is usually embellished over time. Other people are drawn into these beliefs and a structure grows, with the usual pattern of a president, vice-president, supervisors, workers and so on, down to mere believers.

A cult usually has literature to help propagate its teachings, and a charismatic leader, upon whom a tremendous weight of responsibility for the success of the cult depends.

A cult usually contains some Bible teaching mixed into its own beliefs. It is this slight or strong similarity with true Christianity which attracts people, because God is real and His Word is true, and people, who were created by that God are not happy unless they are close to Him. A cult offers a form of Christianity without the substance. (Like plastic fruit, which looks delicious, but tastes terrible!)

One example of many cults is Mormonism. Instead of calling themselves a cult, they use the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" thus using four words with Christian connotations to disguise their real identity.

There are many books and booklets about Mormonism, which do a thorough job of exposing the errors contained in their beliefs, so there is no need for us to spend too much space here. In fact, one really does not need to know anything about any of the cults in order to deal with them, provided one studies the Bible sufficiently. When we know the truth, error is easy to spot.

Which raises the point about why so many people fall into cults. There are two main reasons :

1. People generally do not spend much time learning the Bible, so they are easy prey to the lies and half-truths which come knocking at the door,

2. Christians generally do not spend much time learning the Bible, so they too are easy prey.

Ray Comfort (evangelist currently based in California) has done several surveys as he has travelled around various Bible Colleges. During some meetings, when faced with a crowd of trainees for the pulpit he has asked these supposedly keen Bible students if they read their Bible every day. To his surprise the response was around 20% who said yes. If future ministers, pastors and preachers of the Word hardly read the Bible, what chance is there that they will be able to stand up to a cult? And how will any Christian fare if they fail to learn the truth?

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" Gal. 1:8 NASB.

Joseph Smith Jr. founder of the Mormonism, born on December 23, 1805, started off going to a Presbyterian church, but he thought there was too much strife between the denominations, so he asked God to help him decide which was right.

In 1820 he claimed to have had a vision in which angelic "personages" visited him and told him all the denominations were wrong. In a second vision an angel, called Moroni told him about some "golden plates" which were hidden in a hill.

Joseph subsequently moved to Pennsylvania where he is supposed to have translated the writing on the plates ("reformed Egyptian"). In 1830 the first of the books was published and put on sale.

Joseph also worked on revisions, of his own book, and also the King James version of the Bible. Both revisions he claimed were "divinely aided".

Joseph and other Mormons imprisoned for creating trouble, but he escaped to Illinois where he and his followers started building a temple and evangelising the neighbourhood. When a local newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor published anti-Mormon material, Joseph ordered the press destroyed, which led to his arrest. He was put in jail, along with his brother.

In 1844 a mob of 200 people stormed the jail and shot and killed Joseph and his brother. Joseph shot several of the mob members before he died.

The Mormons believe many things which are not supported by the Bible. They claim that "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". They claim that their "church" is the only true one, that Joseph was a prophet of God, and that no-one can be saved unless they believe that.

 

Dr. Walter Martin puts the matter into perspective:

"With one "Special Revelation" the Mormon Church expects its intended converts to accept the totally unsupported testimony of a fifteen-year-old boy that nobody ever preached Jesus Christ's gospel from the close of the apostolic age until the "Restoration" through Joseph Smith Jr. beginning in 1820! We are asked to believe that the church fathers for the first five centuries did not proclaim the true gospel - that Origen, Justin, Iraneaus, Jerome, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and then later Thomas Aquinas, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Knox, Wesley, Whitefield, and a vast army of faithful servants of Jesus Christ all failed where joseph Smith Jr. was to succeed!

With one dogmatic assertion, Joseph pronounced everybody wrong, all Christian theology an abomination, and all professing Christians corrupt - all in the name of God! How strange for this to be presented as restored Christianity, when jesus Christ specifically promised that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against the church (Matt.16:18) In Mormonism we find God contradicting this statement in a vision to Joseph Smith Jr. some eighteen centuries later!"

The Mormon Church has four accepted sacred works : the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The pearl of Great Price.

Mormons believe that the Bible is unreliable, because, they say, the catholic Church removed parts of it - so they put more trust in the other three sacred books.

When we compare what the Mormons believe with what the Bible says, we see many differences between the two.

19

What Well-trained Mormons Believe

GOD

The Mormons believe in many gods and teach that God himself was once a man. Mormon males are said to have the possibility of attaining godhood. As Joseph Smith said : "God was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens . . . I am going to tell you how God became to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see . . . he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ . . ."

The Bible says that God alone is eternal, having the name "I AM THAT I AM". God was never created. He has no beginning. He is the Creator of all things.

JESUS CHRIST

The Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was once a pre-existent spirit, just like all humans were, and that he is not unique, though he was set apart from the rest of us by being the firstborn of God's sprit children.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ is equal in every way with God. He is not, and never has been a mere created spirit. As Jesus said "I and my Father are one".

MAN

The Mormons believe that Man is a pre-existent soul who takes on a body at birth. In other words, Man is already divine, having been with God from eternity.

The Bible says that God creates each life, around the time of conception. Man has no pre-existent life.

Mormons believe that Israel of the OT became the early inhabitants of America.

The TRUTH :

1. No Book of Mormon cities have been located

2. No Book of Mormon names have been found in New World inscriptions

3. No genuine inscriptions have been found in Hebrew in America

4. No genuine inscriptions have been found in America in Egyptian or anything similar to Egyptian, which could correspond to Joseph Smith's "reformed Egyptian".

5. No ancient copies of Book of Mormon scriptures have been found

6. No ancient inscriptions of any kind in America which indicate that the ancient inhabitants had Hebrew or Christian beliefs have been found

7. No mention of Book of Mormon persons, nations, or places has been found

8. No artefact of any kind which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is true has been found

9. Rather than finding supportive evidence, Mormon scholars have been forced to retreat from traditional interpretations of Book of Mormon statements.

There is a touch of irony in one of the Mormon claims. Brigham Young, Joseph Smith's successor, once said "Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the latter-Day saints with it, and see if it will stand the test".

We have taken up the Bible and tested the Mormon beliefs . . . we find that the Mormons are not a Christian church.

What we have said about the Mormon errors, can be said, generally, of any other belief-system outside of Bible-based Christianity.

But since salvation does not depend on what you believe about the early inhabitants of America, or how big Noah's ark was, or any of the other thousands of different ideas which circulate in theological and religious debates . . . the most important thing to look at in any belief system is this : What do they believe regarding Jesus Christ.

A cult is, at heart, a denigrator of Jesus.

Either Jesus is made out to be less than God, or just a man, or some variation of these two things. The Bible teaches that Jesus was truly God and truly Man. Son of God and son of Man. He brought the two aspects together in perfect harmony. As Man he identified with sinners (without sinning) - as God he was able to die for sinners.

Since salvation depends on a right understanding or who Jesus is, and what he did for us, it really doesn't matter how many errors a cult has. The main error - their wrong view of Jesus - is the error that matters. It is like a peach with a rotten centre - outwardly attractive, but inwardly corrupted. Jesus is at the centre of Christianity, but he is never at the centre of a cult.

 

20

Evolution versus Creation

 

"To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all . . . an utterly simple idea. And to me, that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, so beautiful, that we will say to each other 'Oh, how could it have been otherwise'" - John A. Wheeler, Physicist.

When we compare the theory of evolution with the Bible account of creation, we find so many discrepancies that it is impossible to say that they can be merged or joined together. Creation is not evolution. There is no room for a syncretist view.

Day One : darkness penetrated by light

Day Two : water divided

Day Three : land and vegetation

Day Four : stars, moon, sun and planets

Day Five : sea creatures and birds

Day Six : land creatures, insects, and humans - all vegetarian.

Day Seven : no more creating.

Evolution requires millions of years. The sequence by which life is said to appear is in a completely different order to the Bible. (For example, land animals are said to develop wings, whereas the Bible says sea creatures came first, then land animals, then birds - whereas the Bible says sea creatures and birds came on the same day, THEN land animals appeared). Everything starts from unguided disorder. There is no Mind behind life's existence. There is no reason for life, or purpose, or goal.

The Creation Science Movement is doing an excellent job of refuting evolutionary misinformation. For example, the Creation magazine March - May 1998 issue exposed the fraudulent character of Ernst Haekel's drawings. Haekel deliberately drew false pictures of embryos to support his theory that the development of the human embryo in the womb is a rerun of the steps in man's alleged evolutionary rise from a primitive creature. Embryos look extremely different at the same stages in their development, as a recent study by Michael Richardson has found (see the science journals 'Anatomy and Embryology', 'Science' and 'New Scientist' - all 1997 issues)

The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and men is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two 'missing links' that were later shown to be a fraud in one case and the tooth of a pig in the other. So far no indisputable missing links have been found. All skeletons and skulls discovered have either been those of apes, or some other primate, or humans.

The British Museum used to have on display the fossil of a woman from the Caribbean who was found in limestone. She was removed from the public display to the basement when it was realised that she was embedded in rock which was, they decided, the 'wrong age' for her to be there. Such deliberate dishonest sorting of the evidence is common among evolutionists.

The most important so-called evidence for the theory of evolution is the fossil record. Most people still believe that the fossil record provides the major proof for evolution. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 that in his day "geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be used against my theory".

David Raup, Curator of the Field Natural History Museum, Chicago, is in a reasonable position to speak about fossils, since he has one of the world's best collections. He states, "instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change, then abruptly go out of the record."

Likewise Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson from Lung University, Sweden, "It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

In the very area where we should expect to find the most evidence for evolution, we find instead an overwhelming amount of evidence which indicates creation. Life appears in the fossil record finished and complete. There are no transitional (in-between) forms.

A further aspect of the fossil debate is the fact that to form a fossil, a living organism - plant, bird, insect, animal - has to be buried quickly, before decomposition can take place. Fossils are evidence of rapid burial by water plus silt, or water plus some other alluvial deposit. Because of the enormous amount of sedimentary rock all around the world, in which billions of fossils are trapped, the evidence points towards a world-wide flood, catastrophe, and mass extinction of millions of species.

 

21

More about Fossils

Much is made of fossils. They are dug up and shown at public attractions. They are reconstructed and admired - especially in the case of dinosaurs. They are polished and varnished and used as ornaments or jewellery (agate etc) But what do they represent? They represent death. Death on an enormous scale. The whole earth is in fact a huge cemetery. Every fossil we find is the remains of a living thing which has perished suddenly and quickly. And this is what we should expect, if the Bible is true, because that is exactly what it describes in Genesis chapters 6 and 7.

There is a common misconception that evolution is science, but creation is just a religious belief. The truth is both evolution and creation are ideas held on faith. Each of the two belief systems offer arguments and evidences to bolster that faith.

Science, on the other hand, depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, the scientific method could never prove it. Furthermore, even if scientists could turn a reptile into a bird in the laboratory, this would not prove that it happened in the past.

If reptiles turned into birds, one sort of evidence which might help to prove it would be fossils of reptiles and transitional forms, showing how reptiles gradually developed hollow bones, grew long arms, sprouted feathers and changed into flying, egg-laying, nesting creatures with bills and claws. The fossil record contains no transitional forms at all. If evolution is true there should be millions of fossils showing the gradual change, over millions of years, but there are none.

What the fossils do show is the sudden appearance of reptiles and birds together in the same layers. The reptiles are fully finished, and so are the birds, as if they just suddenly appeared on the scene and were buried. The evidence therefore supports creation.

If the Bible is true, then the following conclusions can logically be drawn:

1. The major life forms we observe today have separate ancestors

2. These ancestors were specially and supernaturally created

3. The separate kinds of animals were created to reproduce "after their kind" - that is, they have only a limited ability to vary

4. Creation occurred only a few thousand years ago

5. Humans are the result of a unique creation, made from the dust of the ground, but bearing the image (likeness, shadow, character) of God

6. The original earth was designed very quickly for all the creatures to live on

7. Animals and Man were given only plants to eat, therefore latent vegetarian abilities should show up in carnivorous animals and Man today

8. Death and decay came into this creation as a result of the deliberate rebellion by the first created humans

9. Because of rebellion, God brought in two major events which have affected the geology and biology of life on earth - the great flood, and the many different languages have altered the original appearance of the planet and the shape of civilisations since then

10. The observable universe is not all there is. Behind all material things there must be some other form of intelligent life, namely God, to whom all humans are ultimately responsible.

But if the theory of evolution is true, then the following logical conclusions can be drawn:

1. We have no basis for a moral code. Majority opinion tends to become law - however repugnant that law may be to the victims of it i.e. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia.

2. The value of human life is lowered. There is no sufficient basis for giving people any special dignity i.e. Aboriginies may be slaughtered, Blacks may be made into slaves, unborn children may be killed, euthanasia is a logical way to get rid of useless citizens, etc.

3. So-called vestigial organs may be removed surgically because they are part of an evolutionary past. These used to include as many as 180 vital parts, including the appendix, tonsils, thymus, pineal gland, thyroid gland, and the last bones at the end of the spine. (Today of course, all parts of the body are known to be essential and important.)

What is true about Creation? We know that, because God created all things, there is something of Him in all things. The artist always leaves his personality in his picture, the sculptor leaves his fingerprints in the clay. God loves what he has made. His wisdom and beauty are seen in what he has made, though on a grander and deeper scale.

Someone observed that when we look closely at any Man-made object, the nearer we go, the rougher it looks, but when we move closer and closer to a God-made object, we see more and more precision, design, balance and beauty. Take, for example, the razor blade. Under an electron scanning microscope the sharp edge of the blade looks like a chain of mountains, jagged and rough, but when we look at the steel which the blade is made of, it exhibits crystalline perfection. These crystals in turn are made of molecules and atoms, then sub-atomic particles, all of which spin and so on in deeper and deeper levels of perfection.

The argument that God must have created all things because all things show the characteristics of design is Biblical. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament (sky, or expanse of heaven) shows his handiwork" - Ps.19:1.

22

Abraham and the Jews

"The chess board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance." - Thomas Henry Huxley.

"A fool must now and then be right, by chance" - William Cowper

I have listened to many sermons, teaching tapes and Bible lectures. Most of what I heard was accurate - that is, it lined up with what the Bible said - but some of it was not in line. What follows is not meant to be a tactless assault on other people's opinions or beliefs. I know that I have just as many failings as anyone else. I simply want to encourage (myself) and anyone else willing to face the truth, to abandon the things that are not true, and embrace what is true - however painful the giving up of cherished untruths may be.

Many Christian children are brought up through hundreds of Sunday School lessons and other forms of entertainment/educational Bible lessons, and taught things which are not true to the Bible. In most cases the errors make virtually no difference to their faith in God, so it does little good to point them out.

However there are a few things which I fell ought to be straightened out, because if they are not, a lot of very important (wrong) conclusions are arrived at.

1. Abraham was not a Jew.

Neither were Isaac or Jacob, Joseph or Moses, king David or Samuel. Traditional teaching has it that God started the Jewish nation off, led them through the wilderness and planted them in Palestine. The truth is that the Jews are only a small section of three tribes of Israel. They are all Hebrews and they are all Israelites, but they are not all Jews. (Just as I may be a new Zealander in the wider sense, but a Scotsman in the narrow sense.)

The International Inductive Study Bible says this about 'Jew' :

1. Originally an inhabitant of Judah. A Judean - 2 Kings 16:6

2. Judean shortened to Jew during exile - 2 Kings 25:25

3. Synonym for Hebrew - Ezra 4:12, 23, Neh.4:1,2, Est.4:3,7, Jer. 34:9

4. Later term for all Israelites in the land and in the Diaspora (the dispersion) Mat.27:11, Mark 7:3, Luke 23:51, John 4:9, Acts 22:3, Rom.3:1, Gal.3:28, Rev.2:9

1. Originally an inhabitant of Judah. A Judean - 2 Kings 16:6. The first reference to 'Jew' comes in 2 Kings 16:6, when Rezin king of Syria came and drove the men of Judah from Elath. Up till then there was no such thing as a Jew. All the people of Israel up till that point in history - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve tribes - were known as israelites, after Jacob's new name.

When Israel the nation marched into the Promised Land under Joshua, it was one kingdom, but some years later the 12 tribes split into two smaller kingdoms, under Rehoboam in the south for Judah, and Jeroboam to the north with israel. Nearly 200 years later Rezin invaded Judah's territory and the word 'Jew' appeared in the world's language.

The Jews were driven from Elath during the reign of king Pekah. (In his 17th year Ahaz began to rule) This event took place only one king short of the end of the house or kingdom of Israel, and eight kings short of the end of the kingdom of Judah.

Up until Rezin arrived, there were no Jews in the world ; only Hebrews and israelites. Despite these facts, many Christians still on calling Abraham a Jew.

2. Judean shortened to Jew during exile - 2 Kings 25:25. Ishmael came back and struck down Gedaliah, the Jews, and some Chaldeans. This event occurred after the last king of Judah, king Hezekiah, had been taken away to Babylon, about 587 BC.

3. Synonym for Hebrew - Ezra 4:12,23, Neh.4:1,2, Est.4:3,7, Jer. 34:9. These passages refer to the people of Judah, who returned with Ezra and Nehemiah to help rebuild the city walls and temple in Jerusalem. None of these people were of the other kingdom of Israel, which had been taken north into captivity to Syria in 721 BC on, over a hundred years beforehand. One could therefore, never refer to an Israelite of the house or kingdom of Israel as a Jew. They were Israelites and Hebrews but never Jews.

4. Later term for all Israelites in the land and in the Diaspora (the dispersion) Mat.27:11, Mark 7:3, Luke 23:51, John 4:9, Acts 22:3, Rom.3:1, Gal.3:28, Rev.2:9.

Matt.27:11 Pilate asked Jesus "Are you the king of the Jews?" and Jesus said yes, this was so. He had come for the remnant, who had waited in Jerusalem for their messiah for so long . . . but the remnant rejected him, and so the gospel went out to all the world. At that time the Jews were the only visible representatives of the whole kingdom of Israel.

Mark 7:3 Referring to the comment that the Jews and the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash their hands.

Luke 23:51 Referring to the fact that Arimathea was a city of the Jews.

John 4:9. The woman at the well thought Jesus was a Jew, but she was puzzled because, as she said, "Jews have no dealings with Samaritans."

Acts 22:3 Paul said, "I am indeed a Jew, born in tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up at the feet of Gamaliel . . ."

Rom.3:1 When people are "in Christ" there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free.

Rev.2:9. Jesus reproves people who "say they are Jews and are not". Here "Jew" is used as another word for "Christian". (This statement is also made in Rev.3:9) In Rom.2:29 Christians are described as those who are the "circumcision of the heart". The same sort of name association occurs in gal.2:15 where Moffat says, "We who are Jews by birth and not 'sinful heathen'". The Jews called the Christians "Gentiles" and the Christians called the Jews "Jews by nature", or "uncircumcised in heart". Rom.3:27,28 shows that both the Jews - the circumcised - and the gentiles - the uncircumcised - can come to God through faith.

CONCLUSION

The use of the name "Jew" nearly always refers to a small percentage of a small percentage of the whole of Israel. One tenth of one tenth approximately. The first nation of Jews appears in history in the form of exiles from Babylon returning to rebuild the city and Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah.

The prophets spoke to either the house (people, kingdom) of Judah, OR to the house (people, kingdom) of Israel, OR to the Jews. The prophets usually took great care to distinguish who they were speaking to. Why then do so many Christians lump all the different categories together under the one name "Jew"? It would be like calling ducks, hens and ostriches by the one name - geese. No farmer would take you seriously if you did that!

23

The Christmas Story

Every Christmas the cards come out with snowy scenes, and the windows are sprayed white. Television's Christmas movies have father Santa Claus and his sleigh, reindeer and elves, and sometimes we see three men on camels following a star across a desert. The men are dressed in royal clothes and one of them is a black man. Thanks to Lew Wallace's story 'Ben Hur' we even know the names of the three kings . . . but how much of this is actually true?

The Bible tells us that "magi" came to Jerusalem to see the new king. It does not tell us how many there were, what they looked like, or whether one of them was from Africa. There might have been forty of them, all dressed in rags, and walking beside donkeys. Where the Bible says nothing, the traditions say plenty!

What is a "magi"? Young's Analytical Concordance - "Magician, a Persian astronomer or priest. Mat.2:1,7,16. Greek = magoi."

The adoration of Jesus by the "magoi" must have taken place at Nazareth, for the Lord was presented in the temple 41 days after his birth (Lev. 12:3,4) and returned to Nazareth - Luke 2:39. "And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth".

So the sequence, according to the Bible is :

- the "wise men" (astronomers) see a significant "star" and about the same time as they see it, Jesus is born in the grotto, or cave, or shelter in Bethlehem.

- the "wise men" prepare for or begin their journey towards Jerusalem

- the shepherds arrive immediately after jesus is born because of the angelic announcement to them

- 8 days after he is born Jesus is circumcised

- Jesus is taken to nazareth after his circumcision where he lives with his parents

- about two years later the "wise men" arrive at Jerusalem and go to see Herod

- the "wise men" leave Herod and go to Bethlehem but the "star" appears again and leads them sixty miles north, to Nazareth

- the "star" stands over the home of Jesus

- the "wise men" go "into the house" (Mat.2:11) to worship

- God warns Jesus' parents to go to Egypt until further notice (Mat.2:12,13)

- Herod determines the approximate age of the child king

- Herod orders the slaughter of children in Bethlehem

- Herod dies

- God tells Joseph and mary to return to their home (Mat.2:20)

- Jesus grows up in Nazareth. (Mat 2 comes in between Luke 2:39 and 40)

Mat.2:16. When Herod tried to kill the Messiah, by slaughtering the children of Bethlehem, he estimated the Messiah's age to be about two years, which shows that this brutal act was accomplished at least two years after Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It was quite possible to be this accurate, because the figures are all given in Daniel chapter 9. Working from "the going forth of the decree" to the beginning of the "70th week" would enable a Bible scholar to pinpoint the time of the messiah's birth, almost, if not exactly, to the day.

Mat. 2:7 says that Herod "enquired diligently". This word occurs only in v6,7 and Acts 18:25, where it means "accurately" or "exactly". Herod had exact knowledge. He enquired of the "scribes of the people" which means the Sopherim, which denotes the learned men, learned, that is, in the scriptures, and elders of the Sanhedrin. This also shows us that intellectual knowledge of the Scriptures without love for them is futile. Herod;s scribes, despite all their knowledge of God's Word, had no real desire to know the Governor (Is.9:6), but the "magi" sought the Person of whom the Scriptures spoke. Head-knowledge without heart-love can be a deadly thing.

'Bible Manners and Customs' article 630 : "The Magi were men of learning, devoting special attention to astronomy and the natural sciences . . . the Magians were a priestly class (caste) and the office is supposed to have been hereditary. They uttered prophecies, explained omens, interpreted dreams . . . in Persia they became a powerful body under the guide of Zoroaster . . . they combined the pursuit of science with soothsaying and divination. There is no Scriptural proof that there were three wise men, or that "the east" is meant as a definite location".

There is no proof that the Magi were kings, or that they rode on camels. There is no proof that the star went before them all the way from the east. All we know is that "they saw the star", and having seen it they went to the logical place to find a king. The "star" re-appeared when they had departed from Herod, and it led them not to Bethlehem, but to the actual place where "the king" was, ie Nazareth.

Daniel-Rops, in 'Jesus in His Time' page 107 : "The Magi were originally the priests of the Mazdean religion, which was practised by the Medes and Persians. According to Herodotus they formed a rigid caste, almost a distinct tribe, and were reputed to lead ascetic lives tending the Sacred Fires in the High Places, studying astrology, and divination of dreams. They were certainly powerful : one of them attempted to seize the imperial power in Persia, while Cambyses was at war in Egypt, stating that he was Smerdis, the dead brother of the emperor come back to life. But there is nothing to indicate that the Magi enjoyed any particular power under the Parthian dominion at the time of the birth of Christ. In Jesus' time there were many Oriental sages, astrologers and soothsayers, many sincere, many not - it is clear that the Magi of Mat.2:1 were the most reputable of their kind.

The Bible predictions which the Magi might have used to help them locate the Messiah are many. It is surprising how much we can find, about Jesus, in OT Scriptures, but it is probably the benefit of hindsight which makes these predictions appear clearer to us now than they were to the people 'back then'.

1. Balaam predicted a STAR would rise out of Jacob Num.24:17

2. Micah predicted Messiah's BIRTH TOWN Mic.5:2

3. The prophets spoke of the Messiah's HOME TOWN Mat.2:23

4. Isaiah predicted the Messiah's general AREA OF WORK Is. 9:2

5. Malachi predicted WHO the messiah would come for, and the BUILDING the Messiah would enter during His work Mal.3:1, 4:5,6

6. Daniel predicted the TIME of the Messiah's arrival and SIX things He would accomplish, and WHAT WOULD HAPPEN after the Messiah had done these things Dan.9:25 to end of chapter.

24

Death

"God wills us free, man wills us slaves,

I will as God wills, God's will be done"

- Daniel Bliss wrote these words for the gravestone of John Jack, who was a native of Africa "tho' born in a land of slavery he was born free".

Gravestones sometimes carry the words 'Rest In Peace'. The Greek word from which we get our word 'cemetery', means "sleeping place". Jesus called death a "sleep" and spoke of "waking people up" from their sleep, when we would say "brought back to life again".

There are many ways to die. One way is to finally stop living, because of some vital organ ceasing its functioning, in which case the body is buried and the natural biological processes take over. After some time the material which comprised the body have become parts of other living and non-living things. It is the most amazing disappearing act ever.

Other ways to die include war, explosions, car crashes, poisoning, stabbing, drug-overdose, and many others. (Perhaps even long, boring sermons?)

The traditional church view about death is that, for the Christian at least, the 'spirit' goes to heaven, just before or while the relatives are busy burying the body. In some ways it doesn't matter in the slightest what we believe about death, because we 'all gotta die anyway', but the 'wedge principle' comes in here . . . if we make an error at the narrow end, we may find ourselves moving ever further from the original base-line of truth until our errors are enormous.

The Egyptians believed that humans have a spirit, which escapes from the body at death, and returns again some time - hence their desperate measures to preserve bodies. Tombs, pyramids and huge stone buildings are all a part of the original belief. (How many thousands of slaves, how much money, how much rock was cut, how many lives were upset died because of this belief?)

Ancient Hinduism, about 500BC held that the soul, or spirit, did migrate far away and then come back to the same body, but went instead to another life-form at death. Reincarnation.

Pythagoras and other Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato decided that the soul was immortal and indestructible. They thought that the universe was divided into two spheres : physical matter, and spirit and ideas. Matter, they said, was bad and temporary, while spirit was good and eternal.

Plato and Socrates thought the body was just a temporary 'house' for the soul. The whole Greek way of life was affected by this belief. Death was a 'friend' to them, and a time for release from the 'prison' of the body.

Many Christians, (including the Seventh Day Adventists) on the other hand, believe that humans were whole beings, and that when a person dies, they die completely, with no soul, or spirit living on afterwards.

The teaching about immortal souls came from the Greeks, or more specifically Plato. The church, starting with the church father Origen, built the Greek thinking into its theology.

The idea of an immortal soul is one of the greatest misunderstandings of Christianity.

Such a bold assertion should be backed up by the Bible of course. Let the Reader examine the following verses, with brief notes attached, and make up his or her own mind on the matter.

Genesis 2:7 "and man became a living soul". God having breathed into the dust the "breath of life" (Heb. neshamah) the dust became a living soul (Heb. nephesh). All living organisms are therefore living souls. A soul which loses its 'neshamah' becomes a dead soul. The word 'nephesh' occurs 754 times in the OT and is always synonymous with "living organism". As God said to Adam and Eve, in Gen.3:19 "Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." No mention of an eternal sprit here.

The devil's lie "You shall not surely die" Gen. 3:4. That has been the lie ever since. Right down through the ages people have believed that death is not the end, but merely a doorway, through which some eternal spirit passes, either to heaven, or hell, or to a spirit world. God said Adam and Eve would die, the devil said they would not. Which do we believe?

Ecc.9:1 - 6. Solomon complains about the injustice of death, how it takes people away from life, how it has no favourites . . . "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten . . . .Nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun."

Some people refer back to Ecc.3:18 - 21, where the question is asked "Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, which goes down to the earth?" but the verse is not saying that spirits go up or down. It is a rhetorical question. The verse before this says "All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to the dust". What Solomon is saying is "We don't know where life comes from or where it goes!"

1Cor.15: 35 - 55. Reading through this long passage, we learn that there will be a resurrection after we have died. The resurrection bodies we are given will correspond in some way to the natural bodies we lose. Paul looks forward to a time when we will receive our new bodies, but he says this will not happen until the resurrection "We shall not all sleep (remain dead), but we shall all be changed . . .for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible . . .death is swallowed up in victory." Paul points out that "Adam was made of dust, but became a living being, a natural man, a man of flesh" . . . Adam was not eternal. If there was an opportunity for Paul to mention a spirit going to heaven, here would have been a good time and place, but Paul emphasises the finality of death, with the prospect of resurrection to come.

2Cor.5:1 - 10. Some Christians say that Paul expected to go to heaven as soon as he died, because he said "rather tho be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" but the context brings out a different meaning. Paul goes on to say that "we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ" (v10), which shows that he is looking forward to a future time when he is resurrected. This agrees with 1Cor.15:52 where he says "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet . . ."

As Christians we are to have faith in not only a resurrection from the dead, but also a new, immortal resurrection body, which God had already prepared for us.

1 Thess.4:13 - 17. "But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep (died) . . . for if we believe that Jesus died (fell asleep) and rose again (came back to life, woke up), even so God will bring with (= bring out from the graves) those who sleep in Jesus."

" . . .we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede (go before, rise ahead of, come back to live in a different order to) those who are asleep (dead) . . . . the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are alive and remain . . ."

If there was a chance that the saints went to heaven when they died and left their bodies behind until the 2nd Advent, here would have been a good place to point this out, but Paul makes it clear that the saints, living or dead, have to wait together until that great day.

Ex.12. The Passover. When the Passover lamb was killed, it was completely killed, just like all the sacrifices of Leviticus. As God said, the "life is in the blood" (Lev.17:14, 19:26, Deut.12:16 - 23) The Passover lamb was a prefigurement of a reality to come, namely the giving by Jesus of His own life. As the great fulfilment of the Passover, Jesus gave his life's blood, and died, totally and completely, on the cross. (To say that only His body died, and that His spirit lived on, would be to say in effect that He didn't really die, in which case the atonement would have been a cheat).

John 11 - the raising of Lazarus. Lazarus was a mortal, who died, and was raised mortal again by Jesus, only to die again later on. He was used by Jesus to illustrate the coming resurrection to immortality.

Other examples of this mortal resurrection are : Luke 7:15, 8:55 and mat. 27:50 - 54.

Acts 2:34 - king David is still dead. "David is not yet ascended into the heavens."

1 Cor.15:20, 23 - Jesus is called "the firstfruits of them that slept", in other words, Jesus is, out of all the dead, the first one to be raised from the grave to everlasting life. This means that even Enoch, and Elijah must be dead, and not in heaven, as many Christians think.

"But what about . . .?"

Having established fairly clearly that death is complete until the resurrection, there are some passages which seem to contradict this. These verses are often quoted by Christians to show that life does not really cease at death (for saints anyway), so we will now look at these seeming contradictions.

The Transfiguration - Mat.17:9. Jesus appeared, with Moses and Elijah. Does this prove that Moses and Elijah went to heaven? No, because Jesus described the event as a "vision". A vision is not a reality. It is a picture, or sign, to show or teach something.

The Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19 - 31. This is a parable. It is a risky thing to draw doctrines from parables, because they were not given to teach doctrine, but heavenly principles. For example, if the parable here is taken as literal teaching we might conclude that :

1. Poor people stand a much better chance of getting to heaven because they are poor

2. Rich people go to hell because they are usually wicked

3. People in heaven can see people in hell

4. People in heaven and in hell can talk to each other freely across a gap

5. God compensates for poor people by sending them to heaven

6. When we die we go to a place where we can watch our dead loved ones

Calling up Samuel - 1Sam.28:7 - 19. When Saul tried to call up Samuel he sought a medium to "divine" for him (v8).

(Remember that not long before this, when "Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets" (v6) so we should not expect God to change His mind when Saul goes to a medium to call up a dead prophet!)

The medium was asked to call on Samuel "by a familiar spirit" i.e. a demonic manifestation, or by necromancy. The medium tried, and saw an impersonating spirit who communicated with her that her visitor was in fact Saul.

Problem : If the spirit was Samuel, why did it wear a "mantle" when it should have been wearing grave clothes? (John 11:44)

The medium said she saw "a spirit" ascending out of the earth. The Hebrew is "elohim" meaning "gods". When the woman described what she could see, Saul decided it must be Samuel. This is common practise in spiritism. The enquirer has to go on what the medium says.

When "Samuel" spoke, it was the impersonating spirit, and the information was not new anyway. God must have allowed the demon to appear, thus sealing the doom of saul with this, his last act of disobedience. (2 Chron.19 - 22)

The 3rd heaven - 2Cor.12:2. Paul is here speaking of himself. He had a wonderful, amazing, dazzling, spiritual vision, but he could not tell whether he had it in or out of his body. (This passage is similar to Ez.8:3 and Rev.1:10.) Paul does not want to boast of his privileges - his visions and revelations. He is more interested in God's grace. (v9). He knows he did not actually go to heaven because he calls it "the third heaven".

The sign of Jonah - Mat.12:39 - 41, 16:4, Luke 11:30. Jonah was a "sign" of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who was swallowed up by the grave. ("sea monster - Hebrew = 'kemosh. Not a whale) Jonah describes his own death in 2:3 - 6. His rapid words and thoughts are all in the past tense, showing what he went through just before he died. As a type, or representation, of Jesus, it would not be consistent if Jonah stayed alive for three days in the sea creature, since that would imply that Jesus did not really die for sinners.

Jesus "yielded up his spirit" - Mat.27:50 on the cross. (Some versions say "yielded up the ghost"). Luke 23:46 says "breathed his last". What happened on the cross was what happens to all humans, except in Jesus' case, he chose not to breath in, and thus gave his life. The word "spirit" here does not refer to some second entity, or invisible conscious being, which flew away from his body.

The resurrection was promised in the Law - Lev.18:5, Ez.3:21, 20:11, Luke 10:28, Rom.10:5, Gal.3:12, Neh.9:29 (also see Hab.2:4, Rom.1:17, Heb.10:38) God offers LIFE to anyone who can keep His Law, but of course no-one can keep it, so there must be some other way for people to be acceptable to God, which is why the sacrificial system was provided.

Jesus spoke of the resurrection - John 5:21 - 29 - "For as the father raises the dead and gives life to them . . . the hours is coming when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live", 11:23 - 26 - "Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again'. Martha said to him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day'. Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may die, yet shall he live."

Jesus could have assured Martha and the others that Lazarus' spirit went to heaven, but he said instead that Lazarus would remain dead until the resurrection.

Final comments

There is a very good rule for Bible study, which I like to follow. It goes like this : If there are nine different verses about a subject which all say the same thing, and one verse which seems to contradict the other nine, that one verse must be seen in the light of the other nine. There can be no contradictions in God's Word.

I think, when it comes to the subject of "death" we need to look at the 'difficult' passages in the light of the 'plain' ones, otherwise we will have to conclude that God contradicts himself. The often repeated claim that the Bible is one book, which speaks with one mind about everything throughout, either stands or falls on the teaching about death.

It is either true throughout, or it is not true throughout.

25

The evolution of the horse.

 

Many encyclopaedias and school text books and other authorititative works carry a diagram of "How the horse evolved' showing the (supposed) ancestors, from a small, rabbit-like creature, through to our present-day animal. The same artistic license has been indulged on other evolutionary ideas. Ape-men, Neanderthals, the first birds, what the earth looked like 10 million years ago and so on. Whole movies have been produced with artistic flare to show us what we might have seen if we went back in time . . . but an artist can tell lies with his brush.

In the case of early man, all it takes is a few lines here and there and a modern nose can be replaced by a gorilla's. Soft tissue leaves no trace when it decays away. Colours, frills, hairs, skin, (sounds, intelligence, diet,) usually more that 80% of a fossil is missing by the time it is discovered. The rest is in Man's imagination.

As David Raup from the Field natural History Museum said, "We have to abandon belief in the evolution of the horse" because of the lack of fossil evidence. No transitional forms have ever been found. Artistic license, dishonesty and biased imagination have distorted the evidence.

The same can be said of illustrated Bibles. In some cases, despite the fact that usually at least 90% of the illustrations are well done and accurate, there are some amazing blunders. It is as if the artist did not actually read the text he or she was illustrating!

Some brief examples, taken from actual misleading or inaccurate Bible illustrations :

Creation on -

Adam and Eve were glorious beings, probably clothed in light, not fallen

The "serpent" was Satan, the fallen angel, not literal snake

The fruit was not an apple

There were two "Trees" in the garden

The land before the 'Fall' was not post-flood, eroded, or mountainous

The "Garden of Eden" was an orchard, not a rambling 'garden'

The Garden had the basic genetic species, not the hybrids and sub varieties due to specialised breeding which we have today

Noah and on -

When the ark was finished, it was black with pitch (bitumen) - not clean wood

There were dinosaurs around, right up to the day of the Flood

The dove brought an olive "leaf" not a whole twig with leaves

The people after the Flood built a city and a tower, not just a tower

Abram on -

The angels who visited Abram looked exactly like humans - no glow or halo

Jacob rested his head on stones, not a single rock

Joseph's "coat of many colours" was actually "long-sleeved"

Moses on -

The little basket for baby Moses was black with pitch

When Israel left Egypt there were about 3million people, not a few thousand

The Israelites carried a stone with them from which water came - although initially Moses struck a rock that was nearby.

When the walls of Jericho fell, they fell down into the ground, not over sideways. There was no huge pile of rubble for the Israelites to climb over.

Samson is nowhere described as muscle-bound. He might have been skinny. It was the strength of God which empowered him, not muscles.

David was not a little boy. He was able to wear Saul's armour, so he was a big lad. He chose not to wear the armour not because he was too small, but because he was not used to it.

Goliath did not draw his sword. David drew it, and used it to cut Goliath's head off.

Absalom was caught by his head, not his hair, in the oak tree branches.

When Elijah died, he was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, not a chariot of fire.

Nebuchadnezzar's golden image is rectangular.

Jonah was swallowed by a sea monster (kemosh) not a whale.

The 'wise men' were not kings, they did not necessarily number three, and they did not visit Jesus in a stable.

The devil does not have horns and cloven hoofs.

None of the leading Christians in the Bible had haloes or glowing heads.

Jesus did not necessarily wear specially attractive clothes, nor was he 'good looking' or handsome, or noticeable even. (Is.53:2)

The 'Sermon on the Mount' was addressed to the disciples, not the crowds.

When Jesus stilled the storm, he was angry-furious, not calm and peaceful.

Zaccheus climbed a tree because of the crowds, not because he was a short man.

At the 'Last Supper' the disciples were reclining horizontally, not sitting up at a table.

When Jesus was on the cross, he had no loincloth.

When Jesus was crucified, the nails went through his wrists, not his palms.

On the day of Pentecost, the tongues of fire rested on 120 people, including women, not just a handful of men.

Does it matter if the picture does not match the actual text of the Bible? Usually not. But what is gained by an incorrect representation of the text? Nothing.

I have seen and heard an incredible amount of nonsense since I 'joined the church'. It has often been preached or taught with fire and zeal, but it has still been illogical and down-right stupid at times. I have heard messages based on pretexts - such as the one where the fact that Jesus told the people to gather up the fragments that remained after the bread and fish were multiplied was meant to teach us not to be litterbugs. I have seen diagrams which made no logical sense but looked very impressive, and I have heard half-truths which sounded good provided you didn't ask any questions. I have sung songs which were actually a contradiction of what the Bible itself said and I have been told by Christians about things that they believe for which there is almost no scriptural backing.

Someone could write a book about it!

But what does all this show us?

1. That humans make many mistakes,

2. That there is always enough truth surviving to still be edifying and instructive,

3. That we all need plenty of grace, because we all make mistakes,

4. Artists ought to read the text.

26

Harmony

"Sure there is music even in the beauty, and the silent note which Cupid strikes, far sweeter than the sound of an instrument. For there is a music wherever there is a harmony, order, or proportion; " - Sir Thomas Browne (1605 - 1682)

"Order and simplification are the first steps toward the mastery of a subject - the actual enemy is the unknown" - Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955)

Some Bibles have what is called a "Harmony of the Gospels", with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John separated by columns, and all the events which each gospel shares or seems to share, collected along the same horizontal line through the columns. The idea is to show how the same event is described in each gospel.

This scheme works quite well, but there are times when two different, separate events are placed together as if they are the same event. Minor and sometimes major details differ from one account to another, yet the Reader is meant to assume that, details aside, the events are all one. This, of course, leads on to the problem of contradictions, and the credibility of God's Word.

One example of this follows.

Mat.8:28 - 34 is not the same event as the similar account in Mark 5:1 - 20 and Luke 8:26 - 40.

1. In Matthew TWO demoniacs arrive, In Mark and Luke only ONE man appears.

2. In Matthew the visitors land opposite to the place where they set sail - Gergesenes. In Mark and Luke it is the Gadarenes.

3. In Matthew Jesus does NOT ask for any name. In Mark and Luke Jesus ASKS for the man's name.

4. In Matthew there is no mention of bonds being used. In Mark and Luke chains are mentioned as having been tried on the man.

5. In Matthew Jesus says nothing in the way of commands or admonitions to the freed men. In Mark and Luke Jesus commands the man to go back home and tell his people about the event.

6. In Matthew the event took place BEFORE the twelve were called (Mat.10). In Mark and Luke Jesus delivered the man before he called the 12 disciples (Mark 3:14, Luke 6:13).

Obviously, if both accounts are true, but they differ, there must be a flaw or error in the Bible, since God would never contradict Himself. Errors in the Bible would lead to the collapse of true Christianity, because if the Bible is not absolutely accurate in even one tiny point, the entire book becomes suspect, and every promise becomes uncertain. Christians could never be totally sure they were saved. Even God Himself might be imperfect!

27

The Curtains Close

"We have only to believe. And the more threatening and irreducible reality appears, the more firmly and desperately must we believe. Then little by little, we shall see the universal horror unbend, and then smile upon us, and then take us in its more than human arms." - Pierre Tielhard de Chardin (1881 - 1955)

Truth is reality.

Truth is a simple thing for a child and an endless mystery for a thinker.

Truth disguises itself so well it takes hundreds of years to find it. The sun, it was thought, went around the earth, but the truth that the opposite happened was difficult to prove. The interchangeability of matter and energy was difficult to see, but it was true regardless. We live in a universe made of truth, but we live inside a cocoon of lies, half-truths and mysteries. We kid ourselves that death is a friend, that life is the only reality, and that science one day will have all the answers. We joke about hunger, disease and sickness. We make up entertainment based on miseries. Shakespeare wrote about tragedy because it sold tickets, and television thrives on fantasy of every kind..

But the "universal horror" will only unbend when it is confronted with truth.

This little book is a challenge to all those who want to be free. It is not a perfect book, and I would not be surprised to find out that there are many mistakes in it, though at the moment I know of none worth making a fuss about. Are you willing to question everything, and test everything? Are you willing, like Luther, who challenged the entire Roman church, to think for yourself, and suffer if need be, for what you find?

I remember a time, when I was playing with a friend, we came across a fallen log, on which a slug was moving. My friend told me the slug was poisonous - so poisonous that I would die if I touched it. I believed my friend, and used a long stick to push the slug off the log. Of course, since then I have learned from a nature book that the slug was a harmless, common creature, which I could safely hold in my bare hand.

What made the difference was the information I received. If I had continued to believe my friend, I would have warned all my children not to touch the slug, and they might have warned their children.

About a hundred years ago tomatoes were thought to be poisonous too. People used to grow them as ornamental plants.

On the other hand, tobacco companies have been fighting tooth and nail for many years to convince people that cigarette smoking does not harm our health.

When Jesus came to walk among people, he had a difficult time from the very people who should have known and loved the truth. The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, the keepers of the Law, the followers of the Talmud, were some of the most learned people of their day. They had in their ranks a Gamaliel, and a Saul of Tarsus. They spent their lives memorising scripture and discussing scripture . . . but they were all bound for hell because when Jesus, the very embodiment of truth arrived, they did not recognise him.

And never forget that it is the same Jesus who stands outside the church, knocking to be let in - Rev.3:20. How much tradition does a church need to be hostile and closed to Jesus? How many errors do Christians need to take on board until they become Pharisees?

"The genius of Christianity is to have proclaimed that the path to the deepest mystery is the path of love" - Andre Malraux. (1901 - 1976)

Love is all very well, but love without truth cannot take us anywhere except hell. Some of the most loving, caring, philanthropic, generous wonderful people have failed to get through heaven's door because they have failed to take the path of truth. I think of Princess Diana for one, who consulted a medium for guidance, and was about to marry a man of a faith which contradicted Christianity. Despite all her sincerity, Diana was heading the wrong way.

I have not written this book to 'point the finger' at anyone. Please forgive me if you feel I have criticised your beliefs. If you are secure in what you think is the truth, you will not be bothered by criticism. If you are bothered, then perhaps you ought to examine what you believe and do some study, to make sure you are right. Otherwise Jesus might be standing outside, knocking to be let in . . .

I leave the last words to one of my favourite authors, C.S.Lewis. The following was written about his book 'Reflections on the Psalms' :

"I hope I shall not for this forfeit the good will or the prayers of either. Nor do I much fear it. In my experience the bitterest opposition comes neither from them nor from any other thorough-going believers, and not often from the atheists, but from semi-believers of all complexions. There are some enlightened and progressive old gentlemen of this sort whom no courtesy can propitiate and no modesty disarm. But then I daresay I am a much more annoying person than I know."

Back to Index Page