Should the Bible be taken literally?

Three in ten Americans claim they interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God.  Forty-nine percent of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God and it should not be interpreted literally.  Seventeen percent of Americans say the Bible is only an ancient book of stories recorded by man.   What do you say?

I do not believe anyone interprets every scripture in the Bible literally.  I know some people say they do, but generally when you begin to question them about it they say something like this, I believe God said what He meant and meant what He said.  It is the meaning that I take literally, not the words used.

 I do not take the Bible literally and I would have less difficulty understanding a person that claimed God spoke the figurative words conveying a message to man in a way that man at the time could understand. 

Only foolish people in my opinion would say they would kill their child if they talked back to them.  Only foolish people would say they would kill a homosexual if they came across one.  Only foolish people would say they would kill a person they caught in adultery.  If you do not want to appear foolish then do not say you would do the things Leviticus calls us to do – unless you really would. 

I believe there are times when a section of Scripture is meant to be taken symbolically.  Just one simple example comes from John 10:7-9 in the King James Version – 7. “Then said Jesus unto them again, verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door for the sheep. 8.  All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9. I am the door:  by me if any man enters in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.”  We know that Jesus isn't a literal door.  Symbolically, He is like a door.  We know from other Scriptures that men can't enter into Heaven unless they go through Jesus.

Interpreting the entire Bible as literal divine revelation creates problems for serious Bible study.  Besides some apparent internal contradictions and conflicts with science and history, there is evidence within the Bible itself that it has both human and divine origins.  Luke attributed his Gospel to his own research. 

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matt. 7:7-8 NKJ).  This section of Scripture I think was meant to be taken literally. The Bible states that we will receive from God what we ask (if it is in God’s will).  It gives us an example of an earthly father giving his children what they request.  It concludes by stating that God, Who is better than an earthly father, is going to give good things to us when we ask.  I'm glad that God literally meant what He said in this section of Scripture.  

It's very important to note that Bible Scriptures must also be interpreted in their full context.  It's possible to pull Scriptures out of their context and make them say whatever we want.  This is how all Bible based cults deceive their followers.

 Christians have always believed the Bible is inspired by God and is authoritative on spiritual, moral and ethical matters.  In the 16th century questions and arguments began about whether the Bible is also authoritative on scientific and historical matters. 

The first major conflict was between the ancient view of the earth, as reflected in the Bible, and the Copernican theory, which stated that the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun. The astronomer Galileo, using his telescope, found evidence to support the Copernican theory and began publishing his results in 1611.  Church officials became upset because the Copernican theory seemed to contradict the Bible, and in 1616 Pope Paul V ordered Galileo to abandon the Copernican theory. 

In 1910, a group of Presbyterian theologians proposed five beliefs a Christian must have: 1) the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture (freedom from error or untruths), 2) the virgin birth of Christ, 3) Christ's atonement for our sins on the cross, 4) Christ bodily resurrection and 5) accepting the reality of His miracles. These became known as The Fundamentals.  They were widely distributed and formed the basis of the Fundamentalist movement within Christianity.

Many fundamentalists believed the Holy Spirit dictated the Bible to its authors word-for-word.  They reasoned that "inerrancy of Scripture" must mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely, literally, scientifically and historically true. Anything less than that would be unworthy of God.   According to this view, the Bible is free from error on matters of history and science, as well as doctrine and any conflict between the Bible and another source should be resolved in favor of the Bible. 

Some Christians continue to believe that the Bible should be interpreted completely literally.  But by the mid-twentieth century, a majority of Christians had a different view.  Most Christians today believe God inspired the human authors of the Bible to deliver His message to the world, and ensured that they delivered it faithfully.  But God left it up to them to express that message in their own words and in the literary styles current at the time. 

I do not believe there is any conflict between the Bible and science because the Bible is a book of spiritual and moral guidance and it was never intended to be a book of science or history.  I also believe that if you limit yourself to a literal interpretation you miss out on much of what God was and is trying to reveal to us.  There are Bible's stories that are historically accurate and should be interpreted literally.  But some spiritual truths are revealed through allegory, parable, simile, metaphor, hyperbole and were never intended to be taken literally. 

I believe my not interpreting the Bible literally has in no way threatened my faith.  I do not believe I need to defend my faith, the Bible or God for I believe God is quite capable of doing that Himself.  I also believe the Bible can stand on its on merit regardless of the technique used to interpret it.  It is important that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal interpretation of the Bible distract us from that goal.  Perhaps, instead of arguing it would be better to admit that only God has all the answers!

How do you choose the right church?

I believe choosing the right church is second only to choosing the right spouse.  Sometimes people choose a church to join for all the wrong reasons – their family attends the church; they like the music (entertainment); it is the closest church to their home; the times of service fit their Sunday schedule better; business opportunities are available; the preacher is famous; they do not preach about sin; the church is large enough that you can go unnoticed; they have a beautiful building and etc. 

I personally would prefer to join a church that requires people seeking membership to attend classes.  The purpose of a church and its mission is important and you should clearly understand it before joining.  If people attend classes before joining most likely the members will have the same goals.  The unity among the members will generally be greater.

I think people should know the vision or direction the church is going in before they join.  It is important that the members of the church know the direction their church is taking.  If they do and you do then everyone can get excited about helping the church move in that direction.

You should know what the churches doctrine is before joining.  Every church should have a statement of faith that identifies its basic theological positions. You should review it carefully and be in basic agreement with that statement before making a decision.

You should be comfortable with the style of worship.  There is no right style or wrong style of worship, but you should be comfortable with their style.  I have attended churches that had liturgical style, traditional style, and various contemporary styles of worship.  I personally am more at home in a church that has a liturgical style of worship.

It is important to be in a church where your kind of people attends.  If you do it will be easier to become a family with them.  Choosing a church is as much a cultural question as it is a theological one.  We tend to settle in places, and with people, we can relate to.

You should ask what programs does the church offer that meets the needs of me and my family.  Generally families stay in a church where the children are happy and are having their needs met.

 What is the style of leadership at this church?  Churches have various styles and structures of leadership.  Some are congregational rule; some are governed by elected or appointed boards; while others are led by one person at the organization’s headquarters.  Knowing the kind of style and structure of leadership, how decisions are made, and personally respecting and valuing that style are important issues to work through before finalizing your choice of a church home.

I personally believe local congregations should make decisions for local churches.  I even think local congregations should choose their local leader.  I have often witness Catholic parishes where the local priest was not the right fit for the local parish and people had to suffer Sunday after Sunday for years. 

You should know the opportunities for service the church has to offer.  You need to be in a church where you can grow and maximize your gifts, talents, resources, and contribute to the growth and ministry of the church.

A key question to ask yourself are the unique gifts God has given you valued by this particular congregation and how can those gifts find their expression most effectively in the life of this church?

What is the reputation of the church in the community?  What is it known for? Does it have a positive or negative reputation?  Why?  Does the community even know the church exists?

Like all organizations, churches reflect the values and personalities of their leaders.  In choosing a church, one should ask if these leaders are people you can respect, trust, follow, and relate to.  Nothing is worse than trying to learn and improve your spiritual life under the direction of a leader or leaders you do not respect.

First impressions, while they can sometimes be misleading, can and do reveal certain feelings and reactions to general impressions, particularly for new people looking for a church home.  Don't discount your first impressions!

Churches will generally have at least four priorities - its mission, its people, its programs, and its facilities. How a church ranks those in terms of priority will tell you about what's important to a church and how it works.

Sometimes individuals can get lost in a local church, especially if it's a larger congregation.  Anyone can find a home church to attend and be anonymous.  A church home should involve relationships, support and care with others in a community of believers.  I would like to see the size of a church be no more than 300, but I realize that is seldom practical.

Where a church has been can tell you a lot about where it's headed, especially in the last five years.  If the leadership has remained the same is important because it speaks to the stability of the church.  Has it grown or declined?  Why or why not?  Are there existing problems or different ‘camps’ within the congregation?  Look before you leap!

If you have children you need to know if the church has a strong youth ministry.  The church should meet the spiritual needs of the whole family.  The teen years are often the most difficult years of a family's adjustment and parents are most likely to go where their teen-agers are active, involved and growing.

Look through the church bulletin.  It will tell you a lot about what a church believes, but more about how it acts.  Also, take a look at the church budget. Where it allocates its funds will also tell you a lot about what it does and values.

Can you live with the things you don't like about the church?  No church is perfect.  In fact, if you find the perfect church, don't join it, you'll ruin it!  The key is that you have investigated and been honest with yourself about what's important and that you can commit yourself to a body of believers moving in a particular direction.

Clothes that fit properly are worn more often and the same is true with a church that fits you properly.  If it fits well you will attend more often.  My past experience has been that many attend church out of a sense of obligation and not because they enjoy it and that is sad!

Can abortion be forgiven?

Some people believe having an abortion is an unforgiveable sin and that is not true.  There is nothing in the Bible that would support that idea.  I suspect that most who teach that abortion is unforgivable are simply trying to scare women into not having an abortion. 

I whole heartily believe abortion is murder.  I believe killing any one is terrible, especially an innocent child.   If abortion is unforgiveable then all types of killing are unforgiveable and no scripture supports that.  Numerous people in the Bible committed murder and were forgiven by God. 

Moses murdered an Egyptian (Exodus 2:12), David had Uriah killed (2 Samuel 11:14-17) and even Paul went about arresting and killing Christians before he became one of the greatest missionaries the world has ever seen (Acts 8:1-3). Even when it comes to killing children, many Israelite people fell into the sin of sacrificing their children to false idols (Ezekiel 16:21).  Although these sins were deplorable to God they were still forgiven by God.  If God can forgive people like Moses, David, Paul, and the idol-worshipping Israelites, God will also forgive every mother who has had an abortion.   There is grace and forgiveness for all who have had an abortion who sincerely repent.

People have often asked me what about rape and incest?  What about it!  As horrible as it would be to become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, is the murder of a baby the right answer?  Two wrongs do not make a right.  The child who is a result of rape or incest could be given in adoption to a loving family unable to have children on their own or the child could be raised by its mother. Again, the baby is completely innocent and should not be punished for the evil acts of its father.  All life has dignity and value. 

I have also been asked many times what about when the life of the mother is at risk.  This is the most difficult question for me to answer on the issue of abortion. The truth is the issue of the mothers health is the reason behind less than one-tenth of one percent of all abortions done in the world today.  Far more women have an abortion for convenience than women who have an abortion to save their own lives.  

I think we must remember that God is a God of miracles.  He can preserve the life of a mother and a child despite all the medical odds being against it.  But, I believe this question can only be decided between a husband, wife, and God.  Any couple facing this difficult situation should pray to the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5) as to what He would have them to do.  I do not think a priest, preacher or any Christian should give advice to a parent facing this dilemma.

Over 95 percent of the abortions performed today involve women who simply do not want to have a baby.  Less than 5 percent of abortions are for the reasons of rape, incest, or the mother's health being at risk. 

For those who have had an abortion, remember that the sin of abortion is no less forgivable than any other sin.  Through faith in Christ, all sins can be forgiven (John 3:16; Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:14).  A woman who has had an abortion, a man who has encouraged an abortion or even a doctor who has performed one can all be forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ.  There is hope for those who have participated in, or who have had an abortion.  If this is you, I encourage you to read Psalm 51 often.  God's unfailing love and compassion will see you through.  We lean on His strength for the future and not our failures from the past.   

The Catholic Catechism Says: “Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently, cannot be granted.” and “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation....” – CONFUSION.

Monsignor J who is now deceased interpreted that to mean if you have an abortion you go to hell.  He told a young woman who was a diabetic and pregnant she would go to hell and there was no way to change it.  The woman was in the hospital for one month in the early stages of her pregnancy and the doctors advised her to have an abortion immediately.  She refused. 

Before she left the hospital her husband ask her for a divorce and told her he was marrying someone else.  The young woman then changed her mind and had the abortion.  When Monsignor J told the young woman several months later she could never take Holy Communion and she would definitely go to hell she had a mental breakdown. 

I in no way agree with Monsignor J.  I think his sin of telling the woman she could never be forgiven and was going to hell was a greater sin than the woman committed if you could rate sin. The woman unfortunately took the priest words as God’s words.  

Frankly I am confused by the Catechism.  As we have seen in Scripture, God is merciful and full of compassion, even to those who have committed the worst of sins.  On one hand, we are told that abortion is a mortal sin, which needs to be confessed to a priest.  This confession needs to be made in order for the Catholic individual to participate in the eternal life-giving sacrament of the Eucharist.  Then the Catechism places the decree of excommunication on those who have participated in the act of abortion and they are forbidden from receiving this life-giving sacrament.

Now I must make clear that the Catholic Church today says and the early Church Fathers agreed abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.  Unfortunately Monsignor J must have been absent the day when they taught that in the seminary or his disgust for abortion was so great he allowed his law to replace the law of the church and most importantly the law of God.  He may have been as confused as I am. 

I do not believe God has separated out the sin of abortion and withheld His redeeming grace from those who have fallen in this way.  Only God offers eternal life.

I also want to add that I believe the Sacrament of Communion belongs to God and not the Church.  It is a private matter between the person taking Communion and God.  I do not believe any man has the right to deny Communion to anyone unless they are intentionally making a mockery of Communion.  Of course this goes contrary to our Catholic belief.  I would never refuse anyone Holy Communion who was seeking it with reverence.  I did have a responsibility to see that the person giving the Communion was worthy to distribute Communion to the best of my knowledge.

Latter-day Saints believe murder is an unforgivable sin, when it’s done with real intent to take an innocent life, and they believe that to have an abortion is murder and is an unforgiveable sin. 

They tell their member, “In all seriousness you who submit yourselves to an abortion or to an operation that precludes you from safely having additional healthy children are jeopardizing your exaltation and your future membership in the kingdom of God.”  They go on to say, “Church members guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant.   Such discipline, which applies to all parties consenting to the evil act, may include excommunication from the Church.”   

Again, I am confused by their teaching is it forgivable or not.  It appears some men in the church can meet and make it forgivable it they choose.  That sounds to me like playing God.

I want to relay to you a message that I read from a young woman.   “Not long after I turned 30-years-old, I met and surrendered my life to the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Creator of the universe.  Many a Sunday I sat on a church pew and bumped elbows with my new friends and family in Christ.  I estimate that during three years I listened to about 150 sermons; and three times I cried and died on the inside as I sat through the well-meaning Sanctity of Life programs.

Condescending tones of voices, shaking of wise heads, wagging righteous fingers, and all manner of good and godly in which ‘abortion’ was spoken of inside of church walls, forced me throw secret shovelfuls of dirty dirt on the pain of my past.  I crammed it deep down into the unmentionable regions of my soul. I thought it was my only option. 

You need to realize that as a young Believer, I did not know that that ugly, horrific piece of my past could be and or should be handed over to Jesus.  About three years into my Christian walk, I praise God that I heard a teaching about freedom and healing through forgiveness.  Finally, someone tore back the curtain just enough for me to see that this Jesus was not only capable, but quite available, and even willing, to set free a sinner such as me. 

Even so, I knew I could not travel this road alone as I sought Christ’s mercy; so, with humility and shame to the utmost, I shared my past, my guilt, and my secret with a couple of women.  These ladies immediately came alongside me with gentle hands, tender hearts, and Truth-edged tongues.  They led me to the very feet of Jesus. Once there, I literally laid flat at the base of the cross as He poured redeeming water over hell’s sin-flames.  God drenched the devil’s fiery lies and set me free.

What I had done may have been unfathomable to most, but it was forgivable by the Jesus of my salvation.” 

God doesn’t pick and choose the forgive-ability of sins; He doesn’t weigh them on a scale and set the ugly, heavy ones aside and refuse to forgive them.

How important is the church?

Many people do not see the church as very important.  Some say I am a good moral person.  I believe in God and treat my family and neighbours right.  Why do I need to be a member of the church?  Many young people have rejected "organized religion."  They may claim to accept Jesus, but want nothing to do with the church.  Some people see denominational division or hypocrisy in the church, and they want no part of it.  So they reject the whole idea of the church.  Others say it doesn't matter which church you attend or if you go to church, as long as you believe in Jesus.  So people conclude you don't need to be a member of any church as long as you believe in Jesus.

I do not claim any denomination is more important than another.   Denominations are not found in the New Testament and I do not believe they were ever part of God's plan.  They were added by men hundreds of years after Jesus' death and resurrection.  We can be saved without joining a denomination.  I strongly believe it makes a difference what church we go to and who shepherds that church.

I believe the church is essential to our relationship with God.  The church has an important role in God’s plan for our lives.  The Gospel clearly shows that Jesus planned and built His church and early Christians belong to that church.

Ephesians 2:16, 19 – “Jesus reconciled Jew and Gentile to God in one body through the cross. Therefore, we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”  1st Timothy 3:15 - Paul wrote, “So we may know how to conduct ourselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.”  Many people agree that we must be ‘born again’, but they often think ‘church’ membership does not matter.  These people need to consider the fact that being born again makes us members of the family of God; the church is the family of God. 

Christ is the Head of the body (church) Eph. 1:22, 23 and Col. 1:18.  Christ is the Head of no other institution. There is one body, Eph. 4:4-6, just as there is only one God.  I do not believe Christ the Head of an unimportant, non-essential institution. To belittle the church is to belittle Jesus! 

Matthew 3:2; 4:23 - Both John and Jesus emphasized preaching the Gospel of the kingdom.  We cannot preach the Gospel of Christ without preaching about the kingdom (church).  To attempt to preach the Gospel without preaching the ‘church’ would be to preach a different Gospel (Gal. 1:8). 

Ephesians 3:10, 11 - The church played a major role in the eternal purpose of God.  The ‘church’ should reveal the wisdom of God as part of His eternal purpose.  I believe God from the beginning planned the church.  It was not a last minute decision.  God planned the church centuries before it began.  Would the Creator and Ruler of the Universe go to such trouble for an insignificant institution?  Daniel 2:31-45 tells us Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of an image.  It prophesied that the kingdom (church) would begin during the Roman Empire.  Matthew 16:18 tells us Jesus promised to build His church.  Clearly it was important to Him. 

The main work of the church should be spiritual, to help people have a right relationship with God and not political.  The church we are talking about is the body of all saved people which God planned and Jesus built.  It is the kingdom of Christ, the family of God and not a denomination.  If worship and Gospel preaching are important, then the church is important, because these are what the Lord established the church to accomplish.  

I believe man made denominations created the division in God’s church, but I also believe the church is important enough to belong to a denomination.  Perhaps in our day and time denominations are a necessary evil.  Anyone attending any denomination should be open to the Holy Spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to direct their belief and not a denominational creed.  It is important to find a church or a denomination that encourages you, builds you up and brings you into a closer personal relationship with God.

I think it is extremely important that you find a church that teaches the importance of the Holy Spirit in your daily life. 

Was the birth of Jesus as we have been taught?

“Silent night, holy night, all is calm; all is bright round yon virgin mother and child.  Holy infant, so tender and mild, sleep in heavenly peace, sleep in heavenly peace.”

Giving birth to my knowledge has never been easy, soothing, peaceful and without pain.  Why do we think Mary would have experience birth any differently?  Why do we think Joseph would not have been concerned about their being complications with the birth of his child as daddy’s are today. 

Caesar Augustus, emperor of Rome, decreed that a census be taken and that everyone return to the ancestral village of the head of the household.  Joseph was from Bethlehem which meant they would have to travel approximately ten days walking from Nazareth to Bethlehem.  The Bible does not say Mary rode on a donkey, although many have come to believe that was the mode of her transportation.  Do not forget Mary was nine months pregnant.  I would think that the journey included pain, fear and tears. 

They had no reservations in Bethlehem and I doubt if there was an inn in Bethlehem.  Bethlehem was a very small town.  They must have been concerned about where they would stay.  Like most people in that time they would have wanted to stay with relatives.  Joseph had relatives in Bethlehem.  No innkeeper is actually mentioned in the Biblical record of Christ’s birth.  There would have been a problem finding a place to stay, everyone was crowding into Bethlehem for the census and his relatives may not have had any room.

They arrived and Luke tells us there was no room, but he does not tell us that Mary and Joseph were in a barn with sheep’s and goats.  Luke does tell us there was a feeding trough for animals.  Someone may have removed the animals so Mary and Joseph could use the room. 

They were most likely in a room at the back of a relative’s house.   At that time people brought their animals in at night to protect them.  “Away in a manger the baby awakes, but little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes.”  Although this is part of a beautiful song, we cannot be sure that Jesus did not cry.  The Bible does not report this.  I don’t think it was a silent night, but it was a holy night!

Did Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem the night she gave birth?  The Bible does not suggest this. They could have arrived weeks earlier.  God’s Word simply states, “While they were there in Bethlehem, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered,” (Luke 2:6).  Arriving in town well before her due date would make more sense.

We have all seen the pictures of three wise men, Magi, Kings or important men from Parthia in the manger worshipping Jesus.  Don’t let tradition, folklore, and custom become your truth.  These depictions are well intended, but I think they only add confusion to the story. 

The Bible does not state how many wise men there was it only states there were three gifts.  Men assumed there were three men, but no one knows.   There were at least two because the word for Magi used is plural.  Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem that we know from scripture and the wise men, maybe twelve, did end up at a house in Bethlehem, not a manger.  When the wise men arrived Jesus was not a baby, but a child.  The wise men probably did not come until quite a while after the shepherds. 

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia, in an article about who visited Jesus, admits that Matthew and the rest of the New Testament completely omits the number of high-ranking important men that came more than 1,000 miles to worship the true King of all Kings.  According to this reference, not only is there no certain tradition regarding this question, but some Catholic church Fathers speak of three Magi. They are very likely influenced by the number of gifts.  In the Orient, tradition favours twelve wise men.

There are many differences in the telling of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke and they really have little in common.  Mark writes nothing of the birth of Jesus and John alluded to it in a different way than Matthew and Luke. 

Jesus wasn't born in winter we know this because Luke chapter 2 verse 8 tells us, “Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night."   Was Jesus born in December?  It is not impossible, but probably not so.  December would more likely be the month of conception.

The common practice of shepherds was to keep their flocks in the open fields from April to October, but in the cold and wet winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.  On Dec. 25^th the weather would not have permitted the shepherds to be watching over their flocks in the fields at night.  Some scholars say the writings in Luke lead them to believe Jesus was born in September.

Others say God would not have allowed Jesus to be born on the pagan feast of Saturnalia which is December 25^th.   If we accept the premise that God did cause the birth of Jesus to happen on a Biblical feast day, then which festival would that have been? 

For many years I have heard and I believe that Jesus was really born during the Feast of Tabernacles.  The Feast of Tabernacles, also called Booths or Shelters, comes on the fifteenth of Tishri (September-October), the seventh month according to the Jewish biblical calendar. 

Zachariah the father of John the Baptist was performing his priestly service in the Temple in Jerusalem.  The angel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary, “Your relative Elizabeth (wife of Zachariah) has also conceived a son in her old age and she who was called barren, is in her sixth month.” This establishes the fact that John the Baptist is six months older than Jesus.  Zechariah completed his Temple service on the third Sabbath of the Jewish month of Sivan (May-June).  Zechariah then returned home and conceived his son. 

An average gestation term is 40 weeks then go forward to the middle of the first Jewish month of Nisan, which coincides with the Feast of Passover.  Since John was born around the middle of the first Jewish month of Nisan, and he is six months older than Jesus; then the likely date for the birth of Jesus would be the middle of the seventh Jewish month of Tishri (September-October). This is when the Feast of Tabernacles begins. 

This festival celebrates the time when God led His people through the wilderness after delivering them from Egyptian bondage.  When Jesus came, He fulfilled that feast by completing God’s plan of redemption and thus was able to lead God’s people away from the bondage to sin and death.

The Feast of Tabernacles is a mandatory attendance feast, which meant that all Jewish men were required to come to Jerusalem to celebrate it in the Temple. As a result of that there was no room for Mary and Joseph as found in Luke 2:7. 

Other dates claimed to be the dates of Jesus birth are November 18th and March 28th.  Although it is difficult to determine the first time anyone celebrated December 25^th  as Christmas Day, historians are in general agreement that it was sometime during the fourth century.  Christmas was not observed in Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, until about 300 years after Christ's death. 

Does it really matter the month that Christ was born?  I think using December 25^th when scholars know that it is not the right date can cause confusion among sceptics.  It would affect the church calendar if December 25^th was not used.  At this point in time the date will never be changed, but we should know the truth.  It does not affect my faith one way or the other which day we celebrate and it should not affect yours.

Jesus told us to celebrate his death in 1^st Corinthians 11:23-26.  “… ‘This is my body, which is given for you.  Do this in remembrance of me.  In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood.  Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it’ … you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.”                                                                                                                    

When dealing with the death of a loved one

The child whose birth Christians celebrate every year on December 25^th grew up and conquered death.  The greatest gift we have ever been given is the hope for eternal life.  Christmas and Easter will forever be tied together in a Christian’s life. 

It is believed that Mary the mother of Jesus lived approximately fifteen years after Jesus was crucified.   I cannot imagine the pain she suffered when she saw him crucified or the joy she felt when He was resurrected and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

I have never lost a child to death, but I have lost loved ones to death and I know there is a sense of lost you never get over, but eventually you find a way to be happy again.  I think the hope we were given by Jesus Christ for eternal life is what allows us as Christians to deal with death in a way that our happiness eventually returns. 

I will never forget the death of my mother.  We were very close and I always believed her death would be devastating to me and others thought the same.  When I found her dead that morning in her bed the first thing I did was pray that the Holy Spirit would give me courage, strength and wisdom to deal with her death. 

Much to my surprise her death was one of the easiest I have ever had to deal with.  My knowing that she was in a far better place was comforting and my belief in eternal life allowed me to hope that I would one day see her again.  I am not saying there were not times when I felt sad and lonely.

The greatest thing a Christian can do to encourage another Christian that has just experienced the death of a loved one is to encourage them to believe the life we have on earth is not the only life we will have.  Encourage them that one day they will see their loved one again.  Remind them that the problems of this world will never change, but heaven will be without sorrow, tears, stress and pain.  Please do not say, “I know how you feel, because you don’t, everyone deals with death differently.”

It will always be easier for Christians to deal with the death of a loved one if they will keep in mind the birth of Christ, the resurrection of Christ and the ascension of Christ. 

Paul wrote in 1^st Corinthians 15:54 – “… when our earthly bodies have been transformed into heavenly bodies that will never die – then at last the Scriptures will come true: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is your victory?  O death, where is your sting?”

Does the Bible Prove the Existence of God?

 I recently heard about a book called “Has Christianity Failed You.”  I heard about the book on a Christian program being broadcasted by a Christian station.  A few days later I ran across a piece on You Tube where an atheist was questioning the material in the book.  I have not read the book, as yet, but it seems that the atheist challenging the book believes the author used only the Bible to try and prove the existence of a God.   He states that it is impossible to use a book, which many do not believe in, to prove the existence of a God. He states that the author would first have to prove the book he is using, the Bible, is accurate in every detail.  I agree with that.  Unless you have allowed yourself to have a personal relationship with God, I do not believe the Bible, is enough to allow you to completely believe in God.  A personal relationship is one where you have felt the intervention of God in your life on a personal level.  Atheist and many Christians wrongly deny these personal God interventions and write them off as coincidences.

The atheist takes segments of the Bible and used them to try and prove his point that there is no God, particularly a Christian God.  I believe both men to be wrong.  I do not believe you can prove the existence of a God or non-existence of a God with ANY book.  All books are written by men and all books are influenced by men and all men have an agenda when writing a book.  Unless you have allowed yourself to have a personal relationship with God you open yourself up to always have your faith in God challenged by the words of men verbally or through books. 

The thing that attracted me most to the Catholic faith is that they do not require one to believe in the literal translation of the Bible.  They acknowledge many of the stories in the Bible like Noah’s flood, the creation story, Jonah and the fish story, the tower of Babel and others are stories, but valuable stories that one can learn from.  Unlike Fundamentalist Christians, Catholic’s are not required to believe that these stories happened literally, word for word, as man told them and later wrote them down.  If you profess to believe the literal translation of the Bible you open yourself up to be made a fool of by atheist.  The Bible can become a weapon that is used against you, instead of a tool that can draw you closer to God.

In my ‘old age’ the thing that disappoints me the most is the Catholic Christians that I meet who believe they are good Catholic Christians simply because they attend Mass, perform Catholic rituals and believe in the Bible.   The same is true of Protestant Christians. Many Protestants believe if they attend church, profess to believe literally in the Bible and tithe they are good Christians. Christianity is more than satisfying the requirements of men.  Christianity is following the teachings of Christ that were implanted in us by God when God sent the Holy Spirit.  I would say the majority of Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians do not have any idea what God wants of them they simply act like a sponge and assorp all the teachings as proclaimed by their leaders without ever questioning them. 

We should not be doing something simply because the Bible or man tells us to do it.  We should be doing the things we feel God is leading us to do.  Morality is doing those things that bring happiness, health and wellbeing to self and others and by our doing these things we make our community a better place.  Immorality is doing the opposite.  Many moral teachings are in the Bible and we should follow them, but as atheist always point out there are some immoral things listed in the Bible and we certainly should avoid them.  I am not going in to all these things in detail, but I certainly believe it is immoral to own slaves and the Bible grants some the authority to do so. I believe my God believes it is immoral to own slaves.

I believe my God judges me to be as good a Christian Catholic as possible, but according to many in the Catholic Church my present beliefs would prohibit them from believing I was.   I have studied the history of the Catholic Church and I know for a FACT there have been many evil Popes.  I do not believe my God wants me to follow ANY man blindly be they pope, bishop, priest, religious leader or self-proclaimed SON OF GOD like Pastor Apollo.  At the moment a reproductive bill is before the Philippine Congress and Senate and the Catholic hierarchy is standing in the way of its passage.  I believe their stand to be immoral and I believe God through the Holy Spirit has led me to this belief.  Just last week charges were brought against a Filipino priest for rape and his bishop protects him by bringing him into his home and is protecting him from being arrested as any other citizen of the Philippines would be.  I believe this is immoral and it certainly by no means passes my definition of morality. 

 People need to attempt a personal relationship with God and use that to define God and not rely totally on the Bible, religion, denomination or men.  Regardless of what anyone says my faith in God can only be affected by my personal relationship with God and no man or woman can change that.