One God & One Lord

The following is quoted from The Unitarian Advocate and Religious Miscellany, Vol. 1—No. 1, January 1830. The text itself is quoted from “the late Bishop Watson.”

“What!” he exclaims, “shall the church of Christ never be freed from the narrow-minded contentions of bigots; from the insults of men who know not what spirit they are of, when they would stint the Omnipotent in the exercise of his mercy, and bar the doors of heaven against every sect but their own? Shall we never learn to think more humbly of ourselves, and less despicably of others? to believe that the Father of the universe accommodates not his judgements to the wretched wranglings of pedantic Theologues; but that every one, who, with an honest intention, and to the best of his ability seeketh the truth, whether he findeth it or not, and worketh righteousness, will be accepted of him? …

“If different men,” he afterwards adds, “in carefully and conscientiously examining the scriptures, should arrive at different conclusions, even on points of the last importance, we trust that God, who alone knows what every man is capable of, will be merciful to his that is in error. We trust that he will pardon the Unitarian, if he be in error, because he has fallen into it from the dread of becoming an Idolater, of giving that glory to another which he conceives to be due to God alone. If the worshipper of Jesus Christ be in an error, we trust that God will pardon his mistake, because he has fallen into it from a dread of disobeying what he conceives to be revealed concerning the nature of the Son, or commanded concerning the honor to be given him. Both are actuated by the same principle—THE FEAR OF GOD; and, though that principle impels them into different roads, it is our hope and belief, that, if they add to their faith charity, they will meet in heaven.”

This one ties in with my earlier article, “Ecumenical Thoughts,” so I’ll end it with the same words in which I ended that one:

Faith working through love, serving Jesus Christ, living in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit: this is the kingdom of God. Instead of bickering, biting, and devouring one another, let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24).

It has been over two weeks. This is the longest I’ve gone without posting anything here, so I thought I’d just comment a little bit on the things that have been swirling around my head over the past couple of weeks.

Pride

I’ve been looking into the unitarian group called the Christadelphians. They are a rather small denomination with unitarian beliefs. Of course they don’t consider themselves a denomination, but rather the restoration of the original first century church. So what else is new? I guess that should have been my first clue, warning flag number one.

They have some beliefs that I do not hold, such as when you die, you are completely unconscious/unaware in the grave until the resurrection. Nor do they believe in eternal punishment of the wicked. These beliefs are sometimes referred to as “soul sleep” and “annihilation.” I’ve studied it and I don’t buy it.

On the positive side, they are unitarian and they also believe that full-immersion adult baptism is a necessary step in God’s plan of salvation.

They also hold an uncommon belief that surprised me because it matches a study I did on my own, along with the conclusion that my study was leaning toward. I did not complete the study thoroughly, so I cannot say that I hold this belief; a belief that I thought to be unique since I have never heard of anyone else even considering the possibility. Then, lo, I find an entire denomination that holds to it! Or at least something extremely close to it. That belief is that only believers are resurrected and judged (since only believers receive eternal life). The disobedient believers go to eternal punishment; the obedient to eternal life. There is disagreement within the Christadelphian church, which has actually caused a split in the church, based on the significance of baptism in who will be resurrected. It’s too much to get into here. Someday I may post my own study on this topic, just for information, but baptism was not an element that I addressed when I studied it.

But why did I title this section Pride? In my discussions with Christadelphians, the subject of baptism was brought up. I found out that someone joining their church would have to be re-baptized by them. Warning flag number two. When I asked why, I was told that they needed to ensure that the person believed and understood the correct things. And if someone is unsure of what they should believe, they can attend classes before being baptized. Hello? Where is this in scripture? If you preach the gospel to someone and they tell you they believe, who are you to judge whether or not they truly believe? Perhaps churches need to start using lie detectors before baptizing people. And, by the way, what they require you to believe before they will baptize you is their 30-point statement of faith. Wow.

Anyway, it is arrogance and pride that requires someone to have precise knowledge of specific beliefs, the way they think it should be understood, before allowing someone to be baptized. There are very clear and simple examples in scripture that show us what someone needs to believe before being baptized (Acts 10:34-48 is one example). Any “requirement” beyond that is an addition to what God requires. To think that you (whether a person or a group) know better than the apostles what someone needs to believe in order to be baptized is to place yourself above them, and even above God who inspired the holy scriptures. It is the epitome of arrogance.

Does It Matter?

Some things don’t matter. In an earlier entry (Nativity Tales), I commented on the number of inaccuracies in the story of the birth of Jesus; for example, that it is commonly taught and portrayed that there were three wise men or magi. Someone commented (verbally, it’s not in the comments), “Does it really matter how many wise men there were? No, it doesn’t.” With that I completely agree! It doesn’t matter. If it did, scripture would reveal how many wise men there were. But the fact that we are not told how many wise men there were and whether it matters or not was not the point of my post. The point was that we should not make things up that are not in scripture! This kind of inaccurate information gets passed on in the form of tradition and ultimately gets believed, over what is actually contained in the Bible. The number of wise men and the other false nativity traditions are only examples. Is truth important? Yes! Don’t propagate known falsehood. That’s lying. It is a lie to say there were three wise men when you know full well that we don’t know how many there were.

You’ve probably heard it on the news already, but the Vatican has now moved the birthplace of Jesus to Nazareth.

Here are a couple links to the story:

• Christian Today

• The Telegraph

Some interesting excerpts:

“This Christmas the Vatican has changed the traditional Nativity scene display in front of St Peter’s Basilica into a scene showing the young Jesus in Nazareth, at Joseph’s carpentry shop.
. . .
The idea of setting the scene in Nazareth rather than in Bethlehem came from Matthew 1:24-25 which says, “When Joseph woke up, he did as the Angel of God ordered and took Mary into his house. Without them knowing each other, a child was born and he called his name Jesus.”

The book of Matthew mentions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, however a spokesman for the Vatican said that they had decided to feature the Nativity scene in Nazareth anyway. (emphasis added)

The spokesman said, “It was time for a change …

… it is Matthew’s gospel which forms the basis for the Angelus prayer, and the view of Jesus in a carpenter’s workshop matches the Franciscan tradition.

The following excerpt was in an article at FoxNews.com:

“Officials at the unveiling said the shift underscored the idea that Jesus was born not just in a single place, but everywhere and for everyone.”

Kind of sounds like a move toward eliminating Jesus’ birth as an event in history and relegating it to a general “idea” of a Christ-child birth, a very New Age concept of Christ.

I guess if the Roman Catholic Church can change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, they can change the birthplace of Jesus from Bethlehem to Nazareth.

I recently received in email two little stories that generally make their rounds at this time of year. One is titled, “Teach the Children” and is about a parent’s encounter with a “sad and disappointed” Santa Claus. Why was Santa sad? Because the children were not being taught the true meaning of Christmas. Santa then encourages the parent to teach them “the symbolism behind the customs and traditions of Christmas,” what these customs and symbols “truly represent.” What are they? Well, here’s a sample of these so-called truths behind the traditions:

• Evergreens are used for Christmas trees because green is the “second color of Christmas” (red is the first color) and the evergreen’s unchanging color represents eternal life in Jesus.
• Red Christmas tree ornaments represent the blood of Christ and silver bells should teach children to follow the true Shepherd.
• Each twinkling light on a Christmas tree represents each of God’s children whose light is shining for all to see.
• Candy canes are shaped like the letter J for Jesus as well as the shepherd’s hook which the Good Shepherd uses to rescue his fallen lambs from the ditches.

“But where does that leave you Santa?” the parent asks. Santa replies, “I represent the spirit of family fun and the joy of giving and receiving. I am just a humble servant of God, promoting His commandment to love Him and each other.”

Teaching them about Santa is bad enough, must it be compounded with more lies and man-made traditions? How about just teaching the children the truth. Hey, what a concept!

The second email attachment was a “Letter from Jesus about Christmas.” It starts out well, with Jesus speaking the truth that he was not really born on December 25 and that his birth is being celebrated on what actually began as a pagan festival. The letter goes on to say that the way he (Jesus) would prefer we celebrate his birthday is to simply “get along and love one another.”

He also advises us to stop squabbling with public entities about the placement of nativity scenes. Rather, Jesus encourages all his followers to put nativity scenes on their own front lawns. If we all did that, then “there wouldn’t be any need for such a scene on the town square.”

Here’s my problem with that. A good many Christians, in faithful Roman trinitarian tradition, believe that Jesus is their God. Therefore, all those nativity sets in all those yards amounts to nothing more than a bunch of little idols of their god scattered throughout the world. This letter has “God” encouraging the making of images of himself! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

The last part of Jesus’ letter is a wish list of the presents he’d like to receive from you. Most of these suggestions are good and honorable, like visiting someone in a nursing home, assembling together to learn more about him, forgiving those who have hurt you, and helping the needy.

He closes the letter by telling you not to forget that he is God (something the real Jesus never said in the pages of Scripture).

Distortions of the truth can not be corrected by piling even more on top.

Most Christians with a love for Bible study already know of the more common inaccuracies of the manger scenes depicted at this time of year.

• You know that Jesus wasn’t really born on December 25,

• you know that the angels that appeared to the shepherds in the field did not sing,

• you know that three wise men were not at the birth but showed up at the house up to two years afterward,

• and you know that the number of wise men (magi) is unknown. Three is a traditional number based on the number of gifts they brought: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

• You probably also know that the commonly seen image of a pregnant Mary riding on a donkey during the trip to Bethlehem is pure conjecture.

During my Web journeys this year, I came across another probable nativity story inaccuracy, one I had not read about before: The whole scenario of there being “no room in the inn.” For one thing, there is no innkeeper mentioned at all. The whole inn story is based on one verse:

• Luke 2:7 NASB - And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Greek word kataluma is used only three times in the New Testament. Luke 2:7, Mark 14:14, and Luke 22:11. It is translated as “inn” only in Luke 2:7. In both of the other verses (which are parallel accounts of one story) the word is translated as “guest room”:

• Mark 14:14 NASB - and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”‘

• Luke 22:11 NASB - “And you shall say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”‘

The very next verse in Luke 22 defines for us what a kataluma is:

• Luke 22:12 NASB - “And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there.”

A kataluma, or guest room/guestchamber (KJV), is the upper room of a house where guests would be lodged. It is not a Motel 6. And remember, there is no mention of an innkeeper in scripture. We are simply told that there was no room in the kataluma.

We can’t escape some speculation. While an “inn” is speculation, we do have the definition provided by the other uses of kataluma in the Bible. We also know that a manger is a feeding trough usually located in a stable. The stable was usually a room on the ground floor of the house. But even with that knowledge we must speculate some.

Joseph was returning to his homeland to register for the census (Luke 2:1-5). Being from Bethlehem and the “family of David,” we can speculate that he probably had family in Bethlehem and would go to stay in a family member’s home. Others of the family of David would also have returned to Bethlehem at this time to comply with the emperor’s decree (Luke 2:1). With other visiting family members already there, the guest room, the kataluma, of the family home would likely have been full, but the stable room on the ground floor would have provided a place to lay the new born Jesus.

Here’s another clue from the inspired text:

• Luke 2:6 NASB - While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.

“While they were there” (in Bethlehem), the time to give birth arrived. They were already in Bethlehem, possibly already staying with family, when the time came to give birth. The dramatized stories often depict Joseph and Mary just arriving in Bethlehem and Joseph frantically looking for a place to lodge so that Mary could give birth. But the text, on the other hand, tells us that “while they were there, the days were completed.” The guest room was filled to capacity; there was no room for more, not even a new born baby. But there was room in the stable and a manger for the baby Jesus to lay in.

Note also that the text doesn’t even say that the baby was born in the stable, only that after giving birth, she wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger.

• Luke 2:6-7 NASB - (6) While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. (7) And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Consider the power of tradition and the errors that get reinforced over time.

Consider that the nativity story is the most biblical part of the holiday that Christians and the world call Christmas.

Consider how easy it has been over the centuries to let “the reason for the season” turn into a story of historical fiction. The manger scene is “based on a true story,” but the details have been distorted by the imaginations of men.

Now, consider that if this most biblical part of Christmas can be so readily accepted in its twisted form, then the rest of Christmas — the pagan origins of the holiday itself and the pagan origins of Christmas customs such as the Christmas tree, mistletoe, Santa Claus, and the exchange of gifts — is probably so far from what Christians should be doing that they don’t even realize it. They willingly revel in pagan customs while celebrating with false details an event that they were never instructed by God to celebrate in the first place.

The gift I would like my readers to have most this Christmas is a hunger for God’s word and a desire to know and practice the truth. Merry Christmas.