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."