Contending with Loveless Churches (Part 2)

"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13: 35, ESV).

In part one, we dealt with the spiritual condition of a "Loveless Church." The blog entry primarily dealt with the complacent believer's relationship with God, whereas, this present blog entry will deal with the complacent believer's impact upon his/her fellow saints and especially the negative effect he/she has upon non-christians.

The Complacent Believer's Impact upon Fellow Saints and Unbelievers

The Scriptures says that "the love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. 24: 12). Sadly this is happening in many local congregations today. Many of God's dear ones along with many unbelievers get the cold shoulder when they attend a local Church. Their Church Bulletin gives a hearty welcome, but the experience of many has been anything but welcoming. When the world looks at you as a Christian, do they see the love of Christ in you? In other words, as today's text puts it: are you known as a Christian by your love demonstrated to others?

It is one thing to be a Christian and to live for Christ in a world in opposition against him, but it is quite another thing when you have to deal from day to day with Christians who really do not love each other, they are a loveless Church. For example, over the past 20+ years I have witnessed many power hungry families in leadership that preside over the local Church and that control the decisions, activities, and affairs of Church life within the congregation. Popularity and social cliques have become the norm in most North American Churches to the point that the ones who cannot fit in usually leave the congregation disillusioned. Some try other evangelical Churches only to experience the same abuse. So they eventually leave. To make matters worse the social cliques, which usually includes those in leadership, end up blaming the disillusioned and hurt believers instead of helping them fit in. Sadly, love is rarely ever shown towards those within a congregation who struggle with trying to fit in; instead they are usually tolerated and socially bullied into keeping quiet about how they are treated. Yet the local congregations like to give the impression that all is well, and present to the world a squeaky clean image, yet they fail to recognize that they are devoid of any genuine love.  I am not alone in my assessment of the carnal state of the local Church.  In Keith Miller’s well known book The Taste of New Wine he made this revealing comment:

“Our churches are filled with people who outwardly look contented and at peace but inwardly crying out for someone to love them… But the other people in the church look so happy and contented that one seldom has the courage to admit his own deep needs before such a self-sufficient group as the average church meeting appears to be.” [1]

Another author, Marion Jacobsen wrote this observation about the problem of many of today’s local churches:

“Church-members like to think (and have others think) that loneliness, lovelessness, and snobbery do not exist among them. Those who vigorously defend the pure doctrines of the Bible and its way of life are reluctant to admit that in actual practice such social problems do exist among them. They would like for everyone to keep his mask of spiritual pride and joy well in place instead of admitting that there is needless deep, humiliating hurt in the hearts of some of the church family.” [2]

Here are the words of one woman’s experience while visiting a local congregation in a strange city:

“I was a stranger in the city. The church sign read, “Welcome,” so I went in. I smiled at the Sunday school children as they rushed to their classes. Neither they nor their parents greeted me.  After I sat down, an elderly woman sat beside me. We exchanged names and shook hands. Another woman joined us, saying it was nice weather. After singing a few songs, we went to class. No one spoke to me.

After Sunday school everyone rushed to the worship service. The service included hearty singing, prayer, and a beautiful duet. The minister welcomed Mr. and Mrs. So and so. “I don’t see anyone else I don’t know,” he said, and then went on with announcements. After the closing prayer, I waited expectantly to meet someone, but over a hundred worshippers filed out, not even pausing, not even pausing to say, “It was good that you came today.”

Big words in the bulletin said, “Welcome, we are glad you came. Come often.” But all I could think was, “I was a strangers and ye took me not in.”[3]

Concerning such bad behaviour as outlined above, the Lord Jesus says, "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount" (Luke 6: 32-34, see also Matt. 5: 46-47). You see the truth here, just showing love to those whom you favour is showing favortism. As Christians we should be known for our love to all God`s people. The sad indictment that can be said of today`s Church is "For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked" (Rev. 3: 17). This is how God sees the Church in North America. The good news is that the Lord gives us hope in these next verses, "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Rev. 3: 18-19).

It saddens me to write about the loveless state of the Church here in the West, while many of our fellow brethren and sisters in Christ around the world are suffering terrible persecution for the cause of Christ. The interesting fact that sets them apart from us here in the West is that they are known for their love and compassion for one another. While we here in North America in particular, are pretty unloving and indifferent towards each other. Hardly what I would call a Christ like example to be very proud of. Actually, it is this very attitude that has done much harm to the cause of Christ in evangelism, discipleship, and the building up of the church. Because of this loveless condition of the Church here in the West:

1. We have lost our healthy fear [reverence] of the Lord.
2. We have lost our holiness and separation that once use to mark us as the people of God.
3. We have grown self-centred and worldly in our attitude.
4. We have become worshippers of pleasure rather than of God.
5. We have become complacent and compromising in our discipline and convictions we once held dear in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Now before you start thinking that I am being too negative and critical about the present condition of the church, I just want to point out that the only way to address problems within the body of Christ is to uncover what the issues are, and then come up with the right steps to take action for the solution. To fail to do so, or to brush it aside, so that others might not be offended is definitely not the loving thing to do.

“I know, O LORD, that Thy judgments are righteous, and that in faithfulness Thou hast afflicted me” (Psalm 119: 75).

Often, I have been in churches where I heard pastors say we should pray more for the needs of the persecuted Church, the truth is that we need their prayers much more than they need ours. For example, I remember reading a story about a well known evangelist who visited China. While there, the evangelist asked one Chinese pastor what he would like fellow Christians in the West to pray for in regards to the Chinese Church. The Chinese pastor with conviction, quickly responded, "Pray that we do not become like you." Noted author, Brennan Manning wrote these sobering words, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Another sad fact is that the Church is so judgmental towards others that it fails to judge its own sins. Dave Burchett in his book "When Bad Christians Happen to Good People" wrote this insightful comment that agrees, "Today, the church condemns those who drink and smoke and live immoral lives, while churchgoers freely engage in gluttony and gossip and selfishness and bigotry. The unchurched stand by in amazed, bemused, cynical, or angry observance of our hypocrisy. And they lose respect for our message." (pg. 18). This is the sad commentary on today's modern Church. With all the beautiful designer Bibles, exquisite church buildings, and state of the art programs, it still fails to attract people from outside and to keep fellow Christians inside from leaving. So the question now can be asked, what is the solution to this problem? (See upcoming article on the solution to this problem in the church).

---

[1] Keith Miller, The Taste of New Wine, (Word Publishers, Waco, Texas, 1965), pg. 22.

[2] Marion Jacobsen, Saints and Snobs, (Tyndale Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois, 1972), pg. 19.

[3] A. D. Schanz, (Power for Living, “Was this your church?” August 24, 1969), pg. 3.

Contending with Loveless Churches (Part 1)

"A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13: 34, ESV).

The Complacent Believer's Relationship with God

The spiritual condition of today`s church is not good. Even in the personal lives of individual Christians they are better known for their worldliness than their godliness. Many have personal struggles that reveal a lack of faith in a God who has redeemed them. Why are we Christians not better examples for Christ? Noted British author Selwyn Hughes wrote this interesting but challenging observation about many Christians today:

"Many Christians are not good samples of the faith we profess. We claim that the focus of our lives has been shifted from ourselves to God, yet we are chronically selfish still. We talk of the first grace being humility, but we are so proud. We speak about a peace that passes all understanding, and yet we are restless within. We claim to be children of the King, yet we walk around feeling inferior. We say that perfect love casts out all fear, yet we are as fearful as the next person. We pray daily and ask God to forgive our trespasses "as we forgive those who trespass against us", but still harbour resentments and are no strangers to bitterness.

We affirm we have a divine Father who has numbered the hairs of our head and is watching over us all the time for good, and yet we worry over everything. John Wesley once said that he could no more worry than he could curse or swear. Many of us, myself included, are not quite there yet. I wonder why? We may not swear, philander, steal, get drunk, or commit gross sins, but neither do thousands of other people who make no claim to be Christians.

It is a terribly challenging question I am about to ask: What does our Christianity do for us? Are we nullifying the Christian message by contradicting by our demeanour the very truths we try to get across to others? If Christians by definition are people in whom Christ lives, then ought we not to be showing more evidence that the risen Christ is alive in us?" (Every Day With Jesus: The Surprises of God, Day 158).

This above quote from Selwyn Hughes is so fitting to what I am about to say about our relationship with God. I believe the problem why many saints are selfish, fearful, resentful, and bitter is due to the fact that our hearts are not in right relationship with God. Many believers are afraid to draw near to God because it might cost them something, and that something is "change." It is common for many Christians today to not even read their Bibles, pray, and think on spiritual things concerning God for weeks on end, yet still call themselves Christians and attend a local Church. Such supposed Christians fail to realize that our life reflects to others our relationship with God. If we have honestly cultivated a close relationship with God as we say we have, then a change would be very evident in our lives. The Apostle Paul’s words would be true of us, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5: 17). However, the sad reality is that for many supposed Christians they want a relationship with God that does not require change or sacrifice on their part. They want both the world in their hearts as well as their relationship with Lord Jesus Christ. The truth is the "worldliness" in their hearts will always crowd Christ out! “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6: 24). Concerning believers who have a worldly spirit, John says, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2: 15).

Why is it that whenever we say that we are going to put God first, we always end up putting our time with God on the back seat. Could it be possible that perhaps some of us never really trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour? For many of us, if we are honest, do not have a close relationship with God. We are often still infants in the faith who still need milk, because we are unable to chew on the meat of God's Word (see 1 Cor. 3: 2; Heb. 5: 12-14). This explains why there is so much carnality within the Church: many believers are not Christ like in their behaviour because they have not taken the time to get to KNOW Christ. As we draw near to God He draws near to us, then through knowledge and experience in our walk with Christ we learn and grow in wisdom. Only when we cultivate a close relationship with the Lord Jesus are we able to properly love again, to truly LOVE the Church in a Christ like way. John says, "Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth...The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love...We love, because He first loved us" (1 John 3: 18; 4: 8, 19).

Recent Paleontology Research Supports the Bible

In my research on Christian evidence for the great ages that pre and post Flood man was able to live. I came across some interesting research in the scientific field of Paleontology that uncovered some clues and facts. The famous Neanderthal man that is often used by evolutionists to support their theory that modern man is a descendent of apes has now been discredited by new research that has lead to surprising conclusions. The conclusions are the total opposite to the false claims that evolutionist have promoted about the origin of man. The Neanderthal man is an ordinary man like you or I who was able to live to great ages of 200 or more years old.

In the early chapters of Genesis we read of men and women who could live over 700 to 900 years old! Then after Noah’s Flood the ages of people started to decrease significantly. From Noah’s son Shem who was 600 years old to Abraham’s father Terah who died at 205 years of age (see Gen. 10: 32). Which in today’s world seems impossible to believe; yet, that is what the Bible teaches. (See Genesis 5: 3-31; 9: 28; 11: 10-26, 32). Yet, we read else where in the Bible that, “As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years,..” (see Psalm 90:10). This seems to contradict the great ages of the pre and post flood peoples. So how does one address such problems that arise in the Scriptures?

New research has been done in recent years that have shed much light on how our ancestors were able to live to far older ages than we are able to today. A man by the name of Jack Cuozzo is an orthodontist by trade, but is also one of the world’s leading experts on using cephalometric radiographs for x-raying skulls. One of the research studies on the problem facing the field of orthodontics is the earlier maturation over time. Dr. Cuozzo had this to say in what he uncovered in his study:

“Dr Cuozzo believes the reason this is happening is that children are maturing much faster today than in the past. An excavation in 1990 of some graves in Griswold, Connecticut, dated to the late 1600s-1700 seems to confirm his research. There were 13 children's remains discovered. Only one was found with initials on the wood of the coffin. It read NB. age 13 and was written in brass tacks.

When the teeth of the lower jaw were examined at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) in Washington, D.C., the root and crown development indicated that, by today's standards, these teeth should have belonged to a female child of 9 1/2 years, or a male child of 10 years, yet the child was 13.

"This means", Dr Cuozzo says, "that three or four hundred years ago a child took 13 years to reach the stage that our children today do in 9 1/2 to 10 years. This points to a rapid maturation today.”^[1]

So we can see from Dr. Cuozzo’s comment above that people in the past matured at a much slower rate than we do today. Since we mature much more rapidly than our ancestors, we in turn will die at younger ages. As already mentioned earlier, post flood people lived to be around 400 to 200 years old; whereas, people today, if they live a full life, only live to be around 70 to 80 years old. So is their further evidence to build on the slower maturation rate in our ancestors. Yes, let’s consider three Neanderthal skulls that Dr. Jack Cuozzo studied, and see what the evidence of his research concludes?

NEANDERTHAL: LE MOUSTIER

This Neanderthal skull, discovered in 1909 in France, was determined by Dr. Jack Cuozzo to be at least 29 years of age at the time of death. Of particular interest is that evolutionists consistently try to place the age of particular Neanderthal remains, at the time of death, as always being much younger. In the case of Le Moustier, the age was placed by evolutionists at around 16 years at the time of death. Yet, the evidence suggested he was nearly twice that age. The same happens with other Neanderthal remains. Cuozzo's research suggests a much slower aging process in ancient man -

Source of Image: Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History.

Neanderthal had a much slower maturation process than do people today.
Therefore, it's highly probable that they would live to be much older!
The ages at the time of death for La Chapelle-aux-Saints and La Ferrassie would seem to bear this out.

Jack Cuozzo's Buried Alive, page 185 - 1998 edition.

NEANDERTHAL: LA FERRASSIE

La Ferrassie:

Also discovered in 1909 in France, this Neanderthal skull was determined by Dr. Jack Cuozzo to be at least 267 years of age at the time of death - and probably older.

Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive (pg. 203 - 1998 edition)

Source of Image: Smithsonian InstituteÙs National Museum of Natural History -

Neanderthals aren't some less-evolved ancestor or relative of the human race. The evidence would suggest that these were nothing other than early generation Post-Flood humans. They lived longer than do we due to a whole host of factors - not the least of which is that they seemingly had a slow rate of maturation. Their skulls argue for old age. Unfortunately, evolutionary thought has mistaken Neanderthal to be another kind of human relative in the evolutionary tree.

NEANDERTHAL: LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS

La Chapelle-aux-Saints:

Discovered in France in 1908, the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal skull was determined to be at least 283 years of age at the time of death by Dr. Jack Couzzo.

Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive (pg. 203 ff. - 1998 edition)

Source of Image: Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History -

Neanderthal remains are solid evidence that Ancient Man lived to be the old ages as mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis!^[2]

Can you imagine living to the ripe old age of 267 or 283 years! It is hard for us to grasp the fact that people in pre and post flood times actually lived that long, even older. Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s research has done much to give us a glimpse into our ancestor’s past and to better understand how it was possible for them to live a much slower maturation rate than we do today. To conclude this post, here is a little background information to some important facts to Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s research on the Neanderthal skulls that helps us to see how he reached his conclusions in his study.

"Due to his expertise (and particularly his ability to examine skull fragments without damaging them), Cuozzo began to have contact with paleontologists representing museums and major research centers. Invitations came in for him to examine various Neanderthal remains.

Darwinian thought proposes that Neanderthal lived over a period of a couple hundred thousand years and is an extinct relative of humans.

Neanderthal is key to the study of "human ancestry" within the field of paleontology. This is due to the prevalence of Neanderthal remains that have been found to date:

·    Skeletal remains from over 500 individuals (or some portion of skeletal material) have been found to date, making it the most numerous find of "ancient man".

·    Neanderthal is named as such as the first skull was found in the Düssel River Valley in 1856 near a cave named Neanderthal - this was named after Joachim Neander, the great hymn writer, who used to write many of his songs near there.

·    Of the over 500 remains found, only one was found completely fossilized.

Note: that if Neanderthal were hundreds of thousands of years old, their remains would almost all be completely fossilized - i.e., the skeletal remains should be comprised entirely of mineral and stone as Carbon was depleted and replaced over time.

Some 12 complete skeletons have been found to date.

Before going any further, it should be understood that the human skull never stops growing (i.e., the bones of your skull never stop growing). The same hat you wore twenty years ago would not fit anymore.

·    The skull lengthens as the brow becomes more pronounced

·    Nasal and eye openings enlarge as the face elongates

·    The face becomes more forward-looking as the chin flattens out

·    The skull actually thickens (gives new meaning to the term "thick-headed")."^[3]

Here are some more reasons why our Pre and Post Flood ancestors were able to live much longer than us today.

(1.) The first reason why Adam and Eve and their descendents before the Flood were able to live to a great age was due to the fact that they were fresh from the Creator's hand and their DNA had not yet been ravaged and corrupted by the curse of sin to the measure that it is today. Lower genetic defects in our ancestors gave them a much higher chance to live longer than us today.

(2.) Second, the Pre Flood earth had two layers of protection from the harmful rays of the sun. The great water canopy and the ozone layer that surrounded the whole earth. These factors played a major role in the longevity of health and life for man, animals and plant life. The entire earth was a virtual paradise with perfect temperature all year round.

(3.) Thirdly, the oxygen rate was much higher in the Pre Flood period on earth than it is today. Archaeology in recent years have discovered a higher oxygen rate trapped in the air bubbles inside chunks of amber. Scientists have found out through this discovery that oxygen in Pre Flood times were 50% greater than oxygen is today. This greater oxygen capacity that our ancestor's had gave them the ability to enjoy better health and aided in their longevity in age.

(4.) Lastly, The chromosomes that determine age in our ancestors during Flood times were not so presupposed to the more rapid maturation rate as it is in people today.

---

^[1] www.christianevidences.org

^[2] www.christianevidences.org

^[3] www.christianevidences.org

The Timeline on How Beauty Affects Us

 A well known relationship expert by the name of Carlos Xuma made this lengthy but insightful comment on how beauty affects men: 

"There's a dark, evil candy out there that men eat all the time, and they don't even realize
they're eating. Of course, it's not LITERALLY candy. But it works the same way, and guys are losing their power in the dating world because of it. That candy is "Beauty." It's been demonstrated in study after study that men's decision making ability is impaired by looking at beautiful women. But here's something you might not know about the insidious effects of beauty on the male mind... A woman's beauty is ADDICTIVE to your mind. That's right. Just looking at a beautiful woman releases pleasure chemicals in your brain, making you feel good just by LOOKING at her. You don't have to have any contact with her, or even any conversation. It just happens when you SEE her. There are certain chemical "rewards" that your brain releases when you do certain things, which then reinforces that behavior. Is that crazy, or what?

You probably don't have to hear the science behind it to know this is true. Have you ever seen a woman that you just couldn't stop looking at? Her eyes, her lips, her body... it was all so hard to NOT look at. Just a woman's face can fascinate us to the point of distraction. It even makes us do crazy things like stare at her. Before you know it, we're being creepy when we're really just in awe of her beauty.

This is one case where your biology is sabotaging your results. Your natural desire and awe of beautiful women puts you in a place where you start to OVER value them. That's right, you actually start to invent value for her based solely on her appearance. In just a few minutes of talking to one of these women, you risk slipping into something I call the pedestal dance. This is where you put her up on a pedestal - in your mind, and then reinforce this belief that she's a prize to be won based solely on her looks. She's a trophy, after all. A chick you could show off to your friends and they would envy you. But have you really checked her out?"         

 In two past posts, I had written about the world’s view and value on beauty and God’s view and value on beauty. On this post I will be looking at six ways beauty affects us. The points are as follows. 

(1.)  The Bestowment of Beauty: The truth is not everyone is born beautiful. However, to the one’s who are born attractive, they have been endowed with a gift to show God’s beauty and to bring Him honour and glory.

(2.)  The Benefit of Beauty: Such people who are beautiful or handsome have it quite easy in today’s society. They enjoy the benefits of favor, influence, and social popularity that most average people have to work hard to get.

(3.)  The Bewitchment of beauty: There is a power and charm that is associated with beauty. It can be used for either good or evil purposes. Since beauty commands attention, it is often used for selfish ends.

(4.)  The Bewilderment of Beauty: Sometimes beauty can leave us stunned and confused. It can disillusion us at times.

(5.)  The Betrayal of Beauty: Physical beauty in a person can be quite deceiving at times. For example, when we see a very beautiful woman, we assume she is going to be a great person to meet. However, sometimes this can lead to disappointment when we find out she is not so lovely in the heart. Then there are those who happen to marry a beautiful spouse. But over time that attractive spouse either loses their beauty through a disease, or disfigurement through a accident or fire, or through the unkind processes of aging. It is then that the other spouse feels betrayed. Indeed beauty is enchanting, but it is both deceptive and vain. Never put your trust in it.

(6.)  The Bereavement of Beauty: Often, when beautiful women past the flower of age, and their beauty begins to fade, they go through a process of bereavement at the loss of their power in beauty. They need to be reminded that their true beauty is not just how they look on the outside, but how they are in the inside. Sadly, society has done much to put the focus on valuing outer beauty, while ignoring the great worth of inner beauty. There is two aspects to beauty:

(a.) Outer beauty—Its drawing power; to invoke interest and initiate contact;

(b.) Inner beauty—Its staying power; to keep interest and build a deeper connection.

There is a documentary I watched one time that interviewed an older woman who was an expert on the topic of beauty and aging. She said that the duration of physical beauty of a woman varies in each woman. The average attractive North American woman usually keeps her good looks around 6 to10 years before her beauty begins to fade. Some may sustain it longer depending on their genetic make up and how they take care of themselves.

Did the Roman Catholic Church use the Bible to Oppress the Common People?

 Here's the third argument posed against me from my friend on facebook. "Quoting one Bible passage to prove the veracity of another is roundabout logic in my view. It seems you are saying that one has to accept the entire canon as 'gospel' truth and all the other rejected works as false doctrine. This is convenient, as it makes it easy to disregard anything that might question church authority and inform the 'blind masses' that they need not blindly follow the directions of the Roman Church. And make no mistake, this was the real purpose of the Bible, to oppress the masses not liberate them. Using your logic, that I must accept the entire book or none of it, I must choose the latter for anything else flies in the face of logic and common sense."

 My dear friend, with that kind of logic, why not add ancient cook books to the canon of Scripture, and call it scripture as well. Hey, for that matter. Just imagine for a moment. We are 2, 000 years in the future. Archaeologists are excavating the ruins of let’s say “Chapters Bookstore.” There they find a number of books for some strange reason, well preserved, except for the fact that a lot of books had pages missing and littered across the floor. So with this find a number of language experts and theologians translate and study the ancient texts. They find a number of ancient Bible translations mixed in with a number of Betty Crocker Cook books, Fantasy novels, children’s books, and carpentry and plumbing books. But that was it, the rest of the books were destroyed. Now we can see that these futuristic theologians who are experts in the languages have their work cut out for them to do in deciphering and figuring out which loose pages belong to what books they found. The same careful process as mentioned in my recent post would apply here in which pages would be included and which would be excluded from the books with the missing pages, or even enter chapters and books which belong to the books with the missing pages, chapters, and even mini books. Logic and reason would tell us that these theologians and language experts in the old English language would have little trouble figuring out what missing pages and chapters belong to each book; whether it be a Bible or a Betty Crocker Cook Book. So today experts in the original languages of the Bible would have little problem figuring out which books would be included or excluded in the canon of Scripture. (This issue is more fully addressed in my previous post).

 You referred to the “Roman Church” meaning the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church as you call it, is a perversion of the true Church. For example:

1. The Catholic Church teaches Purgatory, whereas the Bible does not: (Matt. 23:14; Psalm 49:6-7; Acts 8:20);

2. The Catholic Mass, which heretically teaches that the wine and wafer chip is the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ: (Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 11:23-27; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:11-12; Acts 15:29; Heb. 10:10-12);

3. The Catholic Church promotes Image worship of past saints, including Mary, which the Scripture strictly forbids: (Exodus 20:4-5; Rev. 14:11);

4.  The Catholic Church teaches its adherents to offer Prayers to dead saints, which the Bible condemns: (Deut. 18:10-12);

5. The Catholic Church teaches Salvation by works in opposition to the Bible’s Salvation by Grace alone: (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 4:5; John 14:6; Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rom. 5:8-9; 10:13; 10:9);

6. The Catholic Church teaches that Peter never had a wife, whereas the Bible specifically states he had a wife: (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5);

7. Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Pope: (Eph. 5:23; 1:22; Col. 1:18);

8. Jesus is the High Priest who alone forgives sin, not Catholic priests: (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11);

9. All Christians are priests, not just a select few: (1 Pet. 2:5, 9);

10. Often Catholic priests will go by the title of “Father” which is forbidden in Scripture: (Matt. 23:9);

11. One Mediator between God and man: (Not a Pope, not a priest, and not Mary) 1 Tim. 2:5;

12. Lords over God’s heritage: (1 Pet. 5:3);

13. Peter an Apostle, not a Pope: (1 Peter 1:1). .

As you can tell from my thirteen points above, the Roman Catholic Church is most definitely not a Bible believing church as they would like us to believe. Often the Catholic Church likes to take the credit for giving us the Bible we have today. This of course is not true. They may have translated and published a version or two of the Bible, but they did not originally give us the Bible we have today.

Your comment, “And make no mistake, this was the real purpose of the Bible, to oppress the masses not liberate them.” Come on, the Bible used for the purpose of oppressing the masses. Such godly men as John Wycliffe and William Tyndale suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church for translating and giving the Bible in the common language of the people, which liberated them from the tyranny of the Catholic Church of the dark ages, not enslave them as you suggest. The Bible speaks of forgiveness and freedom from the bondage of sin through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This certainly doesn’t sound at all like an oppressive book used to enslave the masses; unless of course, you want to remain enslaved to your sins.

The Reason Why some Extra Biblical books were Excluded from the Canon of Scripture

One of my friends on facebook posted this challenge to me: “When the book was comprised, man constructed the book in its entirety. Why were the specific books that are present in the book today, chosen over the hundreds of other books available? For example, Abraham had many writings and teachings which were not included. Who made these decisions, and what motivated them? Even in the end of the debate over the literature, which was annotated and assembled by man into the novel it is today, we have no proof beyond paper with ink affixed to it.”

I take it you are referring to the Bible. Yes, men of God were used to put the Bible together as we have it today (see 2 Peter 1:20-21). 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, which gives us the 66 books that comprise the Bible we have today. You ask why such books were chosen to be in the Bible, while others were rejected. Especially in light of so many other books available? According to the so called Jesus Seminar, there are around 20 Gospels written around the time of the early Church, such as the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Philip, Peter and Mary Magdalene, etc. Why were not such gospels included in the Bible we have today?            

It is important to note that early in Church history many counterfeit gospels were circulating in many of the Eastern Churches. Like wheat and chaff that look the same but are not. Wherever real wheat was, chaff was sure to be found there as well. So it is with the true gospels that were circulating in the Churches. The false gospels were making their rounds as well. As early as 140 A.D. a heretic by the name Marcion was writing his own counterfeit scriptures and propagating it much like modern day Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons do. The early Christians during this time realized that something had to be done to stop this. The church needed to counter his influence by collecting all the books of the New Testament Scripture. This called for a decision concerning the canon of Scripture. Of course, this meant the early Christians had to decide what gospels and books would be chosen and rejected from the canon of Scripture.            

Here are four reasons given for excluding the Old Testament apocryphal books from the Hebrew canon:

(1.) They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
(2.) They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are at variance with inspired Scripture.
(3.) They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
(4.) They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.[i]           

Here is the historical testimony of why such apocrypha books were excluded from the Bible:

(1.)  Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

(2.)  Josephus (A.D. 30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as twenty-two. Neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.

(3.)  Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

(4.)  The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

(5.)  No canon or council of the Christian Church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.

(6.)  Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha—for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

(7.)  Jerome (A.D. 340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. Jerome said that the church reads them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.” He disputed with Augustine across the Mediterranean on this point. At first Jerome refused to even to translate the apocryphal books into Latin, but later he made a hurried translation of a few of them. After his death and “over his dead body” the apocryphal books were brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version.

(8.)  Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.

(9.)  Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

(10.) Not until A.D. 1546, in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.[ii] 

As per example, let’s briefly examine the gospel of Thomas.  In verse 14 it says, “Jesus said to them, ‘If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. …’” Since Jesus often went aside to pray alone. Do you honestly think this is something Jesus would say? Next, verse 108, “Jesus said, ‘Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.’” First, why would Jesus say such an absurd command as ‘drink from my mouth?’ Secondly, an equally as foolish, why would Jesus say that person ‘will become like me; I myself shall become that person?’ Verse 114 says, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” Does this mean that females actually have to become males to enter the kingdom of God? Do you honestly believe these are the words of Jesus?       

In the beginning of the gospel of Mary Magdalene It says, “Peter said, ‘As you’ve told us almost everything, tell us this also: what is the world’s sin?’ Jesus replied, ‘There’s no sin in reality! It is you who create sin, when you do deeds, such as adultery, that are called sinful. That’s why Good enters your heart to turn you back to your source. This is why you get ill and eventually die.’” Why would Jesus say that there is no sin in reality, when that was the very purpose in why He came into the world to die for our sins?  

 Now as for the supposed writings of Abraham, the same rules for exclusion from the canon of Scripture as mentioned above would also apply to the writings of Abraham as well. If it really was written by Abraham from the book of Genesis, perhaps it would have been included in the canon. The fact that it isn't, speaks for itself as not originating from him. Now as for your further comment, "Scribbles of men's perceptions. There is no way to prove the presence of this god. We can only discuss lost events and debate about events which have been covered by the elite, to form the truth they see fit for the blind masses. You think ink can flow from the construct of the Supreme Being?" If the Holy Scriptures were just the mere perceptions of fallable men. Its truths would have been exposed as false within the first hundred years of its existence. Now as for having no proof of the presence of God. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:19-22). As for the elite in the church choosing to form the truth of the scriptures as they see fit for the blind masses. If you truly knew your history well about the church, you would know how truly absurd such a comment is. Finally, as for ink flowing from the construct of the Supreme Being. Again, God chose man as His vehicle to convey His written message to the world. Even Jesus never wrote books to include in the canon of Scripture, but left that responsibility to His disciples to carry out. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21).

---

[i] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Updated, 1999),  pgs. 29-30.

[ii] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pgs. 31-32.

Five Reasons Why there was Enough Water for a Worldwide Flood.

 Here's a quote a skeptical friend had posted on facebook as a challenge to me, ".....Science has proven there was never a worldwide Flood as in the story of Noah. In fact, there is not even enough water on earth to make this possible." Is this true? Has science proven that there was no worldwide Flood in Noah's day? There are five points to consider about whether there is enough water to flood the whole world. These points are as follows: 

(1.) Before the Flood, there was what a number of scientist have come to know to be the great "water canopy" above the earth that helped to keep out harmful rays from the sun while at the same time acted as a sort of green house effect around the entire earth, making it a literal tropical paradise. During the worldwide Flood this water canopy rained down upon the whole world. Today we only have the ozone layer protecting us from the harmful rays of the sun. But even that is damaged as a number of scientists have discovered a number of gaping holes in the ozone layer in different parts of the world, which many believe is responsible for skin cancer and an increase in warm temperatures in parts of the world where it has been otherwise cool.

(2.) Secondly, "the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11; 8:2) caused the water to rise much higher during the great Deluge. Does such great fountains of the deep exist today? Yes, marine scientists have discovered such "fountains of the great deep" in the Marrianna Trench deep in the Pacific Ocean.

(3.) Thirdly, if the great ice cap up in the North were to ever totally melt today it would raise the water to Flooding conditions as well. However, God did place the rainbow in the sky as a sign never to Flood the entire world again. God has kept that promise (see Genesis 9:12-17). So the chances of the great ice cap causing a worldwide Flood is very unlikely to happen.

(4.) Fourthly, the science of archaeology (which my friend said in the same post disproves many of the OT stories) has over the years uncovered many startling fossilized evidence of plant and animal life in places all over the world where they shouldn't be. Many of these fossils reveal animal life in the process of eating either plants or other animals. This of course could only be possible if something very cataclysmic happened to bury, kill, and preserve such animals we see in today's fossils. The evidence around the world speaks loudly for itself of a worldwide Flood from Noah's day.

 (5.) The last point that testifies to the proof of a worldwide Flood. Consider this, 70% of the world is covered with water today. Where did all this water come from? No doubt, Noah's Flood was responsible for this. Before the Flood, continents and oceans were much different than they are now. Yes, even before the Flood there were always large bodies of oceans, lakes, rivers around the world at that time, but not to the extent we see them today. The land masses or continents were much different and larger and the bodies of water smaller then we see them today. Again, the evidence speaks loudly for a worldwide Flood.

The Epic of Gilgamesh Compared to Genesis

It has been argued by my atheist and New Age friends that the Bible writers copied its flood story and other Biblical stories from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Their reasoning is that the Gilgamesh account is much older than the Bible. For example, one friend argued this point: “If you insist on believing all that's written in the Old Testament it is incumbent on you to read the material it's based on. May I suggest the Story of Gilgamesh, on which the story of the biblical flood is based.” He sent me a web address a little later in our discussion on a copy of the Epic poem of Gilgamesh. This ancient text on Gilgamesh is supposedly dated around 2750-2500B.C., whereas the Bible is dated somewhere between 400-1600B.C., which of course seems to make the text of Gilgamesh to be much older than the Biblical text.

The question is—‘Is this true?’ Did the ancient Old Testament prophets borrow their information for the Bible extensively from the Epic poem of Gilgamesh?

Well, consider these facts and decide for yourself which ancient text should be trusted: the Bible or the Epic poem of Gilgamesh?

1. If the Epic of Gilgamesh was indeed written around 2750-2500B.C., then how could he have included the flood in his Epic poem? Since the flood happened around 2300-2400B.C. How could Gilgamesh write about the flood that wasn’t going to come until around 450 years later, unless he was a prophet from God. It makes much better sense to say another author had written the Epic poem of Gilgamesh after the flood. The name of that author was Shin-eqi-unninni.[1] So as you can see for yourself, the date of the epic poem of Gilgamesh was not written by Gilgamesh around 2750-2500B.C. as suggested by my friend’s website address on the ancient text of Gilgamesh. However, based on “Noah’s records found in the Genesis account, and astronomical computer analysis, we have determined that he began building the ark in 2465B.C., with the first rains falling in 2345B.C.”[2] This cannot be said of the flood in Gilgamesh’s Epic.

2. It is interesting to notice how eager skeptics of the Bible are so willing to believe the Biblical writers borrowed from the ancient text of Gilgamesh, instead of considering the strong possibility of the author of Gilgamesh borrowing from the Bible.

3. Another fact to consider is that the Bible records actual eye witness testimonies of God manifested in the flesh through the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Matt. 28:9-10, 16-20; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 24:13-53; John 20:11-29; 21:1-25; Luke 1:2; John 15:27; 20:30-31; Acts 10:39-42; 1 Cor. 15:6-8; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 4:14, etc.). Now as for the Epic poem of Gilgamesh, it wasn’t written until much later after the flood. This of course rules out any eye witness account to the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh.

4. Consider the manuscript comparison between the Epic poem of Gilgamesh and the Bible. There are 70 known manuscripts of the ancient text of Gilgamesh. The oldest known copy of this text of Gilgamesh consists of 12 clay tablets. Many of these are fragmented and damaged and even in the most standard complete version of the poem the text has many gaps. A passage for example can look something like this: “He is not….., ………. The boatman….., the man who….., who…..” Now compare the number of manuscripts of the Bible. There are around 24, 000 Old and New Testament manuscripts to date. Over 5, 000 of those are New Testament. This is more than any other ancient manuscript available. “The reliability of the NT is established because the number, date, and accuracy of its manuscripts enable reconstruction of the original text with more precision than any other ancient text.”[3]

AUTHOR	BOOK		DATE	COPIES
Caesar	Gallic Wars		900A.D.	10
Plato	Tetralogies		900A.D.	7
Tacitus	Annals		1, 100A.D.	20
Pliny the Younger	History		850A.D.	7
Suetonius	De Vita Caesarum		950A.D.	8
Homer	Iliad		400B.C.	643
Shin-eqi-unninni	Gilgamesh Epic		2700B.C.?[4]	70
Various	New Testament	125A.D.		24, 000+

5. The fact that the Gilgamesh account of the flood so closely resembles that of the Genesis flood lends to the credibility of the Biblical account of the flood, as does the flood accounts of every single civilization around the world, whether by oral tradition or by written account.

6. In the chart below by Jonathan Safarti is a comparison of the two flood stories between Gilgamesh and the Genesis account from the Bible.

Comparison of Genesis and Gilgamesh8
	Genesis	Gilgamesh
Extent of flood	Global	Global
Cause	Man’s wickedness	Man’s sins
Intended for whom?	All mankind	One city & all mankind
Sender	Yahweh	Assembly of “gods”
Name of hero	Noah	Utnapishtim
Hero’s character	Righteous	Righteous
Means of announcement	Direct from God	In a dream
Ordered to build boat?	Yes	Yes
Did hero complain?	No	Yes
Height of boat	Three stories	Seven stories
Compartments inside?	Many	Many
Doors	One	One
Windows	At least one	At least one
Outside coating	Pitch	Pitch
Shape of boat	Oblong box	Cube
Human passengers	Family members only	Family and few others
Other passengers	All kinds of land animals (vertebrates)	All kinds of land animals
Means of flood	Underground water & heavy rain	Heavy rain
Duration of flood	Long (40 days & nights plus)	Short (6 days & nights)
Test to find land	Release of birds	Release of birds
Types of birds	Raven & three doves	Dove, swallow, raven
Ark landing spot	Mountains—of Ararat	Mountains—Mt Nisir
Sacrificed after flood?	Yes, by Noah	Yes, by Utnapishtim
Blessed after flood?	Yes	Yes

7. Grant R. Jeffreys during one of his study trips to London, England wrote this interesting observation between the names Nuh-napishtim and Gilgamesh. “This ancient Babylonian clay tablet was created more than four millennia ago and contains one of the most important inscriptions from the earliest days of humanity. The Deluge Tablet is the eleventh book of the Chaldean Epic of Gilgamesh (dated 2200 B.C.). The person known as Gilgamesh is called Nimrod, the builder of the original city of Babylon, as recorded in Genesis 11. The epic poem, Epic of Gilgamesh, recounts the story of the flood as given to Gilgamesh by an older relative, a man named Nuh-napishtim, (also called Atrahasis) known as “the very wise or pious.” This Nuh-napishtim is the Babylonian name for Noah.”[5]

8. It is important to note that the biblical account of the Flood stands alone as the true historical account of the flood, whereas all other accounts of the flood story around the world not only conflict with one another about the great flood, but are also mythological in nature compared to the Genesis account. Noted author, Dave Hunt makes this insightful comment about perverted mythologies verses the truth of the Bible. “The biblical account alone has the factual ring of history rather than myth. It fits the rest of the Bible and agrees with what we know of mankind’s history to the present time. Thus the biblical account stands on one side and all of the others, in spite of their similarities to the Genesis story, stand together in opposition to it. That distinction between the Bible and all other accounts is significant. It indicates that the biblical account was not borrowed from the others. Clearly, all non-biblical accounts originated from the same historical events, and their differences developed later. The pagan myths all vary from one another, so none can be trusted as authentic. They must have all become perverted in one way or another. Inasmuch as the biblical account is consistent with the rest of the Bible, it can claim the same infallibility of inspiration as all of God’s Word. The pagan accounts are similar enough to confirm the biblical account, but different enough so that the later stands alone as the only authentic record. The biblical account does not originate from oral tradition handed down from generation to generation (and thus it escapes the inevitable error inherent in such a process); but it was given by inspiration of God.”[6]

---

[1] Here is an interesting short synopsis on this author, “Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia who lived c. 2700 B.C. Many stories were written about Gilgamesh, but the fullest surviving version of the story of Gilgamesh was written by Shin-eqi-unninni, in Akkadian, on twelve tablets and was found in the ruins of the library of Ashurbanipal of Assyria (669-633 B.C.). This is known as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Among other elements, the Epic of Gilgamesh contains a Babylonian flood story.” 

[2] David W. Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier, Miraculous Messages, (Bridge-Logos, Alachua, Florida, 2008), pg. 14.

[3] Norman L. Geisler, The Apologetics Study Bible [HCSB], (Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 2007), pg. 468.

[4] As already mentioned in my notes, this date 2750-2500B.C. is in error, since it was not written until much later after the flood by an author named Shin-eqi –unninni around 2200B.C.

[5] Grant R. Jeffreys, Unveiling Mysteries of the Bible, (Frontier Research Publications, Inc., Toronto, Can., 2002), pg. 47.

[6] Dave Hunt, In Defense of the Faith, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1996), pg. 121-122.