Maundy-Thursday

Maundy-Thursday - its the day we remember that dinner that 12 disciples had with their teacher, their mentor. Little did they know, this would be their last night with Jesus.

Jesus was more than just a teacher and mentor, he had become friends with these men. I wonder what the disciples would have said, had they known. I wonder if Peter would have protested so much at Jesus' request to wash his feet. I wonder what the disciples would say they remember most about their teacher and friend.

As we participate in tonight's worship experience (or, if you are not here with us physically) we invite you to reflect on this night and what Christ means to you.

As you reflect on Christ's life, we give you words of one of the Christian Churches' great reflectors to think about:

Oh Holy One, Beautiful One, Glorious One, be my Lord, my Savior, my Redeemer, my Guide, my Consoler, my Comforter, my Hope, my Joy and my Peace. To You I want to give all that I am. Let me be generous, not stingy or hesitant. Let me give you all - all I have, think do and feel. It is Yours Lord. Please accept it and make it fully Your own. Amen. - Henri Nouwen, A Cry for Mercy

What are the main differences between Methodists and Bible churches?

Just as there are countless variations of Methodist Churches, there is not one definitive ‘Bible Church’ to frame the answer to this question. By and large, ‘Bible Churches’ will see the Bible as the ‘literal’ Word of God, whereas Methodists (and other mainline denominations) would focus on the Bible as the ‘Inspired Word of God.’

Holding that every word of the Bible must be literally true is not a litmus test for membership in the Methodist church; many members believe it to be so, others may not. We do hold that “the Bible contains all that is necessary to learn about, understand, and accept Jesus Christ as our savior.”

Many Bible Churches require a belief in the literal interpretation as a requirement for membership. For instance, if you look at the web site for Denton Bible Church, you’ll find under the section of ‘What we believe about the scriptures’:

”Every word in the original writings is inspired by God and is without error. It is accurate in all matters to which it speaks, spiritual, historical, and scientific. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the foundation of the faith and practice of Denton Bible Church ( II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21).”

All Methodists would agree that “The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the foundation of the faith and practice for any church.” Many Methodists, however, would not feel that the Bible was written as a science book, so the creation stories in Genesis, for example, were not intended to be a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. Writers of that day couldn’t possibly know all we know about science, space, molecules, etc. that we know today; even if the writers had been ‘divinely instructed’ on such matters…the people they were writing to wouldn’t have been able to comprehend.

God wanted hearers of those ancient days to understand His nature in concepts and words they could comprehend, so He inspired the writers in the beautiful, powerful proclamation of His creation. So they proclaimed in quite understandable ways the eternal truth that God created the heavens and the earth, created them for us, and that God launched human history and will one day bring it to completion…it is all under His guiding hand. That is, the Bible’s purpose is to proclaim God – not necessarily to be a precise science book by which modern day science should be judged.

If you look at the Cross Roads Bible Church you’ll see their belief about the Bible:

“We believe the Bible to be the verbally, plenarily inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, and the supreme and final authority in doctrine and practice. (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Is. 55:8-10; John 17:17; Mat. 5:17,18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; Heb. 4:12; John 14:25,26; 16:12-15; Gal. 1:11,12; 2 Pet. 3:15,16)”

It is not all that different from Trietsch’s website statement about our belief in the Bible:
“The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is God’s word to all. Human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote it. The scriptures are inspired by God, and are the unique, full and final authority on all matters of faith and practice, and there are no other writings similarly inspired by God.”

Some other Bible Churches are stricter in their faith statement about the Bible. I found this one on the internet:

What Minooka Bible Church Believes about the Bible…
“We believe that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative, verbal, plenary, inspired Word of God as represented in the original manuscripts. The Bible consists of 66 books written by men under the superintendency of the Holy Spirit.”

Note the phrase, “in the original manuscripts…” which is a common statement among many Bible and Baptist Churches and other churches holding to a ‘literal’ interpretation of the Bible. It is important to note that all biblical scholars agree that there are no original manuscripts of any book in the Bible in existence today. All we have are copies of copies of copies, the closest which dates back to around 125 years of the time of any original manuscript.

So when folks say the Bible is ‘literally true,’ if you look at the fine print of that statement, ‘literally true in the original manuscript’ they are talking about something that, until and unless some original manuscript is unearthed, doesn’t exist to our knowledge.

Methodists have great respect for Bible Churches and their members, but we do view the scriptures differently. We don’t think the differences make any difference about going to heaven … some Bible churches do.

Methodists find it interesting that there are thousands of different churches, all claiming to read the Bible as the literal, inerrant, infallible, Word of God – that disagree with each other on points both major and minor! Some go so far as to hold that unless every Christ follower reads this or that passage exactly as they do, that they will be excluded from Christ’s church. Methodists don’t see things that way at all.

Because of how Methodists view the Bible, we take a much different stance on being involved with the hurts of the world than most Bible Churches. (Methodists are frequently criticized for being too ‘socially active’ … instead of ‘preaching the Word.’)

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary (Perhaps the father of the Bible Church movement) until 1952, along with Dr. John F. Walvoord, who succeeded him and served as president until 1986 wrote the instructive textbook for most of the fast-growing Bible, entitled Major Bible Themes. In it they wrote, “the present divine purpose of this age is not the conversion of the world, but rather the calling out from the world those who will believe Christ to form the body of Christ, which is the church.”

This is quite different than what UMs and most other mainline denominations believe. We believe that Christ left us with the work of ‘converting the world’ (John Wesley referred to it as “Preaching Scriptural Holiness throughout the land”), not only to bring others to Christ, but also with the purpose of making the world a better place to live while we wait for the return of Christ.

Chafer & Valvoord go on to say, “…the immediate purpose of God is not the correction of the evil in the world, but the out-calling of who will believe.” (pp 242, 243.)

Bible churches will invest more of their resources in their internal ministries, while Methodist churches invest considerable resources in missions, service, and outreach. You are not likely to see a “Bible Church Hospital,” for instance, like most every major city has a “Methodist Hospital.”

Bible Churches tend to “get people spiritually ready for the rapture and the end of the world; its fast approaching and urgent”; they develop theories and doctrines to pinpoint when it will happen.

So you can see that how one views the Bible determines the very nature of the church.

Methodist churches don’t spend much time predicting the end of the world … instead the focus is on being ‘Good Stewards’ of the world and being ‘the risen body of Christ’ … loving, healing, helping the hurting of the world like Jesus modeled for us.

With all this said, I’m doubt many Bible Church members really read and study the philosophy of its founders…just like most members of Methodist churches don’t really know much about the teachings of John Wesley!

Most Bible Church folks I know love Jesus, love the Word, and are looking for ways to make a difference … just like the wonderful folks here at Trietsch! We just see things differently and ‘agree to disagree.’

What is the Apocrypha and why were the books in it not included in the Bible?

Jews did not stop writing during the centuries between the Old and New Testaments. The Intertestamental Period was a time of much literary production. We designate these writings as Apocrypha. They did not attain canonical status, but some of them were cited by early Christians almost on a level with the Old Testament writings, and a few were copied in biblical manuscripts. Some New Testament authors were familiar with various non-canonical works, and the Epistle of Jude made specific reference to at least one of these books. They were ultimately preserved by the Christians rather than by the Jews.

Many of you have a Bible whose cover indicates the translation, i.e. “The New English Bible” and then adds “With Apocrypha.” That’s because the apocrypha is an important aid for Bible study in that it sheds light on the history, culture, context, and understanding of how people perceived the work of God going on in their world. For Protestants, the Apocrypha is not considered ‘inspired’ or ‘sacred’ in the same way as the official ‘canon’ of the Bible.

Meaning “things that are hidden,” apocrypha is applied to a collection of fifteen books written between about 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. These are not a part of the Old Testament but are valued for their historical information, and by some for private study.

All fifteen apocryphal books except 2 Esdras appear in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. They were made a part of the official Latin Bible, the Vulgate.

All except 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannasseh are considered canonical (in the Bible) and authoritative by the Roman Catholic Church.

From the time of the Reformation, the apocryphal books have been omitted from the canon of the Protestant churches.

The Apocrypha represent various types of literature: historical, historical romance, wisdom, devotional, and apocalyptic.

The most important historical writing in the Apocrypha is 1 Maccabees. It is the primary source for writing the history of the period it covers, 180 to 134 B.C. The emphasis is that God worked through Mattathias and his sons to bring deliverance. He did not intervene in divine, supernatural ways. He worked through people to accomplish His purposes. The writer was a staunch patriot. For him nationalism and religious zeal were one and the same. After introductory verses dealing with Alexander the Great, the book gives the causes for the revolt against the Seleucids. Much detail is given about the careers of Judas and Jonathan. Less attention is given to Simon, although emphasis is placed upon his being acclaimed leader and high priest forever. Brief reference to John Hyrcanus at the close suggests that the book was written either late in his life or after his death, probably shortly after 100 B.C.

When Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate bible for protestants, he felt that although the apocryphal books were of great value, they were did pass the ‘canonical test’ (see preceding question) and therefore did not include them in what came to be the Protestant Bible.

Please explain the fundamental differences between Catholics and Protestants

A: In keeping with the theme, I’m only trying to address differences in how the Bible is viewed. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants see the Bible as the “Inspired Word of God,” and look to it as containing all that is necessary for us to learn about, understand, and accept salvation through Jesus Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church stated at the Council of Trent that the Church is "...the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition." Positions like this, that appeared to put the church as superior to scripture and that was one of the controversies that fostered the Protestant Reformation.

At that time in history, Roman Catholic leaders felt the “Holy Word of God” was too important to trust its reading and interpretation to a population of largely uneducated peasants. So the church limited reading the scriptures to church leaders … who read it, interpreted, and taught it (with their own human biases) to the common people. Of course, they developed doctrines based on their interpretation and determined what parts of the Bible should be emphasized and what parts could be looked upon with less authority.

Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation taught, sola scriptura: “Faith is to be based on scripture alone,” not on any official church teaching of the then only church…the Catholic church.

The Bible had long been available in print form. The Old Testament was translated into Greek about 250 B.C. for the royal library of Alexandria. Named from the seventy translators who are said to have made it, the Septuagint, though made by Jews, has come down to us through Christian channels. Later Greek translations were made in the early period by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

All fifteen apocryphal books except 2 Esdras appear in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. They were made a part of the official Latin Bible, the Vulgate.

All the apocryphal books, except 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannasseh are considered canonical and authoritative by the Roman Catholic Church.

From the time of the Reformation, the apocryphal books have been omitted from the canon of the Protestant churches.

The evangelistic thrust of the early church gave impetus for many translations to impart the gospel to peoples in diverse language areas of the Roman empire. Before the 400 A.D., the Bible had been made available in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Georgian. The succeeding centuries brought still other translations.

In the West, the church primarily used Latin after the end of the second century, and unofficial translations were made. In the fourth century Pope Damascus invited Jerome to revise current Latin translations based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Jerome completed the new translation after eighteen years of work at Bethlehem. Jerome’s translation came to be the accepted Bible, and by 1200 A.D. was called the Vulgate, the official version for the Roman Catholic Church. It was the basis for the church’s teaching and preaching.

The invention of printing in 1443 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 stimulated great interest in Bible translation. Most of the modern languages of Europe had printed translations made at that time: German, 1466; Italian, 1471; Spanish, 1478; and French, 1487. Each of these areas has a long history of manuscript translation prior to printing.

>John Wycliff and his associates (A.D. 1382) who are given credit for having first given the English the complete Bible in their own language.

Q: Please explain the Genesis account of “ancient giants,” and “sons of god”, marrying “daughters of men.”

Bible scholars run into some problems that just can’t be rationally solved with the information we have today. One is found in Genesis 6:1-4 “When men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, … the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful…the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”

Genesis 6:4 also says, “There were giants on the earth in those days.” The word ‘giants’ in this biblical narrative is a common translation of the Hebrew ‘nephilim’ and is also used in Numbers 13 to describe the hulking inhabitants of Canaan, who made the Israelite spies “feel like grasshoppers.” Nephililm may or may not mean giants of supernatural origin, but simply a tribe of large-framed, powerful men. When military strength as a man’s most important asset, such men were, of course, feared and respected.

Just who were these “sons of God?” No one knows for sure. The best guess is that they were kings and chieftains, the bigwigs in a primitive warrior society. (From 1001 Things You Always Wanted To Know About the Bible…But Never Thought To Ask, by J. Stephen Lang, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Remember that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are considered, “Pre-history” … that is they often speak of things for which we have no other written record. This does not mean they are not ‘true,’ or that reading them as pre-history diminishes a true picture of God and the Bible. But it does mean they may well have reflected ancient writers-- within the confines of their limited knowledge and from the cultural context—effort to proclaim the goodness, power, might, and awesomeness of God! These chapters, without needing to be scientifically or historically accurate, say loud and clear: “Look, God is the creator of all, wants to be in a relationship with his creation even when humankind rebels, and launched history on a course that ultimately bring all things back to Him as He intended at creation.”

To read these passages as ‘literal’ means that at some ancient time, “sons of gods” (divine beings) had intercourse with ‘daughters of men (humans) and their children were the giants of the land.

At Genesis 6:4 the term designates ancient heroes who, according to most interpreters, are the products of sexual union of heavenly beings (“sons of God”, compare Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 82:6) and human women. The account illustrates the breakdown of the God-ordained order separating heaven and earth (Gen. 1:6-10) and specifying reproduction “each according to its kind” (1:11-12, 21, 24-25). God intervened to reestablish limits inherent in creation (6:3; compare 3:22-23). At Numbers 13:33 nephilim designates a race of giants descended from Anak against whom the Israelites appeared as grasshoppers. (See Holman Bible Dictionary)

Why were the books of the Bible chosen for the Bible and how did they come up with the order of the books?

A: The historical record of the Jews was written down on leather scrolls and tablets over centuries, and the authors included kings, shepherds, prophets and other leaders. The first five books are called the Torah (or Law), which were written and/or edited primarily by Moses in the early 1400's BC. Thereafter, other scriptural texts were written and collected by the Jewish people during the next 1,000 years. About 450 BC, the Law and the other Jewish Scriptures were arranged by councils of rabbis (Jewish teachers), who then recognized the complete set as the inspired and sacred authority of God.

Beginning as early as 250 BC, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. This translation became known as the Septuagint, meaning 70, and referring to the tradition that 70 (probably 72) men comprised the translation team. It was during this process that the order of the books was changed to the order we have in today's Bible: Historical (Genesis - Esther), poetic (Job - Song of Songs), and prophetic (Isaiah - Malachi).

After approximately 400 years of scriptural silence, Jesus arrived on the scene in about 4 BC. Throughout his teaching, Jesus often quotes the Old Testament, declaring that he did not come to destroy the Jewish Scriptures, but to fulfill them. In the Book of Luke, Jesus proclaims to his disciples, "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude, wrote the Gospels, letters and books that became the Bible's New Testament. These authors quote from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulate their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the entire set of writings as the "New Covenant." During the 200s AD, the original writings were translated from Greek into Latin, Coptic (Egypt) and Syriac (Syria), and widely disseminated as "inspired scripture" throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond). In 397 AD, in an effort to protect the scriptures from various heresies and offshoot religious movements, the current 27 books of the New Testament were formally and finally confirmed and "canonized" in the Synod of Carthage.

The “Canon” is the actual name for our Bible. ‘Canon’ means the “Church’s Book” and determines the life, mission, and work of the church.

The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the Canon of the New Testament.
(1) The books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.
(2) Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.
(3) Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.

Jim Ozier

Questions Thinking People Ask About the Bible

The Bible is the best selling book of all time. It is the foundation of the three major world religions. As literature, it has shaped the English language like no other book. As a moral document, it has shaped the values, laws and culture of our nation. Its words have brough comfort, wisdom, inspiration and hope to countless people. Yet, this book is perplexing, confusing and frustrating at times.

Popular books have questioned its integrity and modern science has asked serious questions of favorite biblical stories. Even committed believers sometimes wonder how to make sense of its more difficult passages.

In this series, Rev. Jim Ozier answers the kind of questions thinking people ask about the Bible.

As we embark on this new series, please free to leave comments, thoughts and prayers as we blog about this topic.

Join us on Sunday as we explore the topic of the Bible, is it just another book?