|
Christianity Explained Information Find Christian Unity in Biblical Explanations of the Doctrines That Count! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You have a choice to
make: You can either believe the opinions of theologians, atheists, or
agnostics, or you can determine for yourself what the Bible says by
studying it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What Is Religion and Where Did It Originate? What Is the Bible, and How Relative Is It to My Life? What Are Messianic Prophecies? Who Was Jesus of Nazareth, Really? Why Are There So Many World Religions? Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations? What Is the Law and How Does It Apply to Me? What's All This About the End of the World and End-time Prophecies? Isn't the Book of Daniel a Closed Book? Revelation: How can anyone understand all that symbolism? Who or What Was Jesus' Mother, Mary? Didn't Darwin Disprove Creation? What's the Truth About Faith and Works? Christian E-mails: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Complete Directory of Articles/Studies
Title Abbreviations for Books of the Bible Genesis - Ge |
Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations? It's pretty simple, really. People are following people instead of the scriptures by which Jesus lived. They allow others to "interpret" scripture for them and they choose a church, not by the truth of scripture, but by whether they can live life the way they want to and still call themselves Christians based on the teachings of the man who founded the church. They study just enough scripture to find justification for their beliefs, and then refuse to accept "new truth" as it is revealed by further study. I'm the kind of person who has always done what I thought was right. After all, isn't that what life's all about? Shouldn't each of us be convinced what we're doing is right? If we think what we're doing is wrong, should we be doing it? If we're not doing what we think is right, are we not hypocrites? But what if we don't know that what we're doing is wrong? How do we find out? What is right? What is wrong? What is good? What is evil? Is there any such thing? I tend to go along with the crowd unless something illegal (goes against the laws of the land) or immoral (hurtful to myself or others) is involved. However, after my English teacher, during my Senior year in high school, taught us logic (I guess he felt the English he had taught us could be used against us if we didn't think logically about what we were hearing or reading), I started questioning. Unlike animals, which react instinctively to what's happening around them and have been shown to learn by trial and error, humans have the capacity to use logic to think out courses of action we should take given the circumstances. We begin from a premise (It looks like it's going to rain) and then think about our choices (I can stand here and get wet or I can seek shelter). Some people think that's all there is to logic. They make a decision based solely on the premise and then complain about the consequences of that decision if something happens that they did not "foresee". Nothing, of course, is that simple. We also must consider the peripheral circumstances and possible outcomes of our choices (It's a really hot day and the rain may feel good—of course, I'd have to ride home on a leather car seat with wet clothes; I hear thunder, so I may be hit by lightening—to avoid the lightening, I need to seek a shelter house and not stand under a tall tree or out in an open field . . . ). When used properly, this is a great system, and it serves most of us well. However, to come to the right conclusion,
You tell me! Whose pronouncements are more consequential: those of the weatherman or those of religious leaders? If there's a tornado headed your way, you could lose your life if you depend on your weatherman's "a few thunderstorms—some possibly severe—may pop up" forecast. If you're not expecting a tornado, you won't be prepared to protect yourself. If you are plunging headlong toward a day when deception will be the rule, which the prophets have forecast but about which you know nothing, and your religious leaders tell you not to worry about it or use their own interpretations to explain it instead of relying on the scriptures that prophesied it, you could lose your eternal life! You decide which is more important. You may have guessed that I use what others have to say as a place to begin studying to remain prepared for anything. I keep what they have to say in mind, but I look for signs that will warn me that trouble is coming. Continuous Bible study tells me what those signs are.
Two basic sides in Christianity. There are those who believe some human being is perfect enough that he can interpret the Bible for everyone else and even has the authority to change its clear commandments. Many of these people have never studied scripture in depth and therefore either don't know or choose to ignore that scripture warns against this very thing.
Now, authority (or respect) is a funny thing. It can be forced on people through threats of violence or even extermination, it can be extracted from through manipulation and lies, or it can be earned from people by honest living and giving evidence of superior wisdom and ethics. God does not force his auhority on people. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God allowed them to exercise their own wills, rather than forcing his will upon them. He gave them choices. When they chose to disobey his only rule, they effectively kicked him out of office as their Sovergn, placing themselves in the driver's seat. His desire to gain the unforced love and loyalty of humans forced him to relinquish his protection of humans and allow them to learn about the differences between good and evil for themselves. What is sad is that Eve was manipulated by the lies of Satan (deceived) into disobeying God; however, the result is the same. Thankfully, God is still there, a "backseat driver" or navigator, if we choose to acknowledge him and give him authority over us, but he still doesn't force himself upon us. He gives us truth and allows us to accept or reject it. Satan, on the other hand, attempts to force himself upon us in the form of temptations and seductions. He plays with our brains and tries any and all means at his disposal, including lying, blackmail, and coercion, to get us to give him authority over our lives, the same as he did Eve and the same as he tried with Jesus. The one we choose to believe is the one we have invested with authority over our lives.
If we choose to obey the local Sheriff, he has authority over us. If we choose not to obey him, however, he may hold the office, but his authority is nil. If someone sets up rules that tell us to do something God told us not to do or tell us not to do something God told us to do, and we follow those rules, we are giving authority to that person instead of God. We have effectively made that person our God. On the other hand, there are those who believe the Bible is sacred and the word of God as recorded in scripture is truth and can cure mankind of his sin disease. Psalm 119, way too long to quote here, deals with God's Word and it's meaning to mankind, especially as David viewed it.
Having studied a bit of the Bible over the past 20 years, I can see why David felt as he did. Since Jesus himself pronounced God's word as truth, who am I to disagree?
No mere mortal has the right to change the precepts of the laws of God. This is one of those "Duh!" statements that have to be made because people don't understand that what they're doing demonstrates their belief that they know better than God. If you're an atheist, that's okay, but if you're not an atheist, God is above all. Logic tells us that the one who created all, us included, has shown that his knowledge, wisdom, and power are so much greater than ours that we have no right to change his precepts. However, the supreme ego and ulterior motives of men have moved them to attempt to negate that truth from time to time.
Saul admitted to wanting popularity more than he wanted God's blessings. With us, the motive can be the love of popularity, riches, power, or some sin that we are unwilling to admit is sin. If we make our own rules, we can say what is acceptable and what is not.
The only way to tell whether a man is actually a holy man of God, speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit, is to compare what he is speaking with what has already been spoken.
"For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not
consumed, O sons of Jacob.
By relying on God's word instead of my own understanding, I have discovered how to avoid error. So can you! In nearly every church I have attended, I have found those who think you must belong to a certain denomination to be saved or if you belong to a certain denomination you are lost. They've never seen the biblical definition of church. They've also never discovered how God determines who is saved and who is lost. HINT: None of the present "churches" existed when Christ and his disciples preached salvation. Rather, The Church consists of all who believe as Peter did when Christ was still alive:
A great deal of importance is placed on this passage in scripture when it comes to identifying "the true church". Unfortunately, that importance has in the past been placed on Peter instead of on his statement of belief. Since the word Peter means rock, it has been asserted that Jesus built his church on Peter. However, allowing scripture to interpret itself, true worshippers of God find the truth. The word Petros (Greek for Peter) does mean "stone".
However the Greek text must be considered when exploring the possibility that Peter' was the rock upon which Jesus built the church. Using a Greek lexicon or a common device such as the Emphatic Diaglott, you can determine for yourself whether Christ built the church upon Peter. According to Strong's Concordance, two separate terms were used for Peter and "the rock". They are translated from two different Greek words: Pevtroß Petros (pet'-ros); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 4074 Peter = "a rock or a stone"
pevtra
Petra (pet'-ra);
Yes, the words are similar, but they are not identical. Words that are similar in spelling or in sound are not necessarily similarity in meaning, let alone identical in meaning. There are several dozen English word combinations that are similar but in a sentence would have very different meanings: there, their, they're; hare, hair; bear, bare; made, maid . . . However, the point is that the Greek text does not allow, and indeed refutes, any contention that Peter was the rock to which Jesus referred. It is accepted that the Greek text of the New Testament is all that has come down from antiquity, and the Greek literary style has its own conventions that cannot be denied. In the same sentence, or at least connected by a string of ands, Christ says he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, thus making him, not the foundation, but the door-opener of the kingdom. To have made him both the foundation and the porter of the same building would have been a gross abuse of metaphor. Rock, According to
Easton's Bible Dictionary: The Real RockSo what is the Rock that was larger than Peter upon which Christ would build his church? It is the revelation by the spirit of the heavenly Father to Christ's disciples that Christ is, indeed, the son of the living God! The confession that Peter made is the foundation of every "believer". The Real ChurchThe word "church" in the scripture quoted above is explained this way in Strong's Concordance.
The 12 who were with Christ, referred to the community of believers as the church.
Paul referred to the individual followers of Jesus as the church.
as well as to the separate congregations as churches.
And finally Jesus' references to the churches could refer to congregations or to individual believers: First of all, he referred to his followers as his servants:
He did not give them any kind of stature that allowed them to change his clear teachings, but rather the commission to make sure his words were delivered faithfully and accurately.
Second, he differentiated between churches based on their strengths and weaknesses, indicating that from the beginning there would be differences between the varying congregations of his church. This is not his desire; it is simply the unfortunate fact that imperfect humanity, though led by angels and the Holy Spirit, would form imperfect churches. Christ pleaded with them to right their wrongs and capitalize on their strengths, but it was up to the churches to follow their Lord's desires—or not.
Christ tells his churches they'd better be cleaning up their acts if they want his blessings and power. He pronounces blessings on "he who overcomes" (not he who is content to be seduced and deceived), and the only way to overcome error and deception is to study the scriptures as the scriptures themselves instruct—not as any man instructs! You'll notice that never once did Christ address the buildings of the churches. Have you watched "Christian" TV lately? You'll find everything from teens in jeans to brightly coiffed and bejeweled adults in extravagant chairs with gold everywhere evident on the set. Judging by the scriptures, which do you think God looks down on with favor?
God's temple is in heaven.
The Israelites had a special connection with God that required an earthly "tent of meeting". God asked them to build a sanctuary because he loves his people and he wanted to dwell among them.
It was patterned after the Sanctuary in heaven, the throne room of the living God where the angels came to worship. Certain angels were always in the presence of God and others were not. But because man was sinful, no man except the high priest, and he only after making atonement for his own sins, could enter the presence of God. Thus there were three "rooms" of the Tent and later the Temple: a most holy place where the Shekinah Glory of the Lord dwelt, the holy place where the priests ministered on behalf of the people, and the outer court, where the people entered to worship the Lord after showing their repentance of their sins in the sacrifices they presented. The Temple was called the house of the Lord, and while it was very nice, it was built to shield sinful people from the pure righteousness of God, not as some monument to the Lord. The gold used in it was to honor the Glory of God and help reflect the light of candles, since there were no flashlights or chandeliers in those days. The house of God was a place with a specific purpose for the children of Israel, where they could envision a manifestation of their God--it was not the eternal dwelling place of God (though pride overpowered humility and the people began to feel that God dwelt with them to the exclusion of all others). When Jesus was born into human flesh, that was another manifestation of their God that they did not understand. Because of his great gratitude toward God, David sought to build a great temple for him. But you'll notice that the temple was David's idea, not God's.
God was happy with the "tent of meeting". The simple structure the Levites could use to minister to the needs of the Israelites was just fine with the Lord. Once he decided to allow a Temple, however, he instructed the Israelites on how to construct it, and the study of the Sanctuary and the Temple is another topic that is fascinating and enlightening in the explanation of what Christianity is and should be. The difference, however, between the Temple of the Israelites and the churches of Christians is that God, that is, the Shekinah Glory of God, does not dwell in Christian church buildings. They are dedicated to God, and his Holy Angels will inhabit them whenever his people gather in them for any reason. Jesus promised to be with Christians whenever they gather in his name.
However, God promised a new covenant once his demonstration with the Israelites was over: he would dwell in the "hearts" of humans instead of a building. It is not a wood, brick, and mortar building that we should be making beautiful as a temple for Christ, but ourselves—our bodies and our characters. Beside all the misconceptions about the power of men and what constitutes "the church", there are a myriad of "doctrines" that separate the various Christian denominations, sects, and cults.
And their congregations follow leaders whose logic seems sound instead of studying scripture to see if their leaders started with a faultless premise so that their logic would lead them in the right direction. You have a choice to make. You can accept the lie that you're not smart enough to figure out Scripture on your own or the lie that you're too sinful for the Holy Spirit to lead you, or you can "Just do it". Find out who's right to your own satisfaction! The bare bones of it: As some stories begin, "Many moons ago . .
." Jesus was born at a time and in a place that answered the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament (but that's another study). After his resurrection and ascension into heaven, his disciples took over the teaching of his ministry. They appointed elders, deacons, and deaconesses, and "The Way" the Christian sect of Judaism, spread throughout the Gentile world. Judaism disowned this new messianic sect, and Christianity was born. Since there were no printing presses, access to scripture was limited to those who laboriously copied whatever they could find to pass around. In the early part of the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine, a nominal Christian, paraded his army through a river so they could all be "baptised", and the Holy Roman Empire was born. The state was married to the religion, and the religion was "enforced" by the state. A difference of opinion between church fathers arose, and in 1054, the "Roman" church separated itself from the "Orthodox" churches. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches still exist today. Christ himself said the hallmarks of his followers are love for one another and unity in the spirit. Hmmm. Wonder what went wrong? Could it be that, because the teachings of some Churches are derived from two sources (Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition) within which scriptures are interpreted, that there is even more room for misunderstanding than there is when only Holy Scripture are the basis for Christianity? John tells us
Both of the ancient churches claimed that much of the teachings transmitted orally by the Apostles came down to them in Sacred Tradition. Being run by humans, the churches were influenced by some of the teachings of Greek Philosophers in their interpretations of scripture. The two church entities were "putting a different spin" on the same teachings, and they couldn't both be right. Now I have nothing against sacred tradition or philosophy, IF IT DOES NOT GO AGAINST SCRIPTURE. My reasons can be studied in "What Is the Bible and How Relative Is It to My Life?" The Roman church became the stronger of the two ancient Christian churches (with the help of Rome's legions). It was so strong and had spread so definitively throughout the Roman Empire that, even with the overthrow of Rome by the ten "barbaric tribes" that came against it, Romanism overthrew three of the tribes and grew even stronger. While it dispelled some of the superstitions and "pagan" practices of the barbaric nations, it absorbed other pagan holidays and practices to attract even more worshipers. Eventually the Pope at Rome enjoyed a pretty-much world-wide rule by threatening everyone with eternal damnation if they didn't belong to the Roman church. Ignorant of scripture, everyone, with very few exceptions, complied. Then, along came a monk named Martin Luther. He studied the Bible, which had been translated into Latin and was kept chained within the church because it was considered too holy for the common man, and he was surprised to find out that the scriptures indicated that some of what was being practiced by the Pope's church was not biblical—in fact, it went against Christ's teachings. Voila! The Protestant "Reformation" ignited. Beside Martin Luther, there were a variety of religious martyrs who studied scripture and mined precious jewels from within its pages. The followers of these "miners" formed churches based on what those leaders had learned: Lutherans, Calvanists, Puritans, Methodists. Religious intolerance reared its ugly head again and again when the existing churches would not accept new truth gleaned from the study of scripture or false teachings being twisted out of scripture by those with their own agendas within the church. Then a new church would be born—some born of new truth and some born of error. Now the Bible is a wondrous book. It contains so much information, some of it very plain but much of it somewhat obscure, that it should take several lifetimes—considering how long one could expect to live back then and how hard it was to get acopy of the Bible—to understand it all. As each "religious leader" discovered new truth, which was actually old truth that had been overlooked or misunderstood by the Roman church, he would share it with his flock. Since we all learn at different rates, and we all start in different places, we don't all learn the same things at the same times. So the new churches upheld what they believed and, unable to communicate with each other as quickly as we can these days, spread their little movements as though they alone had the truth. In actuality each had something of the truth, and had they been able to share it as we are able to today, we would probably all belong to the same church now. Well, those of us seeking truth instead of our own glorification and power would. But there is something needful to bring unity beyond sharing. That is humility and love. When a movement is born out of fear and persecution and when so many movements are born of different-language-speaking peoples, it is difficult to communicate the results of Bible studies, let alone trust those with whom you might share them. If you fear that sharing will bring your life to an end, you're likely to move cautiously, which equals slowly, and that was a very real fear in the "dark ages" when the papacy killed anyone who spoke against it. Some of us have no such restraints today. We can study the plain statements of scripture and share them almost instantaneously. Others, however, have to rely on avenues like the Internet to try to find the truth because our leaders, fearful of losing their power and prestige, don't want us to know what the Bible or the Koran really says. Rather than list and compare the doctrines of the various churches here and show where they are biblically in sync and where they are out of step with biblical Christianity, I will provide lessons on biblical Christianity, and let the members of these churches decide whether what is being taught within their walls is "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" or truth mixed with error. I expect it to be an interesting
trip! |
Related Links Written in the HeartThe Truth About Mary Magdalene
Scriptures: Within Text: Daniel 7:25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||