Import jQuery

Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts

Tornado as God’s Judgment?

Minnesota is the land of Lutherans. I think there are more Lutheran (or in Minnesotan accent, Looteren) churches here than any other state of the Union.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) gathered here this past Sunday to vote on whether to allow homosexual ministers to practice as working ministers in the Lutheran Church. The vote passed in favor of homosexual ministers, with tears of joy on one side, and tears of grieving on the other.

Interestingly, as the ELCA was scheduled to vote at 2pm on Sunday, a tornado ripped through the Twin Cities at that same time; the first to hit downtown Minneapolis in 90 years, I’m told.

minneapolisTornado1

Curiously, it hit the the the central meeting place of the ELCA convention: the Central Lutheran Church of Minneapolis. Even more curiously, while the Church went mostly unharmed, there was one part that was damaged: the steeple itself was toppled, while the rest of the church stood:

minneapolisTornado2

minneapolisTornado3

My family suggested the tornado was no coincidence; that God was involved and deliberately sent it as a sign. I wasn’t so sure; I think religious people are all too quick to attribute to God what is easily explained by coincidence.

Now I see popular Protestant minister John Piper posted on his blog that he, too, believes this to be a “gentle but firm warning to the ELCA”, an instance of God intervening to show his displeasure.

Now I’ve blogged before about homosexuality in Christianity. As Messianic apologist John McKee has stated, it’s an issue ripping apart Christianity (and Judaism, for that matter); it will undoubtedly be an issue in the Messianic movement as we enter a new decade.

The issue of homosexuality is not going away anytime soon, especially with the homosexual agenda and political bloc for gay rights that have emerged on the world scene. Today, many Christian denominations are dividing over this issue. Many evangelicals are greatly concerned that a firm Biblical ethic is being tossed out the window in favor of extreme compromise with sin. As many evangelicals leave their denominations, this is where only the emerging Messianic movement in the future can offer a valid and more consistent theological perspective given our high view of the Torah. In the future, we could actually see ourselves significantly swell in numbers. Yet in order to do this, we must become a more stable and mature spiritual movement, and engage more with the world as God’s Word does indeed have answers for those in bondage!

-John McKee

It’s worth discussing, then: was the tornado in Minneapolis at the same day and hour of the ELCA vote, the tornado that toppled the steeple of the Lutheran Church, was it a sign from God? Or was it just a coincidence? What do you fine blog readers think?

Are We Christian?

This past week, as I vacationed with my in-laws, my mother-in-law told me, “Judah, we love having you as a son-in-law. You’re such a a good Christian guy…”

And a distant in-law, a hard-line Catholic, rhetorically asked me, “You’ve read Paul haven’t you? And you still believe in those traditions?!” [cue sad trombone]

I just chuckled to myself.

This same Catholic then mentioned how the Pope is steadfast in his belief that the Jews must be converted to Catholicism. (Oiy!)

Last week’s post on the Church and the Jews has got me torn to bits by this question, honestly. Those early pioneers of Messianic Judaism were Hebrew Christians who saw themselves as part of the Church, unapologetically Christian.

JudeoXian writes,

Though they [the early Hebrew Christian pioneers] have long passed on, their lifestyle challenges us to face the questions, “What is our relationship to Christianity? Are we a part of it? Are we a reform movement within it? Or are we another religion altogether?” We face anew the question of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church.

The question remains: are Messianics …Christians?

Messianics are unique: we’re straddling a divide between 2 religions that have, historically, hated each other to the point of persecution: Judaism persecuted the early believers in Messiah to the point of death, and once the religion of Christianity took off and became the majority, it returned the favor without hesitancy, persecuting to death the Jews of the Middle Ages.

This straddling between 2 religions causes us to endure much trouble and angst; we’re continually pulled from both sides to become authentic: either Real Jews© or Real Christians®. Not that half-assed Messianic nonsense.

Anti-Yeshua organizations like Jews for Judaism will unceasingly say, “See! Those Messianics are just Christians in disguise. They’re not real Jews. They’re deceptive Christians trying to baptize Jews into Christianity, ultimately causing them to lose their identity as Jews.”

Such anti-missionary (anti-Yeshua, anti-Messiah?) organizations want you to believe that if we Messianics are successful, and yet more Jews believe in Yeshua as Messiah, the Jewish people will cease to exist; Jews will be swallowed up and assimilated into the Church, intermarrying and becoming Torahless gentiles within a generation or two.

The Borg!

In fact, as I write this, JewsForJudaism is expanding its ventures, following Messianic folks on Twitter, sending us messages about how the New Testament is full of errors, how the Church is really a big bad evil wolf, how the Church has misappropriated prophecies like Isaiah 53 and Daniel, how Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah, and so on.

They are doing everything in their power to squelch us Messianics. Either paint us as Christians or convert us to mainstream Judaism, is their goal. They’ve succeeded to some extent, but still we press on toward the goal of Messiah whose called us his own.

 

Why We’re Uncomfortable with Christianity and the Church

 

Perhaps for this reason, because we do not want to be seen as Christians-in-disguise -- we do not wish to be tools of the evangelizing arm of Mother Church -- it is very uncomfortable for us, as Messianics, to say, “Yes, we are Christians.”

Another reason is that many of us have reviewed the Church’s rejection and eventual persecution of Israel. We believe this to be in error. We have reviewed the writings of the early Church fathers who spoke ill of the Jews and the very Law by which Messiah lived, causing Ignatius of Antioch to say,

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, and things in which the Jews boast. "Old things are passed away: all things have become new." For if we live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace.

Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God.

It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity.

It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.

We believe this anti-Semitic, hateful doctrine to be in error. I would go as far as to say that doctrine is thoroughly anti-Messiah.

We reviewed the Church’s clean break with Judaism in the 4th century, officially cutting itself off from the very Passover that Messiah and the disciples celebrated, fully distinguishing itself from the Judaism of Messiah and the disciples:

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of festivals, to follow the customs (the calculation) of the Jews who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.

We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jew, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship following a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week: And consequently in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jew.

How, then, could we follow these Jews (in celebrating Passover) who are most certainly blinded by error?

It is your duty not to tarnish your soul by communication with such wicked people, the Jews. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews.

The above statement was issued from Nicaean Council. This is the council that issued decrees that are, to this day, considered central and core theologies of the Church, both Protestant and Catholic. This thinly-veiled contempt for Jews and God’s Torah we find truly astonishing and shameful. Needless to say, we find this core theology of the Church to be in error.

The final major reason, and perhaps the most foundational reason we are uncomfortable with being labeled “Christian” is that it suggests a fundamental shift we’re not prepared to make: that Jesus came to start a new religion separate from Judaism. We find this also to be in error.

It’s a difficult thing, I think, for Christians to concede: Jesus practiced Judaism. The religion of Israel has become known as Judaism, and Jesus practiced all the things 1st century Judaism entails: earnestly loving God, living one’s life around God’s Temple at Jerusalem, celebrating the Feasts, eating kosher, refraining from idols and unclean things, keeping God’s sabbath, reciting the Shema, keeping the commandments, for example – the gospels record Jesus doing all these things! And not once is there an example of Jesus breaking any of the Torah commandments which Judaism is built around.

That Jesus practiced Judaism is something we Messianics remain convinced of, and if proven true, we feel vindicated and confident in our belief that conversion to a new religion called Christianity is not what Jesus intended. In no unclear terms we assert: converting Jews to Christianity and making them as pork-eating gentiles is not the proper mode of faith in Yeshua and indeed threatens Jewish identity just as the anti-missionary groups suggest.

 

So the Church has made errors. Aren’t you still Christian?

 

Vine of David, a Messianic publishing organization aimed at Yeshua apologetics, has this to say on the matter:

Movements like ours have called themselves by many names. In fact, we often get caught up in titles as we try to decide how to define ourselves. Titles serve not only to communicate with whom we identify, but also from whom we wish to distinguish ourselves. New titles crop up any time people feel the need to cut themselves off from others.

It is of no benefit to get hung up on labels and titles, but we have chosen to use the term "Messianic Judaism." Our point is not to exclude or criticize people who chose to identify differently, but we, like many others, feel that "Messianic Judaism" is a fitting description of our organization.

By identifying our perspective and lifestyle as an expression of Judaism, we intend to communicate a sense of continuity between ourselves and the historical people, culture, nation, community, life, and system of worship found in the Torah. That people group—the group to whom Yeshua the Messiah himself belonged—is the Jewish people. His system of worship was Judaism, and he did not intend to abrogate that system or exchange it for another. Instead, his message was one of national and personal repentance within the framework of Judaism. Yeshua and his earliest followers did not see themselves outside of Judaism, but a part of it.

Historical Christianity, in general, has sought to define itself against Judaism, making a clean break with the people and religious system of Israel. We feel that this was a regrettable mistake. By using the term "Judaism," we intend to put our faith and observance back into its proper historical context.

In pointing out the Church’s errors, we do not meant to condemn or point the finger at Christians that love Jesus and serve the Lord. We do not mean to insult the thing you love so dearly.

Rather, we wish to correct the mistake of abandoning Judaism and all the pain and persecution that decision has caused the Jewish people.

But are we Christian? It’s a question I’m still battling over.

On one hand, I reject the Church’s narrow evangelical mode of “convert the Jews to [insert flavor here] Christianity at all costs, Jewish identity and Torah-observance be damned”. I reject that, I think it’s wrong, I think Jesus never intended for such a thing, I think it threatens Jewish identity, I think it leads to lawlessness.

I reject the Church’s shameful anti-Jewish theologies and historical persecution of Jews and vilification of Judaism; it’s a permanent stain on the Church that Jews will not forget. These doctrines have led to all kinds of evil theology, which leads to physical persecution that has been a shameful example of Messiah.

And oh, how I desire for the anti-missionary organizations to be proved wrong! How I desire that Jews can believe in Yeshua and remain Jewish! It would seem one must distance himself from the Church for that to be true.

And oh, how I wish the Jewish world at large would view Messianic Judaism as a legitimate form of Judaism! It’s this desperate, unheard need for legitimacy, combined with the encouraging of the anti-missionary groups, that has led some Messianics to abandon Yeshua. This desired legitimacy, something we may never see from Judaism, requires a separation from the Church that for so long has persecuted God’s chosen people.

On the other hand, I feel quite at home and feel brotherhood with those Christians that earnestly love Messiah. I recognize the good they have done; there are innumerable righteous gentiles functioning in the Christian Church. We recognize people within the Church, such as Corrie Ten Boom, that have, in the true form of Messiah’s example, saved Jews at risk of their own lives, and have loved the Jewish people and sacrificed even their own families for God’s people. But this kind of heroics always gets attention; it’s the millions of Christians today that unconditionally love Jews and are ardent Zionists; it’s these that deserve a spotlight.

Finally, I’m impressed and encouraged by the early Hebrew Christian pioneers. They were so unapologetically bold for Yeshua as Messiah, that I must question whether our anti-Church stance has caused us to shrink back our zeal for Yeshua. Could it be that we have spent too much of our zeal in rebellion against the Church when it could be redirected toward a zealousness for Messiah and God’s Law?

At the very least, I feel like Christians are our brothers. At the same time, I cannot with honest heart say, “I’m a Christian”.

I am thus divided. Maybe such is the life of a Messianic.

What do you think, fine blog readers?

Pick the Scripture

Both of the quotations below are from early believers in Messiah.

One of them greatly influenced the Roman Church and its Protestant offspring.

The other made it into Scripture.

Can you guess which is which?

    1. My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world

      We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not obey his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

      Everyone who breaks the Law sins; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

      I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.

    2. Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, nor rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work shall not eat."

      Let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day."

      Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.

      Be not deceived with strange doctrines, "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies," and things in which the Jews boast. "Old things are passed away: all things have become new." For if we live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace.

      Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God.

      It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity.

      It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. [^]

The first quote is from Scripture, in 1 John.

The second quote is from Magnesians, a letter written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, around the time of Paul’s death.

Ignatius’ detestable theology had a great impact on the early believers; his writings were a clear forerunner of the Roman Catholic Church’s own doctrines: Ignatius is the first to abolish God’s Sabbath, replacing it with man’s Sun-day. He was also the first to describe the Church as “katholikos” or universal, from which the Catholic Church derives its name.

Armed with these anti-Jewish theologies, the Roman Catholic Church proceeded to persecute Jews and abolish most every form of keeping God’s commandments in the Torah, replacing Passover with Easter, Sabbath with Sunday, to name a few, creating a very distinct religion apart from, and very bitter towards, the original faith in the God of Israel.

The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church still celebrate Ignatius and even have a special feast day dedicated to this man.

The Catholic Church’s offspring – Protestants and Evangelicals – have inherited much of this ugly theology. Perhaps this is why many gentile Christians today believe or sympathize with these terrible, anti-Jewish doctrines that have led to the deaths of thousands of Jews at the hands of Christians. It has also contributed to modern Christianity's foundation-less theology in which the forgiveness of sin is held high, but the obedience to God's commandments -- sin's adversary -- is largely ignored, leading to lawlessness and empty works.

It's OK, I meant well

How much does one's real motive -- his heartfelt belief on the matter -- influence whether an act is moral or immoral?

If a man murders another, but his heart believed it was done for good, is it still evil? If the man truly believed his action was done out of righteousness or human ethical behavior, does it make the otherwise unethical act more ethical?

I encounter this argument from many gentile Christians who, after being confronted about the very un-Christian backgrounds of supposedly Christian holidays like Easter or Christmas, respond with the quip, "All that may be true, but I'm honoring God in my heart."

It's the religious version of "it's the thought that counts".

It's a good point. I know there are many folks, filled with God's spirit, doing their best to walk a righteous life before God and relying on God for their righteousness, who are trying to honor God in celebrating Christmas, Easter, Lent and other so-called Christian holidays, as well as now non-Christian holidays such as All Hallow's Eve (Halloween). Gentile Christians have told me many times, "I'm not worshipping my Christmas tree, and these other pagan symbols mean nothing to me, they're harmless decorations!"

Where does that leave us? What's the truth here? Well, let's summarize what we know:

  1. The Christian holidays of Easter, Christmas, and Lent were formed from pagan rituals. These were chosen over God's holidays largely because of the hatred of Jews and all things Jewish in the early gentile Church. (See Church: Behold Your Founder) For example, man's Easter was chosen over God's Passover because Roman Emperor and founder of the Roman Catholic Church, Constantine, decreed in the 325 CE,
    "We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jew. It would be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communication with such wicked people (the Jews). It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of festivals, to follow the customs (the calculation) of the Jews who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews."

  2. These holidays have largely been scrubbed of their former pagan symbolism and racist past, although some forms still exist. Easter eggs, Easter rabbits, yule tide, mistletoe, Christmas trees, silver testicles of the Egyptian god Ra (excuse me, silver balls on Christmas trees), candles on Christmas trees, and the mythical St. Nick who knows when you're sleeping or when you're awake and whether you've been bad or good, are a few examples.

  3. Most Christians are unaware of the pagan and anti-Jewish, anti-Torah backgrounds of these holidays.

  4. The few Christians who have knowledge of this and continue to celebrate have justified their doing so by saying they are honoring God in their heart.

  5. It is true that most Christians who are truly desiring to walk with God are, in fact, trying to honor God through these holidays, despite their pagan and racist backgrounds.


So, are Christians right in saying, "These holidays are what I make them to be, the pagan & anti-Jewish backgrounds don't mean anything to me"?

I'd like to look at Scripture and see. Is there anything in Scripture that would indicate either way? Let's look.

From the Torah

One thing that immediately comes to mind is something found back in the Torah. When Moses ascended the mountain to receive the commandments, the people of Israel became weary and, in their impatience, melted down their gold and from it, formed an undoubtedly beautiful golden statue of a calf, and worshiped it. To us, this sounds like pretty straightforward idolatry, doesn't it?

But a crux most Christians miss in this story is something that Jewish tradition holds: the golden calf they molded wasn't a new god; after all, the Lord was doing all kinds of miracles right before their eyes -- the splitting of the Red Sea, the leading pillar of cloud by day, the leading pillar of fire by night, the closing of the sea on the Egyptians, the giving of manna and water in the middle of the Negev desert -- the Israelites weren't in the market for a new god.

This golden calf was not a new god, no, Jewish tradition holds the calf was molded for the "unseen God", the Lord, who rode invisibly on the back of this calf. The Egyptian tradition of creating idols of their gods riding triumphantly on the backs of cattle was borrowed by the Israelites, and now the Israelites were making an idol for the Lord, the invisible god, riding on the back of a golden calf.

Still with me?

If this tradition holds water, the Israelites meant well. In fact, they were worshipping the Lord.

But this was something God didn't approve of, despite Israel's good intentions. Why? They were mixing holy and profane: a tradition of the world mixed with an otherwise holy people and holy God.

From the B'rit Chadasha (New Testament)

When Messiah went to the Temple in Jerusalem, he encountered folks who were selling the necessities for offerings in the Temple -- grain offerings, sin offerings, praise offerings -- as commanded by the Torah.

These folks meant well, they were even helping those who were giving to God. But when Messiah saw them, he did something rather unexpected and violent,

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"
Despite the good intentions of those selling offerings for the Temple, Messiah rebuked them and sent them away. Why? Mixing holy and profane, mixing God's house with man's market.

What about when Messiah related to his followers all the things that must happen to him and how the Messiah must suffer and die? Kefa (Peter) responded, "Never!"

Certainly Peter had good intentions and meant well; he was stating he'd never let harm come to Yeshua. But did Peter's good intentions spare him?

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the Torah, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Master!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Wow. Why did Messiah himself come against Peter so harshly, especially when his intentions were good? Because he was mixing holy and profane; God's plan mixed with man's ideas. Peter meant well, even meant to glorify God, but that didn't make it right.

From logic and reason

If heart-felt motive is the only thing that determines whether an act is moral, anarchy exists and morality is relative.

Taken to an extreme end, the thinking of "It's OK because I mean well" results in any act being defensible. I could steal from you justly because I was fully convinced in my own mind that stealing from people wealthier than myself is morally good; a modern Robin Hood, if you will.

A more reasonable position, some might say, is that because you are fully convinced that a mother has a right to choose whether to let her developing child live or die, and because the mother's intention isn't evil -- she just doesn't want to have kids -- it is morally acceptable and agreeable that she kill her child abort the fetus if she so chooses.

When led to it's ultimate end, any crime is a non-crime, every sin is a non-sin, if we define morality or righteousness as "whatever I want it to be" or "whatever the purpose of my heart is", we're left with a humanist's utopia: relative moralism, no real rights or wrongs, nothing truly righteous, nothing truly evil.

Conclusion

Indeed, such thinking will lead one to a kind of washy unitarianism: for if the intent of one's heart is what matters, who's to say Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and other world religions have it wrong? They all believe in their heart they're following God, in some form or another, so why bother them?

If believers in Messiah can justify observing the world's holidays in good conscience, with all the pagan and anti-Jewish paraphernalia associated with Easter, Christmas, and Lent, we cancel out a gospel that insists on itself as the only way to God, we cancel out absolute morality, we remove the very idea of righteousness. We relegate absolute morality to the backseat, placing a greater importance on the intent of one's heart, allowing for wiggle room.

We've discovered in Scripture that one can try to please God and still do something unpleasing to God. We've seen that intent of the heart isn't the only thing that matters. While God does look on the heart, it can't be the only scale of right and wrong.

Your celebrating Easter is no better than putting a cross on a Buddha; we're mixing holy and profane. One must ask Christians, would you feel comfortable with celebrating such things if Messiah was visiting your home tonight? Would you talk to him how beautiful your adorned tree looks? How much fun the kids had at the Easter egg hunt? And then tell Him how you're doing these things in His name and for His sake? I can only imagine his response!

No matter how much we convince ourselves otherwise, seemingly harmless things like this do not honor God. God is not honored by your Christmas tree, God is not honored by your Easter eggs. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Catholic Relevance

As a way of expanding my religious exposure and knowledge, I've been listening to a national Roman Catholic radio station, broadcast here in the cities as WLOL 1330 Relevant Radio, "Bridging the gap between faith and everyday life", the Twin City's home of Catholic radio.

I've learned a few interesting things about Roman Catholic Christianity that I think you all might find interesting too.

Firstly, they deserve credit for helping the poor and disabled far more than I've known Protestant churches to. They have extra religious services for those with disabilities, extra accommodation and service to widows and orphans. They have seemingly perpetual food drives, shelters, ministering and missions to the poor.

It reminds me of something from the Brit Chadasha (New Testament) book of Ya'akov (James):

Religion that God our Abba accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

They have a strong stand for preservation of life that is not tied to any political party, which differs from much of Protestant Christianity. Whether that stance be on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, the death penalty, or elderly euthanization, they stand almost unbudgingly for preservation of life.

I've also found them to be inundated in ritual religion: Mass, Rosary, Eucharist, Confession, Adoration, and other man-made rituals make up most of the conversational topics, if not lives, of practicing Catholics.

Unlike Protestants, there is a unified theology with little room for budging in the form of the Roman Catholic Catechism. As the Talmud and Oral Law is to some Jews, the Catechism defines what it means to be Catholic. Without it, one may as well be a Protestant.

There are also some negatives I've discovered with Roman Catholicism. The deep ties to ritual religion and ceremony have lead to some ignorance of Scripture. For example, as I listened to "Searching the Word" show yesterday, a caller said he felt his family was being attacked spiritually. I was stunned to hear the guest archdiocese tell us how to ward off spiritual attacks against your family,

"Holy water. Sprinkle it around your house. Also, holy salt will do it too. Place piles of holy salt around the 4 corners of your house. I'd even sprinkle some in your food as you cook it."

Needless to say, this has no foundation in Scripture: there is no such thing as "holy water", nor "holy salt" in Scripture. It's entirely a man-made religious ritual.

So despite the show being called, "Searching the Word", I found it sad that the Word wasn't searched in this instance.

I've also noticed the Roman Catholics have inherited and are proclaiming hand-me-downs from pagan religions, just as they have handed us Tammuz Weeping Day/Lent, Ishtar Day/Easter, Nimrod's Birthday/Christmas, and other goodies. For example, a talk show host was speaking of the wonders of the heavens, when a caller phoned to inform the host of the apparent Roman Catholic background of the recent Perseid Meteor shower,

"Did you know that the Perseid Meteor shower is actually a feast day of St. Lawrence? The meteors are actually the Tears of St. Lawrence."


Did I mention there's much near-deification of saints? :)

Let's realize St. Lawrence is not mentioned in Scripture. His tears don't exist, the guy's dead. It's a little tongue-in-cheek to pass on this rather goofy likening of meteor showers to St. Lawrence, especially when, like many of the Roman Catholic-sponsored holidays, it is rooted in pagan mythology and relabeled as Christian by the Roman Catholic Church.

Finally, I notice a lot of debate over minutia. Much like how the Pharisees would argue over whether it's lawful for a man to eat bread cooked in an oven built with a brick laid on Sabbath (there's a mouthful!), I've heard Roman Catholics debating over minutia in Catechism and Roman Catholic dogma. For example, yesterday I heard a debate over whether is it lawful for a bishop to appoint, without papal approval, a new priest or bishop in the event of an emergency such as a war. Sheesh.

And of course, the major shocking thing is, they believe a certain man is infallible and is, more or less, Jesus Christ on earth. I am speaking of the Holy Father, the Pope, of course.

In all these things, I draw correlations to the ancient Pharisees. I say that with all due respect for Catholics, but there remains correlations between Catholicism and ancient Pharisaical Judaism nonetheless:

  • They are devoutly religious.

  • They are recognized as ambassadors of God's true religion.

  • They are flooded with rituals and man-made religion.

  • They make new rulings that are equal to or override Scripture. (The Pope is infallible, Sabbath is Sunday, to name a few.)

  • They've added their writings to Scripture.

  • Their rituals are taking precedence over Scripture.

  • Their devout religion may be mostly outward, as is evidenced by the recent molestation scandals.

  • Their own dogma is so important, that without it, one cannot be considered a member of the body of God.


If Messiah came back today -- in all his Hebrew garb, as the triumphant son of David, Torah-observant restorer of Israel -- I am convinced He would appear totally foreign and too radical for Roman Catholics.

It makes me wonder if Roman Catholics will be the Pharisees of the second coming of Messiah. Hopefully all of us will be correctable when He comes; I suspect we all have some theological and general life issues in need of Messiah's correction.

The "Church" at Mt. Sinai

From First Fruits of Zion

We often see pictures of Jesus in churches, but the real Yeshua never actually went to a church. He attended synagogue and the Temple in Jerusalem. Luke 4:16 says it was His custom to attend the synagogue every Sabbath.

Moses returned from atop Mount Sinai and “assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel.” (Exodus 35:1) The assembling of the congregation helps us understand the origin of the word “church.”

The first Hebrew word of Exodus 35:1 is the simple word qahal (קהל), which means “to assemble.” The Hebrew Scriptures often refer to the people participating in the Temple service as “the assembly.” The “assembly of Israel” is a common Bible phrase denoting all Israel. In its noun form, the word qahal typically passes into the Greek LXX [Septuagint] version of the Bible as the Greek word ekklesia.

Ekklesia is a common term throughout the Greek Old Testament Scriptures. It is generally used to speak of the assembled worshipers in the Temple or the whole assembly of Israel. However, when it occurs in the New Testament, English translators rarely render it “assembly.” Inexplicably, they translate it with the theologically charged term “church.”

The “church” translation of ekklesia has misled us. Because of the double standard in translation, it appears to most readers that “the church” is an exclusive New Testament term, a phenomena disconnected with the Old Testament. After all, the word never appears before the book of Matthew. But in reality, the word church does not appear in the Bible at all. By translating ekklesia as “church,” our English Bibles have made us think that “the church” is a completely new and different institution.

The word translated in Exodus 35:1 as “congregation” is the Hebrew word eidah (עדה). The same word is typically translated into the Greek LXX as the word sunagogay, from which we derive the word synagogue.

In the Gospels and epistles, ekklesia seems to refer to an assembly of people, while sunagogay refers to the place of Sabbath assembly. For example, we know that the believers refer to themselves as the ekklesia, but in 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul refers to all the synagogues of Jewry (which includes believers and nonbelievers) with the same word. The early meeting places of the believers were synagogues. In James 2:2, the text says, “If a man comes into your assembly (sunagogay)…” The English translators of the New American Standard chose to translate sunogogay in this instance as “assembly” rather than “synagogue.” It seems they did not want to infer that believers were meeting in synagogues. In reality, they were, and they early believers called their places of assembly synagogues.

Custom comments