Get your own Free Home PageJesus was awesome in His behavior before powerful earthly authorities. Read the Gospels and imagine talking so confidently and perfectly right to such people as known ruthless politicians and religious leaders. He displayed divine love continuously. When Peter cut off a soldier's ear, Jesus told him to put his sword away. Jesus knowingly went with the soldiers, to His earthly doom. While being questioned by his future executioners, he kept his cool, giving answers that couldn't be argued.
Imagine being crucified for your principles. Big nails driven through your hands and feet, then having your wrists tied so the nails can't pull out between your hand-bones. As you hang there, you get weaker and begin to sag. Your chest pulls tighter, making it hard to breathe. You push back up, against the spikes in your feet, to catch a breath. Your feet throb, so you lower yourself to reduce the pain, which pulls your chest again. Jesus must have been divinely motivated. How else could he have continued to go about and openly do good, knowing full well the authorities were going to crucify him? Regarding His resurrection, I can't explain it, but again, what was the motive for lying? Nobody gained by the lie! If the body was stolen by the disciples, they'd have had to overpower the guards and then hide the body. With a figure as well-known as Jesus stolen, those Romans would have imprisoned all Jesus's followers and eventually found the body. I believe His victory over death to be true. For me, the answer is plain. Jesus is deity!
Christian "Tradition" | Our Scripture | Evolution and the Bible
This has been gnawing at me for quite some time now. The Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and many others which sprang from Catholic roots, are heavily steeped in tradition. Much of this tradition was instituted by man, and cannot be found in the Bible. The Bible says that by faith, one is saved. Good works, which is said by some to be our salvation, is caused by sincere faith. It is this same faith which should cause one to faithfully study and strive to know God's word. I am not a biblical scholar, but have been doing some searching and researching. Where Christianity is concerned, one should try to follow God's word to the best of one's ability. I've been working on the attached paper for several years now, and have changed very little from its rough draft, or my first self-questioning. Much has been added since it first came to mind. Please read and ponder what I wrote, without getting defensive or judging me or my intent wrongly. What follows is right thought, but, perhaps, might not be the only right thought.
There are 66 books in our protestant Bible. Why are there not more? There are more in the Catholic Bible, and more claimed to be "lost books." During early missions to the Germanic tribes, the books of Kings were omitted, as it was thought they would incite violence, and the original King James Version of the Bible had more books than it presently contains. I'm not well studied in this area, but have read several books from the Apocrypha and a few of those lost books. I've found them to be very much the same as the present, or authorized, Old Testament books. Some group took it upon themselves to accept and reject as they saw fit. They felt something granted them the divine right to do this - and perhaps with good intent; but they risked hiding from God's people, works which might very likely be His Word.
A thorough study of scripture, I believe, should also include our consideration of books which are said by some, to be invalid. If scholars have the right to reject scripture, they could conceiveably keep omitting books to the point that our Bible might, for example, be composed only of Song of Solomon. What then would our religion be? It would be sad to think that divine inspiration ceased with the twelve apostles and Paul. What is the Bible, or more accurately, what is God's Word? Do we take it at face value, just as it's put before us? If that is the case, which version or interpretation do we call Truth?
The words of the Bible are truth. The words of other writings, and interpretations of others, may be truth, but, they might just as likely be false. If you have any doubt, read your Bible and draw your own conclusions; read the WHOLE Bible, and not just parts, lest you take something out of context. Read also, comparing and contrasting, other works which may be at your disposal. When interpreting for yourself, don't add things, for example, if I told you "I went home from work," you might speculate as to what was my mode of transportation, and what was my route, but you can't say I must have stopped off at the barber shop on the way. The stop at the barber shop is not there. Too many times in the Bible, people try to add things which just don't exist.
I feel our Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, not written by God, Himself, but by many different authors, writing in ways they felt would convey their meaning to their particular audiences. The Bible is the Word of God, but I see it as very open to interpretation. It was written so the people of the time could understand and relate to it. There have been a great many scientific human-learning-breakthroughs since its original writing. I believe that if it were written now, for the first time, it would be quite a different interpretation, though the basic truth that God created and loves all things would not be changed. It is a book intended to teach religion, not natural science. Much is very likely figuratively written. If one insists on literal translation for one part, one must then insist on literal translation throughout the Bible. The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict one another regarding the order in which things were created: Genesis 1 says God created man on the 6th day, and all other things before this, and Genesis 2 says God created man even before the plants. The religious teaching that God made all things holds true in both accounts.
If evolution is changing from one species to another, I must declare it false. If it was true in the past, when and why did it cease for so many species? If evolution just means change, then there's something to it. Evolution, as change, is not denied by scripture, though some say that Genesis' word "day" must be the same 24-hour day we know. God created light, dark, day and night on the first day, then on the second, He created the sky. God's day, to me, is clearly not the same as ours. 2 Peter 3:8 states "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day". Is a day then a thousand years, or thousands of thousands? On one day, God created man. A look at man through the ages reveals he IS changing. One example is that on the average, he is taller, and, in recorded history (the Bible not being a natural history) he is living longer. God created man, but many varieties of man. From Adam and Eve came all races. There are obvious differences from skin color and bone structure to size, lip shape and eye shape. Man has changed. I, personally, can't see evolving from one species to another, but change within a species, to me is obvious - that could explain all the "missing links", and the fact that you just don't find Australopithecus anymore. Maybe God didn't call us "man" until after the missing link.
Darwin's theory has numerous holes. Why aren't there intermediate species of man still walking the earth? There are still apes from which they could evolve. A look at the Genesis 1 account reveals the order of creation to be quite the same as our modern science is finding. If God created man at the last second of the sixth day, that leaves just shy of 144 hours for entire races of animals to be created, reproduce, live and become extinct. I do believe 2 Peter 3:8's explanation of God's concept of time, and it supports modern science's findings. Genesis does not say how God created things, nor does Genesis 2 say what was contained in the dust from which man was composed. If woman was made from man, then woman is of the same substance, and therefore equal.
We constantly feel free to interpret what Paul meant when he discusses the role of women in the Church. 1 Timothy 2:9-15 says women aren't supposed to adorn themselves with jewelry, nor even braid their hair. They're supposed to learn in silence; they're not to teach, nor even usurp (KJV) or hold authority over men. Paul goes on to say that it was the woman who was tempted, not the man. That's why the woman must behave like this. Can a woman preach without teaching? Can a woman hold any office in a church where she might be in a position to tell a man what to do? I see women as equal to men, with only some physical differences, but the Bible says differently. I begin to feel some doubt in myself because I accept parts of the Bible, and question other parts as archaic. The Bible is clear, regarding the conduct of women, but it is also clear in other areas that are freely interpreted in ways not concretely biblical.
Some say "Thou shalt not kill" is meant as just that. Kill what; plants, animals, or are we species peculiar in our interpretation? We eat, build homes, and are constantly killing plants or animals in one way or another. At face value, it says 'kill nothing.' I interpret it to mean "Thou shalt not murder." The word from which "kill", in this instance, comes, means to commit homicide. That brings up a whole new can of worms; earthly punishment of the murderer, the Golden Rule, and laws made by man, but I'll not get into that.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Are witches simply pagans who use (or think they're using) magic? I have many friends who claim pagan religions, and they're perhaps some of the most good-hearted, morally upstanding people I know. I will continue to try to win them to Christ, but I'll leave the judgement in God's hands. Some translations (NIV, Revised Standard) exchange the word "witch" with "sorceress". This makes things even more confusing, as it seems to go on to say 'but a sorcerer is OK.' Whose definition of "witch" do we use? When the King James Version of the Bible was written, witches could have been anyone who made herbal cures or did something else unexplainable (at the time), especially with plants. Jacob used "herb magic" when he laid out the branches to change the color of his master's sheep, but I guess this time it was OK. Many young girls were condemned as witches when some medieval noble or cleric lost control and got caught having sexual relations with them. They "bewitched" the noble into doing it, or so the courts said. What is a witch, or sorceress? What is magic? If, as we're told, we're not to kill, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" must mean that we should try to get them to give up witchcraft and seek the Truth.
About the Law: Does awareness of the Law make it binding? I'm aware of some of the laws of England, yet I'm not bound by them. Why do we not offer sacrifices like lambs, doves, etc.? What truly frees us from Old Testament laws? Aren't the Ten Commandments Old Testament laws? Which laws then, are not applicable to us?
Another thing that I wonder about, is our reason for compliance with the Word of God. Do we do it so we can receive eternal life? This seems selfish, and against what the Bible says - obeying God so we can get something - a sort of payment. We should rather do God's will out of respect or awe of His limitless power and love, whether we get something out of it or not (This is an Islamic teaching, but I feel it holds true. A big reason I've not considered Islam with possible adherance thoughts, is "Holy War" as I understand it, is contradictory to Jesus's Gospel.). Just who or what is this God I write about? I am sure I cannot put it in words.
A very difficult subject for me for me to handle, without alienating many readers, is Christian baptism. Jesus said 'Let the children come to me'. Does 'children' refer to young humans, or did He mean children of God? Another verse says, 'if one does not come to God as a child, one will not see the Kingdom of Heaven'. This either means we're wasting our time trying to get adults to come to God, or that we must have child-like faith when we, at any age, come to God. Jesus did not mention baptism in any of these passages, yet they are often used to support infant baptism. He said 'Let them come to me', not 'bring them, without their knowledge, to Me.' The Bible mentions baptism in many places in the New Testament and demonstrates it by the person being baptised as going INTO the water, coming OUT OF the water and MUCH water. All baptisms in the Bible were performed on believing adults, and Jesus, Himself, was baptized IN the Jordan river as an adult, not an infant. BAPTIZO, the Greek word, from which our "baptize", "baptism", etc. comes, means to "immerse" or "cover with liquid". The sprinkle is NEVER mentioned, and was brought about by man, not any biblical source. Most modern theologians will admit that immersion is what was originally meant in the Bible, but that changes have occurred over the centuries. Different kinds of baptism are mentioned in the Bible: by fire, by water, and by the Holy Spirit. Are they different and why?
For me, christening, and then after being instructed - Confirmation (a group recitation), is not how the Bible says it should be done (I thought it was right for over 30 years). Infant baptism and sprinkling might be acceptable in God's eyes, but the Bible doesn't mention it. The Bible says one must come to know God first, confess faith, then be baptized - in much water, and in that order. We have God's Word; listen to Him.
I did some research into some of those doctrines which differ from those of my Church. I was brought up Lutheran, so, as a child, I had nothing but Lutheran teachings and thought them to be totally correct. I reviewed Luther's Small Catechism, and was a bit surprised at how I accepted what was taught without any questioning. I see the infant baptism doctrine and its scriptural backing to be riddled with misinterpretation. I shall now transcribe the baptism doctrine from this Catechism. Scriptural references are given, but not spelled out, as they were in the Catechism.
"All nations" is scripturally correct, as is the being taught prior to being baptized. These are some of the scriptures used to support infant baptism. Read all the scripture which is referenced. Does it firmly support what is being taught in the Catechism? In infant baptism, is the infant taught before being baptized?
The Lutheran baptism service, which I read and re-read many times, is a ceremony whereby parents publicly declare that they will bring up their child in a Christian manner. Ephesians 6:4 definitely backs this, but not infant baptism, for which it is used in the Catechism. Baptism is a personal commitment; no commitment and no confession of faith is made by the child. If the water was used at the Confirmation service, it might constitute baptism, depending upon the definition of baptize, baptism, etc. It may be said that the steps are mechanical, and needn't be performed in any particular order, but if the baptism takes place before the belief, it has absolutely no meaning. Writing a letter, putting it in an envelope, sealing it and sending it are mechanical steps too, but these cannot be taken out of order. How can we change the order of compliance for a command of God? A teacher of mine said he'd heard from another teacher, that if God had said for us to raise our right hand for salvation, there'd be many people who'd claim the left hand is just as good. I heard, from a lady I met at school, an interesting way to look at infant baptism. If, in fact, the sprinkling of a non-consenting, un-informed infant is a valid baptism, then one could conceivably save people by sprinkling passers-by on a busy sidewalk, whether they wanted it or not.
Roman Catholics use the same reasoning as do the Lutherans for the way they do things, but back much of what they do, by saying it's tradition. They say infant baptism goes back to apostolic times. I wonder why it is not in the Bible. They even condone infant confirmation in emergencies.
In this paragraph lies my real confusion. I must consider my friends, family, and any infant baptizing group of believers. If they haven't complied with what the Bible says, are they truly saved? God didn't say, "Obey Me, except for this, that, and the other thing." At one time, I couldn't see God condemning an infant, a believer, nor even one who's led a life of goodness, providing one hadn't renounced God. Sadly, I was wrong. Jesus, Himself, said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (Jn 14:6 -NKJV). I was christened as an infant back in 1957; my baptism was on 15 September, 1991. One should try to do all that God asks. Immersion baptism is not wrong, as that's the example the Bible gives. Sprinkling may not be wrong, but there is no example of it in the Bible. I find nowhere, where infant baptism is even implied. When one reads, one interprets; don't add what's not there.
Get your own Free Home Page