Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." 1 Sam 8:4-5 (NASB)

Do you know what we call elders today who want to shirk their leadership responsibilities while retaining their leadership titles? Politicians. (Look at that, I started the blog with a digression. Note to self: focus) 

The elders in Samuel’s day should have trusted Yahweh and either taken leadership or simply trusted that God would provide. Instead, they found it much easier to ask for someone else to make their decisions for them. It’s interesting to see how Israel, history, and even in modern times, mankind is always looking for someone to take the lead and show us the way. How many times have we heard Ronald Reagan’s name invoked lately? It seems like we are hardwired with a desire to be led, whether to victory or to defeat. When it is victory, it’s always a “team” win and when it is a loss, well then it was “his” fault!

When we tell people about our faith, don’t they often ask who the Pastor is or what the denomination is? This is because folks are conditioned, based on history and experience, to have to tie a believer to some enigmatic teacher or organized denomination. We simply have to have had our doctrines spoon-fed to us by an established organization or else we just don’t fit into the box. Taking responsibility for one’s own salvation and studying independently is, sadly, a foreign concept. But this is how it was during the early days of Christianity. The Spirit called people individually and those believers studied to show themselves approved. Philip explained Yeshua to the Ethiopian using scripture only, not some man-granted authority. 

Our model ought to be the same as that Ethiopian. We should test everything, holding fast to the true. We see in a mirror now, dimly, and following men leads to following false prophets who steal our money and worse, our souls. Take a look at how Abraham answered the call as a contrast to those elders above: 

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, " Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 

Gen 22:1 (NASB)

I’ve often wondered is there should be a comma in there. Could it be “Here, I am” instead of “Here I am”? Either way, though, our example illustrated by Abraham is what it is. Have faith and be prepared when called to answer. Because the leaders of the denominations and large churches won’t be able to save you on that great and terrible Day of the LORD.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I’m sure you’ve all heard the saying “he missed the forest because of the trees”. This means that a person missed the “big picture” of the forest because he was staring at the detail of a trees. This type of myopia is also prevalent in Christian thought. 

Take a look at the Christian churches in the phone book to see all the names. How many of them are named after specific doctrines? The Baptists are named after immersion since sprinkling does not count for baptism. Presbyterians are named after a type of governance. Some groups even have two or three adjectives in their names. Lutherans are actually named after a man (God forbid, Paul specifically writes against this at 1Cor 1:12-14.) 

Most of these churches were started because someone started focusing too much on one specific doctrine. It’s understandable since oftentimes the doctrine in question was overlooked for a very long time. Unless, of course, if the denomination focuses on bad doctrines or even following men instead of Yahweh, then it is very bad. Generally speaking, though, an entire denomination focusing on one or two doctrines is counterproductive to learning the depth and breadth of the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus.

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every  form of evil. 1 Thess 5:21-22 (NASB)

See? The goal is to examine everything carefully, not just to focus on a doctrine or two. Look further at what Paul says to Timothy:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NASB)

We’re supposed to study all the scripture and test all the doctrines, not just one or two. The Church of God is a package deal. This is how Yahweh looks at us, as a balanced package. Yeshua told us that the commandments were summed up into two, to love God with all our hearts and souls and to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is a big picture approach. His earthly ministry surely was a big picture ministry showing us compassion, patience, and love.

This is certainly not meant to belittle or discount studying the details of the WORD. That is part of the “everything”! But the Church of God and the Messianic congregations tend to study ourselves stupid at times. Our groups have discovered a very linear path and returned to much lost truth, but we have also have a tendency to start throwing doctrinal stakes into the ground that create divisions where none exist. Or worse, we get onto tangents that become the nexus of our faith and detract from focusing of the grace and love of Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the cross (or torture stake, see what I mean?).

Brothers and sisters, doctrine is really important. Studying is really important. But when it becomes an avenue to divide those of us who do share so much in common, please have patience with each other. The denominations listed above provide enough division between us and mainstream Christianity to last a lifetime! If the doctrine one is so strident about is true, and independent study showed it to one person, won’t that same study show it to all? If Messiah has shown us such grace and patience, shouldn’t we afford each other the same?

A  new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

John 13:34-35 (NASB)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I had this paper up at my old site and remembered it today. I did get an "A" on this! 

Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are polysyllabic terms that have been used to describe the extremes within those who hold to the theory of evolution. Phyletic gradualism means that changes occur over time, they are incremental, and evolutionary changes happen over a constant, cumulative period of change (Hazen & Trefil, 2010). Punctuated equilibrium is an idea that changes occur in short bursts between static periods. It is important to remember that the time frames referenced when speaking of the idea that life has evolved over millions of years are really long. In this vein, punctuated equilibrium’s “short” periods of time are actually long periods of time referenced against much, much longer periods of time.

The scientific method hinges on hypotheses being observable and testable. Evolution, being based on the assumption of a very old planet, makes observation quite difficult. As the textbook indicates, the fossil record is hindered by circumstances limiting the ability for fossils to be formed in a given time and/or geography (Hazen & Trefil, 2010). Punctuated equilibrium states that the fossil record will show leaps in evolution vice a constant state of change (The Pace, 2006). Since that theory holds that change happens between periods of a lack of change, the evidence throughout a multi-million year evolutionary chain would appear like a dashed line instead of a smooth transition.

In the models of punctuated equilibrium, it is surmised that evolution only occurs at the edge of a species, i.e., at the fringes. In order to deal with the problem of interbreeding, the theory expounds that the majority of the species does not change, but only a group that becomes isolated encounters the evolutionary changes (Evolution Library, 2001). These changes only become evident when they have been sustained in the isolated group long enough that the isolated group becomes something else and then can survive alongside or independent of the original group. 

We can observe intra-species evolution taking place in very short amounts of time and in real-time. Biological beings change very rapidly due to external forces. For instance, look at the Korean peninsula today. On the northern side of the thirty-eighth parallel we have a malnourished population that is significantly smaller than their kin on the southern side of the border. Sunyoung Pak, an anthropologist, performed a study of 2300 refugees from North Korea and discovered that their fourteen-year-old males averaged over six inches shorter than their kin from the south and the fourteen-year-old girls were nearly 3 inches shorter. Assuming that the political situation in the Koreas stays the same for another fifty years, that disparity would presumably be much the same for the entire populations of the two countries. Then, imagine a cataclysmic event causes a mass extinction of the human race on the Korean peninsula and a couple thousand years passes before anyone can excavate this area. What will archaeologists and paleontologists discover? They would discover two notably different skeletal remains of the same species separated by a definitive dividing line. This change only took one hundred years, yet because of the socio-economic status of the two Koreas, it would appear that the skeletal remains were from dramatically different time periods. If the culture a couple thousand years from now is similar to ours today, this “find” would be used to illustrate proof of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution.

It is interesting to study how changes are supposed to take a long time and a short time at the same time within the sphere of evolutionary thought. This is similar to the debate today with respect to climate change. The proponents of climate change have massaged their arguments over time as new evidence has been uncovered but at no time does the evidence ever lead them to reconsider the entire thesis. Essentially, no matter what is happening with our climate and weather patterns, it backs up the idea of global, man-made, climate change. Our textbook says that during earth’s evolution, both dramatic change and gradual change have happened, likely simultaneously (Hazen & Trefil, 2010). This is quite disturbing because it appears that no matter what empirical evidence is discovered, it will be used to show that grand, cross-species evolution is true. This is called “group think” and is very much present in cult religions. This is quite contrary to the scientific method where testing everything, being curious, and following the evidence to wherever it leads is the paramount goal. If every piece of evidence uncovered must be manipulated to fit within a pre-established paradigm, then science is not the goal. 

Evidence for our planet being old is established through the fossil record. There are many species of animal that existed that no longer exist, and those different animals appear to have lived in widely varying eras. It is difficult to accept that life evolved from one species that was created accidentally and that humans, while being a very young species, are the only species to have evolved into intelligent, sentient beings. Evidence of evolution can be seen in the Fantastic Caverns of Springfield, MO. There are quite a number of caves under the ground in the state of Missouri; hence it is called the “cave state”. In the Fantastic Caverns, a fish was discovered that was identical to the fish that exist above ground but it has no eyes. Since the fish that fell into the caves lived their entire lives in darkness, they stopped growing eyes. This is evidence of intra-species, short-term evolution.

The idea that our planet was created accidentally and accidentally began spinning on the exact axis to accidentally create the perfect atmosphere for life to accidentally evolve into what we have today appears to be a statistical impossibility. However, the evidence shows what it shows. There is more evidence in the stars that our planet is very old. The distance between the planets in our solar system is vast and the scope and depth of space is incomprehensible. Our moon shows scars from being bombarded with, presumably, space debris. This debris is nowhere to be found near our planet. The time it takes for objects to travel far enough away that we cannot see them appears to be quite long. This, to the author, is evidence of age.

References

Evolution Library: Punctuated Equilibrium. (2001). In PBS. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html

Hazen, R. M, & Trefil, J., (2010). The Sciences an Integrated Approach (pp. 531-556). Danvers, 

MA: John Wiley & Sons

McKie, R., & Saini, A. (2004, December 5). North Korea is failing to meet growth target. In The

Guardian. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/05/northkorea

The Pace of Evolution. (2006). In Evolution 101: The Big Issues. Retrieved February 28, 2011,

from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIAPaceevolution.shtml

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I sat down for a meal at a recent church meet-up and noticed the guy next to me had a relatively new tattoo on his forearm. The guy seemed to be about 30 and I think he has been in and around the Churches of God for most of his life. When I asked “what is that?” he responded by telling me the meaning of the shapes and what the tattoo meant to him. He is obviously proud of his body art.

I was a bit perplexed. I had (and have) no ill feeling at all toward the brother with the new tattoo but the first thought in my head was, “who’s running this guy’s home congregation?” 

I’m no stranger to tattoos and it is only by the grace of God that I escaped the Navy and my youth without one. I could never find some image that I wanted to wear for the rest of my life. I even had an artistically talented friend of mine draw what I envisioned having tattooed on me. I ended up laminating it and saving it until I ever felt like having it put on me permanently. That never happened.

Just in case anyone is wondering, Torah does indeed prohibit tattoos and that can be found at Leviticus 19:28. Earrings and, strangely, nose rings aren’t prohibited by scripture.

Brethren, it sure is easy to fall into the habit of only teaching our most powerful doctrines. The Sabbath, the Ten Commandments, the Moedim, and the pagan roots of the false doctrines are common threads we like to preach. We must not forget to speak, teach and write on the common beliefs we share with traditional Christianity. Standards of personal conduct, ethics, dressing modestly, and other fundamentals need to be addressed periodically. I know it is easy to assume everyone already knows these things but please invest the time, even if the congregation is a seasoned one. James 3:1 shows that we teachers have a great burden of judgment, so when the congregation is resurrected, let’s have them resurrected as knowledgeable and prepared for that day as possible.

As a side note, when I started to write this blog I was certain that earrings and nose rings were also prohibited by Torah. They actually aren’t and if one reads Ezekiel 16, one can see Yahweh analogizing Jerusalem as a bride and placing earrings and nose rings on her to make her beautiful. That said, I still prefer my wife and my daughters to stay the way Yahweh made them. If He wishes to place rings in their ears, though, His will be done.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

George Burns made a couple of very funny movies where he played both God and the devil back in the lat 1970s. I recall one scene where both characters were playing poker with each other. When I think about a pure free-will view of Christianity, I tend to gravitate back to that fictional image of God and the devil playing poker. Does anyone really think they can bluff God? (By the way, I tried to find the clip of the movie but could only find a passing glimpse. Apparently some movies were made prior to YouTube. Who knew?)

The refrain of the song “Blessed be the Name” includes the words “You give and take away”. I wonder if we really take that refrain to heart. God really does give and take away, even to people who aren’t believers. Sometimes we hear that God raises up nations, but in order to do that He has to work with individuals, too. Even the unbelievers’ wealth and power were not accumulated without God’s notice and likely intervention. He surely has a purpose for all the resources He has given to mankind. 

If we look at Genesis and Exodus, God’s use of both believers and non-believers kind of jumps off of the pages. Jacob had twelve kids and eleven of them had a big problem with the youngest one, Joseph. They treated Joseph really, really bad by selling him into slavery after contemplating murdering him. This treachery ends up with Joseph becoming the de facto leader of Egypt so Yahweh can preserve the tribes. This is a great example of Yahweh working with individuals, even unbelieving Pharaoh, the jailers, Pharaoh’s wife, and a host of other people so that the nation of Israel could grow in number off of the radar of the Canaanites!

Referencing John 4:7-39, the Samaritan woman at the well during Yeshua’s earthly ministry is another outstanding example of the amazing power of God with respect to omniscience. Through a whole lot of happenings in the Old Testament, there was a people occupying Samaria who knew some of the ways of the LORD but were conflicted. Yeshua spoke of the fields being ripe and when He met that woman at the well it was no accident. A sinful Gentile woman who knew of the coming Messiah was used to make many believers and prepare that entire region for the spreading of the Gospel and the adoption that was to occur just a short time after that meeting.

The intersection of free-will and predestination is a very intriguing subject to contemplate. Think about your own lives now and see where you can identify the Hand of God guiding things in your past and your decisions. I can sure see this in my life. the idea of having a religious website and speaking in a Sabbath observing congregation would have been unthinkable to me 15 years ago, but here I am! Working in mysterious ways appears to be the LORD’s signature way of operating. Perhaps He will explain it all to us at the resurrection!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

2 Tim 4:3-4 (NASB)

Paul writes of a prophecy where the people will accumulate teachers in accordance to their own desires. The word accumulate indicates a plurality. The people want to be stroked, like a cat, for doing what is right in their eyes, not in God’s sight.

What happened to the prophets who told people what Yahweh wanted them to hear instead of what they wanted to hear? It did not go well for them to say the least. Many of them were even killed outright.

But they became disobedient and rebelled against You, and cast Your law behind their backs and killed Your prophets who had admonished them so that they might return to You, and they committed great blasphemies. Neh 9:26 (NASB)

This has happened many times in the past. In 1 Samuel 8 the people rejected God as their King and demanded a human king. Yahweh even had Samuel try to talk them out of it by illustrating the burdens a king would lay upon them, but they would not listen. When Moses went up to get the Law, the people coaxed Aaron, their spiritual leader, to make them idols and lead them in debauchery. Most famously, the people demanded the murderer be released from prison so that the Messiah would be crucified. Each time the people just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear.

This same theme is occurring today. The former head coach of Penn State recently passed away. He had led that team to many victories, but had been covering up horrific crimes committed by his assistant. I pray he repented prior to his passing. But the people do not remember his sins which were recently uncovered. They only remember the glory he brought to their school. The flags are at half staff for a man who covered up the rape of children.

This is also occurring in our political arena. A man with a laundry list of ethical and moral problems in the past just won the GOP primary in South Carolina. South Carolina used to be considered “the Bible belt” and it would be unheard of for anyone with the problems of Newt Gingrich to even think about running for election there. But at a recent debate Newt got cross with the moderator for calling him out on his adulterous past. A repentant man would have answered the charge with remorse in his voice, but Newt responded with indignation! You see, the GOP primary voters don’t like the left wing media and that moderator represents the left wing media. Getting in a dig at the media is apparently more important to SC voters than choosing one of the other three candidates who have been faithfully married to their first and only wives for decades and have not been publicly fined for ethics violations.

The Gingrich and Paterno phenomena are quite bothersome. As Christians we should certainly forgive these men their past sins, as horrific as they may be. That does not mean we need to honor or exalt them or their memories, though. Let’s take care that we fight the urge to have our ears tickled and make choices on who our leaders will be with a sober and clear mind. Keep in mind, also, the requirements for leadership in the New Testament

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become  conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with  those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Tim 3:1-7 (NASB)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It’s probably just coincidence but I’ve seen a trend lately with folks fixating on blame and responsibility. Problems come along and when a customer, vendor, or colleague discovers they may be even partially part of the root cause of the problem, they become apologetic or even self-deprecating in a bad way. Sometimes people even apologize to me profusely over things that aren’t even their fault and couldn’t be. My response is almost always to assure them that I take no offense and even if it was their fault, I’m not a backward-looking person. Life, professional or otherwise, is about looking forward, learning from mistakes, and moving on. None of us are perfect nor will be until perfected by our Creator in the New Jerusalem.

Christianity’s main theme is redemption and forgiveness. If we had no reason to repent, we would have no need for a Savior! Look at what Paul, one who persecuted the Church of God to great length prior to being converted, says about moving on:

Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Phi 3:13-14 (NASB)

This is coming from Paul, one who’s sins were piled incredibly high. It is interesting to note that Paul was a highly educated theologian who missed the boat on the Messiah. His sins derived from his erroneous view of theology because he thought he knew all the right answers! Wow, doesn’t that apply to each and every bible-believing Christian ever?

Those of us who have taken responsibility for our own salvation through study of the Bible have all made errors in understanding, teaching, and application of the WORD. Perhaps we were part of faulty denominations or perhaps we became very dogmatic over doctrines we didn’t fully understand and lead someone else astray. But what Paul wrote was not to dwell on the past, move forward! Press on toward the goal! Focus on the prize! And here is one part of that prize:

"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. Isa 65:17 (NASB)

At some point in the future, those who are saved and granted eternal life, will not remember the former things. Our regrets, our sins, our errors, pain, sin, death, and all negative things that have happened will not be remembered anymore. If God has promised this, why not start today. Forgive yourself for past mistakes, and also, perhaps more importantly, forgive others for past mistakes as well. Forget about it!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13 (NASB)

This is a very famous scripture that foreshadows the sacrifice of the Messiah. This verse follows immediately after Jesus tells His followers to love each other as He has loved them. I wonder when He was dying on that cross if some of the disciples remembered this and trembled. “Was He really telling us to be willing to die for each other, I mean, to die like THAT?” was most certainly a question that came up prior to His resurrection. Their fear and confusion must have been unbearable.

Let’s remember now one of the prophesies of the Messiah:

"The LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. Deut 18:17-18

Moses was used as a deliverer for the Hebrews from their physical bondage. Yahweh used Moses to lead His people out of a literal pagan nation where they were literally slaves. Yeshua came to show all mankind the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus came to call His people out of Babylon and paganism and to lead us into all Truth. There is another parallel that I seldom hear made between Yeshua and Moses. Take a look here in Exodus. The following verse comes after Yahweh gave the Law to Moses then the people “rose up to play”. Yahweh is prepared to wipe the entire race out when Moses says:

"But now, if You will, forgive their sin—and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!" Exodus 32:32

This is an incredible sentence, brothers and sisters. Moses knew of the Book of Life and He knew it was already written and complete. Moses also knew that his name could be blotted out and he laid down his eternal life in order to save the people. Isn’t it amazing and sobering to acknowledge that while Yahweh did not require Moses’ eternal life to save the people, Christ really did lay His eternal life down for us. Let us live out our days acknowledging the greatest love of all, that the Messiah laid down His life for His people and that His shed blood allows us to become His people and have a chance to not get our names blotted out of the book!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The vast majority of Christians just celebrated what they think is the birthday of Jesus. A relative few of us abstain from that practice because, as my friend Lenny preached this last Sabbath, Jesus was not born in the winter. Also, the practices of Christmas are almost all linked to pagan religions of antiquity, so those of us who know that need to act accordingly.

But today’s post is not about XMAS but rather about the birth part. All Christians accept that Jesus was born, in a manger, of a woman, and was reared to adulthood by an earthly family. The WORD became flesh and dwelt (or tabernacled) among us. No controversy yet, so far as I know. The question I have is if a birth took place, then a death had to take place, too!

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb 9:15 (NASB)

Ahh, isn’t that a powerful verse, brethren? It is one of the verses that the whole faith hinges upon, huh? And it is about the subject of the New Covenant, the voluntary death of the Messiah who now mediates for believers and redeems us from the penalty of our sins. Sin is the transgression of the Law, a Law He kept without blemish. It is also an impossible verse to comprehend if one accepts the Trinity.

Because if a birth took place, which it did (and it’s date was not recorded), then a death took place. God the Father did not die, His Son did. His Son stayed that way for 72 hours (give or take) and was resurrected by the Father. He died and yet lived again, raised immortal and exalted. He again dwelt among us and taught the Apostles all things about Himself from the Torah. After His resurrection, He said he had not yet ascended to the Father. Yet another verse that is not possible to reconcile if one accepts the Trinity. If the three-in-one God thing is true, Jesus never really left the Father, never really died, wasn’t really resurrected, and the price of our sins is not paid.

Praise Almighty Yahweh (that’s God in English, btw.) that His Son was born, so that He could die, and yet live again. All will now live again, some to a resurrection of life and others to a resurrection of judgment. Accepting Yeshua (Jesus in English) as Messiah (Christ) is the path unto a resurrection of life! Accept Him and you shall be saved!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Take a look at this video in order to set the mood!

All righty, now that your sinusoidal deplanaration has been attenuated, let's get down to some basic truth.

Christianity is not supposed to be complicated!

We have a list of "rules for a good marriage" on the wall on our house. It has been there as long as I can remember and some of the rules are quite comical, though all are true! The one that comes to mind goes like this: "In an argument, the one doing the most talking is usually the one who is wrong." This is true on so, so many levels!

I have found myself reading incredibly long treatises trying to explain, using a maximum of adjectives and flowery language, how some plain truth of the Bible is neither plain nor true. Take the Sabbath for example. The Bible only sanctifies one day of the week to be kept holy and that day starts at Friday sunset and ends at Saturday sunset. The 4th commandment and Leviticus 23 tell us what to do on that day; don't work, don't make anyone else work, have a holy convocation (go to church). Easy to explain and easy to understand. Now ask someone to explain why most of Christianity does not keep the Sabbath and instead observes Sunday. Yep, it'll take pages.

Think about the other stuff people like us do. Most of our differences with mainstream Christianity come from simply scripture.

Q: Why don't you believe in the Trinity?

A: It's not in the Bible. Jesus prayed to The Father and is seated next to the Father so He's not the Father.

Q: Why don't you eat pork?

A: Because Jesus didn't eat pork. I'm a Christian so I want to be like Christ.

Q: Why don't you keep Christmas?

A: It's not in the Bible and Jeremiah writes that we specifically aren't supposed to do stuff like that.

Q: Why don't you have crosses in your house?

A: Jesus was killed with a cross. I don't think the device of His execution hanging on a wall is an appropriate tool for worship. Oh, and the commandment says not to use stuff made by men for worship.

See how easy that is? Sure, we can elaborate on all those points and many more, but for most of us the house of cards that is mainstream Christianity started falling down based on simple scripture. For me, the idea of an eternal hell with immortal souls came apart when I read Revelation 19 and 20. I remember asking my wife, who was raised a Sabbath keeper and schooled in the WORD, "Honey, it doesn't look like hell exists yet. Is that right?" And her response, "Of course not, keep reading."

That's some of the best advice anyone has ever given me with respect to the Bible. Keep reading. Yes, brothers and sisters, let's keep reading and by all means, Keep It Simple!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon  Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Matt 16:13-20 (NASB)

The scriptures I just posted have been used to say that Peter became the New Testament Moses. The first problem with that thesis is that Yeshua was not just talking to Peter here but to the whole crew. He asked them all who people said He was and they answered pretty evasively. They did not venture their own ideas but in a weak manner regurgitated what others were saying, hoping to accidentally hit the mark. Peter, being his brash self, piped up and said that He is the Messiah (Christ = Messiah, by the way). Because of Peter’s boldness, he got renamed Peter. Here’s another clue, though, because Christ renamed Peter “Petros” and then when He says upon this rock, the word switches gender to “petra”. Strongs has different numbers for the two words and different definitions. Petros means Peter (proper name) and petra means rock - like a granite rock.

This is the key to the verse. “Upon this Rock” right after his Messiah-ship is announced. Imagine as you read that Yeshua places his hand on his own chest when He says “upon this Rock I will build my church.” Because “this Rock” is a very important thing. Moses struck that Rock to get water in the wilderness. And Moses also got busted for hitting that Rock twice because the Messiah was not to be struck twice but to only die once for the remission of sins (credit to John Klassek for explaining that one to me). Let’s look at the corresponding scripture now:

"Take the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink." So Moses took the rod from before the Lord, just as He had commanded him; and Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. And he said to them, "Listen now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and  water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank. 

Num 20:8-11 (NASB)

Back up now to the verses in Matthew again. Jesus said He would build His “church” on “this rock”. It is very interesting to note that the word “church” in the bible is actually the word “ekklesia” which means “assembly” or “congregation”. This makes Numbers 20:8-11 and Matthew 16:13-20 fit together like precision machined parts. Moses assembled the congregation before the Rock and Jesus says He will build His congregation upon the Rock. In this, the proper context, wouldn’t it be absolutely preposterous for that rock to actually be Peter? (That’s a rhetorical question, the answer is yes).

Now to finish up the thought on the keys. Modern English has no plural form of the word “you”. Well, unless you live south of the Mason-Dixon line, then we have “y’all”. After Jesus finishes telling the apostles that He is going to build His congregation upon the rock of His Messiah-ship, he says “I will give y’all the keys of the kingdom”. Why have plural keys and a congregation of believers if only one key is necessary? (Another rhetorical question, I seem to be stuck on that this evening.)

Yet another point about Peter not being another Moses comes from the giving of the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, Moses had all the Holy Spirit until he got some help. At that point, some of the Spirit came off of Moses and rested upon his helpers. There was never any doubt that Moses was in charge of the entire operation, soup to nuts (Numbers 11:16-17). In Acts 2:1-4, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit rested on all the Apostles at the same time and equally. This is a very important distinction because the authority in the New Testament rests on the congregation through the power of the Holy Spirit, not on any individual.

I will give one more hint about the identity of "the Rock". When Moses struck the Rock, it gave forth life giving water. Where are we supposed to get the water of ever lasting life?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So, I promised to write more on the book Atlas Shrugged. Here goes.

This post is a spoiler, so if you haven’t read the book and want to, you might want to come back and read this later. As critical as I am about Atlas Shrugged, I still think it should be read by just about every American.

Overview for this post is that Atlas Shrugged is a fictional application of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, a writer from the mid-20th century. She came to live and work in the USA after defecting from the USSR. Her real-life perspective was one where socialists had destroyed innovation and free markets by demonizing producers. She witnessed the socialist takeover of a decent country and had fled it outright, as everyone ought to. It’s amazing at how much this book parallels modern day politics in the USA. Rand’s conclusion about the ultimate end result of socialism is very accurate and I agree with that part of the book in total.

A couple of the characters in the book see the result of socialism coming about 12 years in advance. They start a secret society of producers who hasten the end of the nation by massive economic sabotage. Their hiding spot is a utopian valley of pure capitalism. The only people allowed into the valley are successful producers who are hand picked from the core group of capitalist conspirators. Here comes the eugenics part.

eugenics |yo͞oˈjeniks|

pluralnoun [ treated as sing. ]

the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

Ayn Rand’s idea of a perfect society is one populated only by producers who have no problem leaving their family, friends, and millions of innocent non-socialists to die of starvation and violence while they chill out in the mountains until everything blows over. Their fictional plan, which was brought to fruition in the book, was to allow American society to completely crumble so they could emerge from said valley and take control of the entire country, transforming it into a Darwinian paradise. This new production utopia would now only be populated by the chosen people and whoever survived the destruction of the society - survival of the fittest in action. Oh, did I mention they didn’t bring any clergy with them into the valley? I think I alluded to that in the previous blog, but Ayn Rand’s image of a perfect America includes only people of industrial ability and absolutely no worship of any god whatsoever. That’s not my idea of utopia.

In order to gain entrance to the fictional utopia, the producers had to take an oath. Here’s the oath:

“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

This is the crux of the book, that a man should only be concerned with himself. The enemies in the book were collectivists and Rand’s utopia were solely individualists. The pendulum had to be on one side or the other - no middle ground, no self sacrifice, only profit or serving the collective. But, what does the Bible say about this? Could there be, maybe, a one sentence line from the Bible that might contradict this philosophy just a bit? I think so:

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 (NASB)

Jesus teaches us to be selfless. There is a big difference between being selfless, charitable, and caring about mankind and being a Marxist. The Bible does not forbid business but rather encourages it. Individualism and capitalism are both themes found in scripture; Paul writes that one must work if one wishes to eat and Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead, on an individual basis and using absolutes. Jesus said specifically that those who have been given much will be judged more harshly than those who haven’t. These are good life principals. Eugenics and survival of the fittest are not good life principals.

One character I followed closely was the Eddie Willers. This was the life-long best friend of the heroine of the novel. He was immensely loyal to his friend, doing her bidding, and serving her in unquestioning friendship to the bitter end. The book ends, the chosen people are in the valley, and she left him out in the cold. Yeah, there’s a utopian society for you.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Here is a quick note as to the purpose and history of my little ‘ole website. Some of this information is on the “about” page, too.

Like many who believe like people who would read this blog believe, I read the Bible and came away with something a little different than I had been taught in church growing up. I noticed that Sunday was never sanctified, hell doesn’t exist yet, and had a few other things nagging at me. I got some more information through a book called The Two Babylons that was loaned to me by a Seventh Day Adventist Pastor. That book, written in the late 1800’s by a Church of England Minister, showed how much of modern Christianity’s practices came from the Catholic Church who had ripped the practices off from pagan cultures over the years.

Being raised a Catholic, I was absolutely shocked. I spent quite a bit of time researching the outrageous claims made in the book using the internet and even Catholic sources. It turns out, most of it was true and some of it was proved out using the Catholic sources! I continued to read books on early Christianity and the history of the change to Sunday worship and the other false doctrines of mainstream Christianity. I found a church where people who believe these things can worship and learn more, the Church of God, Kansas City. 

After a while, I thought to myself, “why did God show me all this stuff? What am I supposed to do with this knowledge?” I decided to make a website as sort of a beacon of light out there for people searching. This website is the second iteration of that idea.

There are a couple purposes for this site. It’s primary purpose is to simply “be here” when people search for “first century Christianity” or the truth about the doctrines listed on the left hand side. 

Second, since people who believe like us tend to not belong to churches with doctrinal statements and hierarchal governments, it’s here so that if someone asks you what you believe, and you believe somewhat along the lines of this site, you can just point them here and say “well, here is a place to start”. I say “somewhat along the lines” because, as we all know, once one departs from Indoctrination University - mainstream Christianity - one is loathe to hitch a ride on someone else’s doctrines. We all believe a little differently, but that is OK. It’s OK because we all understand that we will be judged individually by Yeshua, not collectively or because we swore allegiance to some preacher or organization.

Last is it is a place for me to write and comment on current events from the perspective of a first century Christian. As we all know, most of the commentary today is written from the point of view of atheists or mainstream Christians. The commentary on the “War on Christmas” being one of these things. We know this to be an argument between two erroneous factions, so I can write about that. Another topic is religious liberty. Many of those who write about religious liberty simply means they want the liberty to practice and convert people to Americanized, Trinitarian, pagan laden Churchianity or they want freedom from any hint of the mention of God. In both of these cases, the feeling for people like us is that "those cultists need to get on board or shut up." Well, this is a good place for me to refute these ideas and preach real religious liberty like they had in Rhode Island near the founding of this nation!

Anyhow, thanks for reading and I will close before I start ranting too much. If this site can be of help to anyone, then may God get the glory! If you have any ideas for improvement or suggestions for topics, please don’t hesitate to forward them on!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I finished reading Atlas Shrugged this week and wanted to start writing about it while it is fresh in my head. While I agree completely with the book in respect to the end results of socialism/communism, there are some really problematic components of Atlas Shrugged. On the whole, it is a great novel, a classic, and one I will have my children read once they get to their upper teens, but it is still evil, and I will begin to explain why in this piece.

Right off the bat, the author is not a believer in God. She was apparently a believer in free-will and reason, but definitely not one who would profess any sort of faith in a creator. The only times God or Christ are referenced in the book are when people are using those words in vain, much like expletives. The heroic characters all reject God and in a few of the many monologues, religion is referenced as mysticism and is tied directly to the communist movement.  

From the context of the book, I can only conclude that the author was not educated about the Bible or the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. Religion in Atlas Shrugged is tied to communism because of a trait called asceticism which has been historically found in a few sects of Christianity. Asceticism is sometimes employed in Christianity (or other religions) as a means of separating oneself from this world through immense self-denial or sacrifice. In the book, and in reality, communists preach that individuals must sacrifice for the good of the state/planet. Luxuries such as three square meals a day and a warm house (not actually luxuries, these are necessities) are considered to be optional for the masses (but necessities for the leadership class) in communism so the author tied religious asceticism to statist sacrifices and thus created a logical fallacy that she parlayed throughout the novel.

I cannot overstate the religious implications of the book. Throughout the >1000 page masterpiece of literature, self-indulgence is considered a sin by the communists and the implication is that any sort of pleasure is simply not good. A couple of the characters are even developed through a process of learning that self-sacrifice and self-loathing are not actually virtues. One character, Henry Rearden, evolves from the mire of self-loathing into a more psychologically rounded individual. The references to non-absolutism and the philosophies of extreme leftism abound and are intermingled with both religious and political aspects. One of the overall themes of the book is that the schools had been taken over by moral-equivalence preachers who teach that there are no absolutes. “There is no pleasure, but only the absence of pain.” “Hunger and material need are not real, but just perceived.” “Those who are wealthy have gotten that way by taking from the poor and working class, so one should be angry at those who have made wealth.” These are all themes properly ascribed to the statists, but they are not themes I can find in the Bible (although Christ does mention it is very difficult for a rich man to enter the eternal kingdom).

The Old Testament laws set up precisely the government that Ayn Rand’s characters desire in Atlas Shrugged. While the 613 laws are demonized as being repressive, they are actually limited in scope, and they completely omit a secular government. The Levitical priesthood is charged with managing the monetary policy (setting the price of a shekel) and the entire nation is charged to have the same scales for both stranger and countrymen alike. The Law of Moses does not contain a king, a president, or a legislature and it is most definitely a capitalistic system based on wealth creation - not credit or phony stock prices. For quite a while after Israel was established, men did what was right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). This is the pinnacle of Atlas Shrugged - a nation with minimal laws where men can run their lives as they see fit.

It is not until several centuries after Israel is established that the Israelites called out for a king. God even admonishes them that He did not want them to have a king and that a king would take 10% of their wealth (in addition to the 10% sent to the priests) and send their sons off to war (1 Samuel 8). But it was the people who cried out for a king so they could be like the other nations. Golly, doesn’t that sound familiar?

But the point that I am trying to make here is that there is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. The book maligns religion and glorifies atheism, but it never empirically ties religion or faith to the doctrines that it ascribes to them. This, in essence, would be a grand hypocrisy since the book is centered around empirical evidence, scientific observation, and the cognizance of absolute evidence.

Since it is such a large book, there is more to follow. Thanks for reading this far!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There are many reasons not to celebrate Christmas. From its paganism to its fraud to the family feuding to the debt incurring, it’s really a bad thing all around. Let's check out what is right about the Bible’s real Holy Days!

The LORD spoke again to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD'S appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations—My appointed times are these: (Lev 23:1-2) 

You see, the KJV translated the words "appointed times" (from the Hebrew word moed) above as “feasts” but the NASB calls them “appointed times” which I feel is more appropriate. The weekly sabbath, for instance, is not a feast and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) surely is no feast!

But the reason I bring up this nuance is that these days are Yahweh’s appointments! Each day has significant meaning to the Almighty, many being remembrances, all being prophetical, some of the prophecies fulfilled, some not. 

For instance, the Passover was a remembrance of the Exodus and of Abraham and Isaac, but was then fulfilled when Yeshua died on Passover for our sins. The Feast of Weeks was a memorial of crossing into the Promised Land (Joshua 5), then was fulfilled with the Messiah’s resurrection, and then the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost. The Feast of Tabernacles is a remembrance of the Hebrews living in the desert, or Abraham being a sojourner, and has a fulfillment in Christ dwelling with us. The weekly Sabbath is the most important, being etched in stone. It is a day to honor the Creator and cease from all labors. It’s fulfillment has not yet come nor been made completely clear.

While most of Christianity is taught to disregard the OT laws as being “Jewish” or inferior and that these days are to be disregarded, observing these days and studying them really makes things clear. The plan of salvation laid down from the foundation of the world is right there for anyone to discover, hidden in plain sight. What is also clear is that none of these days fall in the winter. God’s calendar is clear on December 25th.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I’m reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and I came across a point that I discovered myself perhaps 10 years ago. One of the characters in the books monologues that the laws the fictional government was passing were not meant to be obeyed. The laws, the character said, were put in place to make everyone guilty so that the government could then have leverage over the governed. I realized a variance of this when I lived in California. There are so many laws out there that it is nearly impossible to be in compliance with the law for an extended period of time. 

There are variations of this scheme throughout the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If you recall, the one group of people that Jesus had no patience for when He was here in the flesh was the religious leaders of the time. This is specifically because they had added laws to the Law of God making it impossible for people to be considered lawful. 

And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

Mark 7:6-8 (NASB)

This is precisely the problem with passing laws that are impossible to follow. Man-made rules ultimately contradict the Word of God and then result in the governed entering a hopeless position of continual guilt. The next step is the governed becomes the slave to the government, and in the case of faith, that means the minister, priest, or church hierarchy in general. 

You may be familiar with one of the following: the Talmud, the Catechism, or Calvinism. What do all three of these extra-biblical systems have in common? Hopelessness, that’s what. The Talmud is the now written down “oral law” that Jesus was specifically condemning in the scripture above. The Catechism is the Christian version of the Talmud, which is the doctrinal book of the Roman Catholic Church. Calvinism is a sect of what used to be called Protestantism that includes the acronym TULIP. Each one of these systems teaches that it’s simply impossible to follow God’s commandments and the next step of that is, “why even try, it’s hopeless.” In TULIP, people are either hopelessly saved or hopelessly condemned and cannot do anything to change that, in the Catechism, everyone is doomed through original sin and must make up for that through good works (go0d works as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, incidentally), and the Talmud is a set of rules replete with circular logic and concepts contrary to the Law of God (from what I’ve read). In the book Atlas Shrugged, once it became impossible to obey the law, the society descended into a place where everyone became criminals by default and chaos ensued. In religion, a similar result ensues when the man-made systems are applied judiciously and the believer becomes hopeless due to the impossibility of the man-made rules.

But what does the bible say about following the commandments (and, by extension, discarding the man-made rules)?

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:3 (NASB)

Jesus was focused on breaking with the added rules and returning to a purer and more simpler faith. John writes that it is possible to follow the commandments. Jesus lived a sinless life and paid the price for our sins so that we have the hope of a better resurrection. The prophets wrote of a New Earth and a New Jerusalem where there will be no more sin, death, or sorrow. It is not hopeless and God does not desire for us to be hopeless. For those who observe the national US holiday of Thanksgiving, let’s remember to give thanks to Almighty Yahweh for giving us hope.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Is the response those great men of the Old Testament gave when summoned by Yahweh “Here I am” or “Here, I am”? I’ve never been able to tell.

I don’t think the world has ever known a country to have such a great deficit of real men as the United States today. Rome sure did get full of itself, but due to the nature of life back then, it seems that only their leaders and the city-dwellers were the ones who became soft and corrupt.

I suppose I should define what I mean by a real man. A real man knows how to take responsibility for his actions, for himself in general, and for his family. That’s why the great men of the OT replied to God’s summons with “here I am”. They knew there was no hiding their actions and that they had to meet whatever was coming their way head-on. Another aspect of the real man is that he accepts his orders and calling from above as well. 

King David before he was king was a real man in a sea of faithless cowards. He knew that his cause was right and that God was on his side when he went out to meet that giant. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego showed great intestinal fortitude by refusing to bow down to the great idol. Even at the risk of their lives, they knew what was right and did it. The men of Israel went to battle and left their wives behind doing their duty to country and to God. This same sense of patriotism lasted until about the time of Vietnam, where our country had to institute a draft to drag men off to war. Even when our country has had to enact a draft, it was only Vietnam where it was considered OK to dodge the draft or take deferments. For fun, try searching out how many rich and famous people went off to fight in WWII - you will be surprised what you find! 

The feminization of our men in America has been underway now for quite a while.The term “metro-sexual” is one that some even wear as a badge of honor. How embarrassing to be proud of the inability to change a tire.

However, this is not the kind of man-hood I am primarily upset about. We have young men at the peak of their lives camping out on land they do not own crying that somehow wealthy people are to blame for their plight. These miserable creatures have somehow been taught that work, especially work beneath their perceived level, is not necessary to earn a living but that handouts and charity are not just OK but are expected. This is shameful. The great evangelist Paul wrote that if a man does not work he does not eat. He left no asterisk.

The worst is what is happening in the college sports world. What happened at Penn State with countless boys being molested by one man is so evil that I cannot bear to hear it. It physically hurts me to even write what I have written. What cowards could possibly value a spot on a football team (or anything for that matter) greater than the safety of helpless boys? How on earth could so many cover up for the most despicable act imaginable and live with themselves? And today it is being reported to have happened at another college?

For thousands of years, crimes like these would have been dealt with swiftly and justly by the real men who witnessed them. Today, in our cesspool of a society, the idea that someone could look the other way while countless children were abused, ruined for life even, at the hands of those who were supposed to protect them, is an actual reality. For years now I have been saying that it was not bad enough yet for it to be the end. I had looked at society and our quality of life and said to myself, “no, the prophecies prior to the end show much more depravation than this, it is not the time.” Hearing about the crimes these children suffered at the hand of a man who was supposed to help them with others covering it up and letting it go on for over a decade makes me change my mind. Add that to the worthless protestors and their enablers in the media and politics openly demanding something for nothing? Yep, it’s time. Couple all this with our economy being the spitting image of the Whore of Babylon pictured in Revelation? Well, how much longer can Yeshua bear to watch this before He acts? I have no idea, but I am personally repenting, feeling the outrage, and praying for an end to it all. Enough already. LORD, come quickly and bring justice with you.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

And so it begins. Despite the incredible financial straits the country is in the stores and the consumers are all champing at the bit for the XMAS season. In fact, the XMAS stuff was out at some stores even before the Halloween stuff came down! Amazing.

Not doing Halloween doesn’t seem to be a huge issue with our friends and family. Not doing XMAS, well now, that’s a problem! Our families simply do not understand the concept. Here’s a re-enactment of a conversation I am sure many, if not all, of us have had:

Family member: “What are you doing for Christmas this year?”

Bible believer: “I told you last year, we don’t do Christmas anymore.”

Family member: “Uh-huh. So are you doing the meal. Are we coming to your house or are you coming to ours?”

Bible believer: “We’ve been over this. We don’t do Christmas anymore. In fact, we stopped years ago. Don’t you remember this conversation from last year? We aren’t having a meal and we aren’t going to yours. No offense, but Christ wasn’t born in the winter and the Bible tells us not to make stuff up.”

Family member: “So, are you putting up a real tree or an artificial one?”

Bible believer: “Sigh.”

Sometimes it even gets ugly, especially when they finally figure it out. The worst is when they decide we aren’t Christian because we stopped but we stopped because we ARE Christians! My wife and I were blessed to have moved far away from our family so we don’t have the constant pressure as many of you. But they still try to come out, they still send presents for the kids, they still don’t get it. 

If only the divisiveness stopped with us. That would make sense since Christ did say he came to bring a sword to pit His followers against our family members. But the absolute misery of the people who feel so much pressure to spend so much money on this phony holiday is very difficult to watch. The families themselves are stressed so unnecessarily, tied to the desires of this world and pressured to do things that are of no real profit. These poor people cut each other off in parking lots, fight each other for the year’s “must-have” merchandise, and even cut in line while spending thousands of dollars on credit cards with no hope of paying it back. There’s no way this holiday matches up with God’s real Holy Days and there’s no way I could ever go back.

So, be strong brothers and sisters! Try your best to be patient, but if pushed, just fall back on the truth and tell them in love. Maybe they will hear you.... this time.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It’s human nature to bunker down when under attack and start looking for allies. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not just a cliché. From a local beef with the Home Owners Association all the way up to international affairs, when someone attacks something important to several parties, those parties usually form a coalition in retaliation. Think about the bond we Christians have when someone is martyred by the Muslims or the Maoists. When that happens, do we think about what divides us or the common bonds of general Christianity we shared with the deceased? Yes, it is usually the latter.

Unfortunately, this phenomena can be used for bad as well as good. For example, when a good country allies with a not-so good country to defeat a common enemy, the not-so good country almost always becomes stronger and then evolves into a threat to the ally down the road. The immediate problem gets solved, everyone celebrates, and then the realization that the friendship was only conditional starts to emerge.

The angle I want to explore with this is a particular false teaching of modern Christianity. For years now, decades even, the atheists and others have just come out swinging against Christianity in general. They’ve removed prayer from schools, they’ve removed the 10 Commandments from everywhere, and now they’re on to attacking the false doctrines like Christmas. The 10 commandments and prayer in school are good but Christmas is a false teaching that we really can’t defend, well if the Bible is the standard of our faith. Is it now time to start re-thinking our coalitions?

Check out this article where the Obama administration had decided to tax Christmas trees specifically. Yes, our government has decided to actually tax Christmas trees and just Christmas trees for some esoteric reason. While I will surely never pay such a tax, what effect does this have on the masses who call themselves Christians? Yep, they howled and wailed because the government was attacking Christmas - their sacred holiday.

The atheists are actually right when they attack Christmas. Our country did not celebrate that as a holiday for centuries. It was even banned in New England at one point and the first congress under our constitution was actually in session on December 25th, 1789. It wasn’t until June 27, 1870 when Ulysses S. Grant signed the law making Christmas a national holiday. In that law, our country effectively made Catholicism the state religion because the Roman Catholic Church is the only authority on earth that proclaims December 25th to be the birth of Jesus. Jesus was not born anywhere near that date and His birth was not what was to be used as His memorial. 

What I just wrote is old-hat to my regular readers but is probably astonishing to new readers. Yep, Christmas is not a Christian holiday and the reformers even stopped the practice with a vengeance. It was viewed (correctly) as an error and uniquely European, so many Christians in the new world shed the practice. Their descendants who are largely ignorant of their professed beliefs, are now fighting to save a holiday that their ancestors likely paid a heavy price to escape.

While I can’t defend Christmas in any sense (and won't), I do defend people’s rights to celebrate their holidays as they see fit. That’s because I enjoy my freedom to worship as I see fit, too. The atheists are right on the doctrinal front but wrong to try to stop people from their freedom of religion. Their attacks, though, only further cement the false teaching of Christmas into the minds of millions of “bible” Christians. The coalitions are already in place and yearning for a fight against the ungodly. The fund raising, the outrage, and the desire to allow God back into our country is going to turn people who once fought for freedom into zealots who will force their beliefs on the rest of us. US Grant was looking for something to unify a torn and devastated post- Civil War country and he used a false teaching to do it. When the conservatives retain power in the United States, I imagine they will do the same. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »