Salvation is the Good News

I have come to believe many years ago that we are guided through life by the Hand of God as He puts us into our experiences which He uses to shape us into what He would have us to be, some unto honor other for destruction, He is the Potter, we are the clay as Paul said. It matters not if you believe or not, God's will will be done. He may lead some of us deep down on the path to perdition before we accept the path that we are on only leads to destruction.

Our free will did not put us on that path, for many of us are born on it to parents who have sunken so far into depravity their children see no other path. The fact id, accept it or not, we are all born into that sin, even the children of the most righteous of parents for as Isaiah said, "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

Indeed, the gospel is good news because we are saved not by what we have done, but by what Christ has done. We are accepted by God not because of our works, but in spite of them.

Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31 does not supports a woman’s right to abort

Today, the March for Life, recently I was told that Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31 supports a woman’s right to abort their unborn child. Not so, these passages define the civil actions that God commanded the Israeli men of the Old Testament to take if they were “jealous” of their wife; jealous meaning that the husband believed the wife to be unfaithful. The wife in question was to ingest a special drink made by the priests. This drink would give signs if a person was guilty; ie, the thigh would rot and the belly would swell.

1. The main reason that this has became an issue is because of a mistranslation in the NIV. I would add that the NIV is a perversion of the scriptures and a poor excuse for an translation. The NIV uses the phrase “your womb miscarries” while the KJV uses the phrases “thy thigh to rot.” The NIV wrongly says that the womb miscarries, which causes multiple people to fall into confusion.
2. The primary focus of this passage is to manifest the guilty party. Nowhere in these passages is there any hint of an unborn child from an adulterous relationship. The thigh rotting and belly swelling was a supernatural means in which God shined a light onto the guilty party. It would be like a prosecutor having undeniable evidence.
3. Both guilty and innocent wives of jealous husbands drank this concoction indiscriminately. Why would it only cause abortions on the guilty? Why would it not harm the unborn children of the innocent wives? Verse 28 states concerning the innocent wives, “she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” Again, it only affected the guilty, yet, BOTH drank it. This certainly did not cause an abortion, it manifested the guilty.

When does life begin? It either happens at conception or it doesn’t. There is no grey area when life begins. To describe a pregnant woman, the bible often uses the term ‘with child’. Check out these verses: Ge 16:11, Ge 19:36, Ge 38:24, Ge 38:25, Ex 21:22, 1Sa 4:19, 2Sa 11:5, 2Ki 8:12, 2Ki 15:16, Ec 11:5, Isa 26:17, Isa 26:18, Isa 54:1, Jer 30:6, Jer 31:8, Ho 13:16, Am 1:13, Mt 1:18, Mt 1:23, Mt 24:19, Mr 13:17, Lu 2:5, Lu 21:23, 1Th 5:3, Re 12:2.

David considered himself a sinner from the moment of conception, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ (Psalms 51:5)

The bible does not support abortion. A human fetus is a living person and deserving of basic human rights. Every child is a “heritage of the LORD” and should be treasured as such.

Here is the verse that they say advocates abortion with the Strong’s numbers, with the Strong’s translation below:

Num 5:21

Then the priest H3548 shall charge H7650the woman H802with an oath H7621 of cursing, H423 and the priest H3548 shall say H559 unto the woman, H802 The LORD H3068 make H5414 thee a curse H423 and an oath H7621among H8432 thy people, H5971 when the LORD H3068 doth make H5414thy thigh H3409 to rot, H5307and thy belly H990 to swell; H6639

The KJV translates Strong’s H5414 in the following manner: give (1,078x), put (191x), deliver (174x), made (107x), set (99x), up (26x), lay (22x), grant (21x), suffer (18x), yield (15x), bring (15x), cause (13x), utter (12x), laid (11x), send (11x), recompense (11x), appoint (10x), shew (7x), miscellaneous (167x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H423 in the following manner: curse (18x), oath (14x), execration (2x), swearing (2x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H3409 in the following manner: thigh (21x), side (7x), shaft (3x), loins (2x), body (1x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H990 in the following manner: belly (30x), womb (31x), body (8x), within (2x), born (1x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H6639 in the following manner: swell (1x).

Abortion in the Bible

Passages from the Pentateuch: the
first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures:

It is mainly from the Hebrew Scriptures that the modern-day Jewish people obtain their spiritual insight. In Judaism, a fetus is regarded as a pre-human, as not fully a human person. It is considered to become fully humanonly after it has half-emerged from the birth canal during the process of being born.

Christians primarily use the Christian Scriptures for guidance. However, the Hebrew Scriptures also contain passages that some feel may deal with abortion.

Genesis 2:7:This passage describes how God made Adam’s body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the “man became a living soul” only after God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Some theologians have suggested that this passage states clearly that Adam’s personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become a human person only after she or he starts breathing. This would imply that a fetus is only potentially human. Thus, an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person. The most important word in the Hebrew Scriptures that was used to describe a person was “nephesh;” it appears 755 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “living soul” in the above passage. One scholar, H.W. Wolff, 1believes that the word’s root means “to breath.” He argues that during Old Testament times: “Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew as creatures that breathe.” An alternate interpretation is that Adam and Eve were unique creations. They did not start as a fetus, and were not born. They were fully formed as adults. If this approach is taken, then It is not valid to compare a newborn who has not yet breathed to Eve and Adam when they were first created as fully formed adults who had not yet breathed.

Genesis 25:21-23 “…Rebekah, his, wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.“ The passage refers to the twin fetuses of Rebekah as being “nations.” They are clearly not nations at that stage of development; the word has to be interpreted symbolically. They are rather two fetuses who were later born. The Bible refers to their descendents as nations. The passage also refers to the twin fetuses as “banim:” a Hebrew word which almost always means “newborns” or “infants,” or “children.” The ancient Hebrews did not have a separate word to describe “fetuses.” So they used the same word to describe fetuses that they also used to refer to children. Some suggest that since the ancient Hebrews used “banim” to refer to fetuses, newborns, infants and children, that they regarded all four as simply stages of human personhood. English translations of the Bible generally use the term “children” here; this would more accurately be translated as “fetuses” except that the latter primarily a medical term. Again, the passage does not address the main question: were the fetuses full persons, or are they just potential persons at the time?

Genesis 38:24:Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar’s twin fetuses had been considered to be human beings, one would have expected her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the male responsible for Tamar’s pregnancy.) If the fetuses that she was carrying are not to be regarded as living human beings at the end of her first trimester of pregnancy, then causing their death would not be a great moral concern. However, if the twin fetuses are to be considered as human persons, then it seems strange that they would be considered of such little value as to allow them to be killed for the alleged sin of the woman carrying them. In this case, this passage may be expressing a theme that runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: that it is acceptable to kill or otherwise punish innocent person or persons for the sins or crimes of others — the pregnant woman in this case. An alternate interpretation is that innocent persons were often punished for the sins of one member of the family. See Joshua 7:21, Daniel 3:28-19, and Daniel 6:24). So it might be normal to give little concern to the fetuses.

Exodus 13:1-2: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'” Throughout much of the very ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.  However if the first son was preceded either by the birth of a girl or a miscarriage, then the ceremony was not performed, as the son was not the first offering of the womb. In later years, this practice evolved into a substitute animal sacrifice, a monetary donation to the temple, or a dedication of the child to their deity. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible states: “…the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children, as Genesis 22:1-14 implies.” 2 These passages relate to infanticide, not abortion, because the infant would be killed after birth. But it shows the low regard for newborn humans during that era. Other references of human sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures are found at: Judges 11:29-40: Jephthah promises God that he will make a human sacrifice of the first person who comes to greet him when he returns home after a successful battle. He later ritually sacrifices his only daughter. I Kings 16:34: This passage may refer to the killing by Hiel of his two children during the reconstruction of Jericho. Archeological excavations there have uncovered the remains of persons who appear to have been sacrificed “to obtain divine favor.“ II Kings 16:3: Ahaz, king of Judah, murdered his son as a human sacrifice. II Kings 17:17: The people of Judah abandoned worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They were said to have burned their children as human sacrifices to Baal. II Kings 21:6: Manasseh burned his son as a human sacrifice to Baal. Isaiah 57:5: Isaiah, speaking for the Lord, comments on the practice of the people of Israel in sacrificing their children, “down in the valleys, under overhanging rocks.“ Jeremiah 7:31: Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, criticizes the people of Judah for burning “their sons and daughters in the fire.“

Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” This verse is often mistranslated “Thou shalt not kill.” Murder actually refers only to the killing of a human person. Since the Jewish religion has traditionally interpreted the Torah as implying that a fetus as achieving full personhood only when it is half emerged from the birth canal, this verse would not apply to abortion. Exodus 21:22: (Cont’d)The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible uses the phrase: “gives birth prematurely.” and offers “miscarriage” as an alternative translation in a footnote. These two options result in totally opposite interpretations: one supporting the pro-choice faction; the other supporting the pro-life movement. Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation. 1They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear: Code of Hammurabi(209, 210) which reads: “If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”   Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth. Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the passage up with: “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence — it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.” 2 Exodus 22:29: “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.” Many Old Testament theologians believe that this is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews and Canaanites ritually murdered their first son, sacrificing him to their god. Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.“ It is a bit of a stretch, but this passage might possibly be interpreted as implying that personhood begins as an embryo when blood first becomes present. Since the heart starts beating about 21 days after conception, then one might argue that the embryo becomes a human person at that stage of pregnancy, or slightly earlier. Leviticus 27:6: “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels.” A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls were of less value at three shekels; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value. An alternate explanation is that there was such a high infant mortality rate that one could only be confident that there was a reasonable chance of a newborn surviving after its first month had passed and it was still alive. Numbers 3:15: “Take a census…including every male a month or more old. “ Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. One explanation of this policy was that an infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human person. Another is that the death rate among newborns was so high, that one could not have a reasonable certainty that the child would live until it was at least a month old. Numbers 5:12-31 “Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water…..” This passage describes a ritual that a husband could force his wife to endure if he suspected that she had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nobody seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. Needless to say, there was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery. Numbers 31:17-18 “Now, kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” This occurred at end of the genocidal campaign against the Midianites. Moses, presumably under orders from God, ordered the soldiers to kill every boy and non-virgin girl or woman. Presumably, a significant percentage of the latter would be pregnant. So, their fetus was killed along with the mother-to-be. The fetuses would be destroyed, presumably because they were perceived to have had no value. The female virgins would be spared, because they were considered to have significant value. Deuteronomy 2:34: “At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors.” The Israelites tried to negotiate peaceful passage through the land of Heshbon. They were unsuccessful. So, apparently under the instruction of God, they exterminated all of the people, including innocent children. This undoubtedly included killing the fetuses of pregnant women . This is an early example of genocide based on religious belief, not unlike the genocides perpetrated by Christians against non-Christians in Nazi Germany during World War II, and in Bosnia Herzegovina in the 1990s. It demonstrated no regard for the life of the fetuses who were destroyed. Deuteronomy 30:19: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” The segment “choose life, that…thy seed may live” at first glance might be interpreted as referring to the choice to not have an abortion. It is even clearer in the Living Bible which says “Choose life, that…your children might live.” It is always important to consider the context of any isolated quotation. Verses 15 to 18 clearly state that the choice referred to in verse 19 is whether to worship either Jehovah, or the gods of the Canaanites, whose land they were about to invade. Verse 20 picks up the same theme. Verse 19 thus relates to religious choices and is unrelated to abortion. However, the two-word phrase “choose life” from this verse is often quoted by pro-life groups.Michigan Christians for Lifeoffered a free, 3″ x 6″  bumper-sticker which says simply “Deuteronomy 30:19.” 3 Automobile license plates that carry the “choose life” message are available in several Southern U.S. states, although their constitutionality has been challenged. Deuteronomy 32:23-26:  “I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men.” God is here describing how he will commit genocide against a specific nation. He will murder of persons of all ages and both genders, from infants to old people. It also involves erasing the memory of them as a nation. Presumably, fetuses would also die during the genocide.

Source:

Sinning, Can You Stop?

A meme from Facebook

What about the one that your are born in? Being good does not remove you from sin. As Isaiah said, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” Or as Paul said in Romans, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

 

Obeying the Law to get salvation is trying to work you way to heaven. So, what does that mean, not being under the Law? Well, as Paul goes on, “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

 

So how do you separate Original Sin, that which you are born in, and sin incurred by breaking the Law?

Again Paul, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” What sin is he talking about her, Original, or by the Law, or both? Circumcision was by Law, and the Law was created to make sin manifest: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This strongly say that Paul is talking about both Original sin, and the sin of breaking the Law.

 

When Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…” He demonstrated the impossibility of obeying the Law.

If you ‘think’ I’d like to kill that bastard, you committed murder in your heart. If you ‘think’ I wish that was my ca, house, boat, etc., you have sinned, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

 

If merely thinking unrighteous though is sinning how can any of us hope to stop sinning?  Grace is the only hope for redemption.

The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds

Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend, who in my opinion, has fellen into error about the nature of Jesus Christ. She maintained that Jesus never left us at His crucification, rather remained as a spirit and is with us yet. This is a heresy that the early believer struggled with and debated so much that Constantine after winning control of the Roman Empire in 312 A.D., and elevated Christianity to favored status. He soon discovered the fractured state of the church and what it believed. To bring unity, he convened a council in the year 325 that met in the city of Nicaea. Out of that convention came the Nicene Creed, which points out that Jesus live on earth in a body, that body was resurrected, and ascended into heaven, and when He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead it will be in the same body he ascended with after He arose from His death, not as a spirit. This is not to say that the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is not among us after Jesus went to be with His Father, for "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

For your perusal the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

And here is the Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

The 4th Commandments: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

The 4th Commandments

Exodus 20:8-11

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thoulabour, and do all thy work:  But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:  For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.:

God instituted the Sabbath to Isreal as a weekly reminder of twothings. First is that all true blessing comes from His grace, not theirlabor. Secondly, that they should hallow him and honor Him and keep the day holy so to seek the fullness of His blessing by there giving our special attention to Him on the 7th day of each week.  Remember the Law, i.e., the Ten Commandments and everything in Deuteronomy was given unto Isreal not unto the world at large like Jesus' cruafection was.

 Deuteronomy 5 explains why the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath holy:  Verse 15: 

"You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstreched arm; therefore the Lord your God commandedyou to keep the Sabbath day."  Christians were not carried out of Egypt so this reason does not apply to those under the Blood and not under the Law.  So I am not convinced that this injunction against laboring on the Sabbath holds for Christians.  And it would be a good thing if we were not for Christians have not observed the Sabbathsince the beginning of the church almost.  The Sabbath commandment does not require worship, it prohibits work. Worship can occur on any day.  And the Sabbath's constrain against work is directed to the Jews, not Christians.

The early church did observe the Sabbath but the apostles had a meeting to decide which of the Jewish laws apply to non-Jewish Christians. Their decision is recorded in Acts 15:24-29. If you read it carefully, there is nothing in there about the Sabbath. Any modern Jewish rabbi would agree—the Sabbath law only applies to Jews. If you want to keep the Sabbath holy, you can but since Jesus rose from the grave on Sunday, that is the best day to celebrate it in worship.  

The point?  If you are stressing over not keeping the Sabbath holy by working on Saturday and/or Sunday as well, well don't it is of no consequence.

The Third Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

The Third Commandment

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” the third commandment.  Two questions come to my mind when I read this, the first is just what is the name of God, and second is what does vain mean.

 Is God’s name God?  We know that it is not for when Moses asked Him He responded, “I am who I am”.  And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come to the children of Israel, and shall say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say to them? And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM (YHWH) has sent me to you.

If God is not God’s name how is saying “God damm it” or “Oh my God” taking his name in vain?  And what about saying “Jesus Christ!!” when you see something shocking?  In the Old Testament, bringing dishonor on God’s name was done by failing to perform anoath or vow taken in His name (Leviticus 19:12). Any man who swore by God’s name to legitimize his oath, and then broke his promise, would demonstrated his lack of reverence for God as well as a lack of fear of His holy retribution.  This would be the same as denying God’s existence. For Believers there is instruction not to useGod’s name to legitimize an oath, letting our “yes be yes” and our “no be no” (Matthew 5:33-37).

Now on to the vain part: The Hebrew לא תשא לשוא is translated as "thou shalt not take in vain". The word here translated as "in vain" isשוא shav' "emptiness, vanity; emptiness of speech, lying", while "take" is נשא nasa' "to lift, carry, bear, take, take away" (appearing in the second person as תשא ). The expression "to take in vain" is alsotranslated less literally as "to misuse" or variants. Some haveinterpreted the commandment to be against perjury, since invoking God’s name in an oath was considered a guarantee of the truth of a statement or promise. Other scholars believe the original intent was to prohibit using the name in the magical practice of conjuration.  The object of the command "thou shalt not take in vain" isאת־שם־יהוה אלהיך at-shem-YHWH elohik "this-same name of YHWH,thy elohim", making explicit that the commandment is against the misuse of the proper name Yahweh specifically.  Wikipedia.

Webster Dictionary Definition of VAIN

1

: having no real value : idle, worthless <vain pretensions>

2

: marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful, useless <vain efforts to escape>

3

archaic : foolish, silly

4

: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements : conceited

From this it seems as though saying “God dam it” does not fall into the taking of God’s name in vain category, but what about the “Jesus Christ!!!” part?  In the OT God declared that His name was YHWH (Exodus 6:3; 20:7; see also 3:14). Scholars believe that "YHWH," or "Yahweh" is the third person singular form of the ancient Hebrew verb, "haya," meaning "to be." The basic thrust of this verb describes the state of existence. As the third person form of haya, Yahweh literally means "He is," or "He exists." It is a description of who God is. He is the self-existing one.  God's name, YHWH, is a full sentence. It just so happens to be the shortest sentence in anylanguage--"I am.

In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation.  Christ means: anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word translated “Messiah”.  Thus when you say, “Jesus Christ!!!” you are in effect saying “the anointed bringer of YHWH’s salvation”, and still is no more the name of God than God is the name of God.

I am not saying that you should not strive to keep our euphemism for the Lord’s name as holey as we can, I am saying that neither saying “God Damm!” or “Jesus Christ!!!” will dam you to hell.

Should the Book of James in the Bible?

The book of James in the New Testament is a controversial book, and there are those who believe that it should not have been included in the Canon of Scripture.  One of the main controversies is justification by works, and the argument that James presents irreconcilable contradictions with Paul's writings on the subject of justification. We'll look at both sides of this debate, and attempt to form an objective conclusion.

Arguments That Reject Including James in the Canon

1. James 2:14-24 seems to contradict Paul by supporting a doctrine of justification by works rather than by faith alone, saying that "faith without works is dead." In Galatians 2:15-21, Paul says, “We ... know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ ... that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. For through the law I died to the law... if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" Just as Paul is consistent with his message of justification by faith throughout all of his books in the New Testament, so is James consistent with his message of justification by works throughout his whole book. Since James' support of justification by works is not just seen in occasional isolated phrases, these statements cannot be assumed to be any type of transcription errors.


2. We have to ask ourselves what it is that sets Christianity apart from Judaism? The answer is found in Romans 6:14, "...you are not under law, but under grace." For centuries, the Jews had followed the law as a way of life, but Paul consistently reinforced the idea following grace as a way of life. Time and time again, Paul tells believers that Christ freed them from the law; that grace is their new way of life; and, that they are justified by faith, not by works. To understand how persistent Paul (and the authors of other epistles) stood on these arguments, consider the following comparisons of word counts in the epistles:
   

   	Grace	Believe / Faith	Jesus
   James	2	19	2
   The Other 20 Epistles	105	202	271
   Total	107	221	273
   Average	5	11	13


From this perspective, James is clearly not in step with the message of grace that is found in the other epistles.

3. To further build on the evidence of the word counts above, note that 17 of the 19 references to faith in the book of James present faith in a negative light. The references to faith in all other epistles is always positive.


4. There are also 142 usages of the word “law” in the epistles. Almost all of these refer to law in a negative light. They refer to the law in a New Testament context, essentially presenting it Christianity as the opposite of Judaism, in its comparison of the liberating grace of Christianity to the binding law of Judaism. Only 18 of the references to law in the epistles refer to it in a positive light, and in an Old Testament context. Of these 18 references to the law, six are in the book of James, and twelve are in Hebrews. James is the only book that seems to belittle faith, the most important issue of all (the gospelmessage itself).


5. James seems to dwell upon the idea of the Old Testament Levitical law, such as in James 2:8-11, even though it was given only to the nation of Israel. Christ is mentioned, but only rarely, and not as the key to salvation, as in the other epistles.  Like Paul, James explains the law, but Paul then presents the gospel of grace. One must either accept all of the law (Romans 6:14), or none of it.


6. Martin Luther was opposed to allowing the book of James into the Canon. He also  opposed the books of Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.


7. In James 1:1, this book is addressed to the nation of Israel, not to the church:  “To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad.” Likewise, James 2:2 uses the term "assembly,” an Old Testament term. Why wouldn't he use “church?”


8. James 1:22-24 implies that there is no value in hearing only, which seems to deny the power of hearing the Word. However, we are told that faith comes from hearing God’s Word (John 7:51, Romans 10:17), and Isaiah 55:11 says that God’s Word will not return to empty (void).


9. None of the other canonical books use quotes from the book of James, which seems especially odd if James was among the first New Testament books to be written. This argument has often been used as evidence of canonicity for other books.

Arguments That Support Including James in the Canon  

1. James might well have been the first New Testament book written, in about 46 A.D. This could explain why it was address to a Jewish audience in James 1:1, as well as why it seems to support justification by works in James 2:14-24. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 – 21, Paul says, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.” If James was the first Christian document after the Resurrection, perhaps the reason that the Holy Spirit inspired James as He did was because the full load of truth would have been rejected as heresy by devout Jews living under the law.  Perhaps, with his primary audience being Jews who had converted from Judaism to Christianity, James had to start with the law, which the Jews understood, and work backwards to faith. In this light, James revealed the Holy Spirit, demonstrating faith by the law, similar to Paul in his book to the Romans. Also, in 46 A.D., church members were likely forced underground, as a nearly invisible church, increasing the susceptibility of a reputation of being heretics, especially under Roman rule.


2. James 2:24 says, "You see that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." If the key word here is "see," then this may well be referring to justification before men, not justification before God. In other words, James is not contradicting Paul by saying that God justifies man by his works. Instead, he's saying that, although God justifies man by faith, the only way that "you see" (or that "man can see") that someone is justified by God, is when his justification is apparent from his actions, or works.


3. Following from the above argument, the purpose of the book of James seems to be a person's actions or works, not on the theological arguments of salvation. Perhaps the reason that there is little focus on salvation is that it was written to some of the first Jewish believers who might be able to better identify with the law than with grace.


4. Throughout the centuries, one of the arguments for canonicity is that a book must agree with other scriptures, and James does meet this criteria. For example, James 4:14 says, "Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." This sounds very similar to Ecclesiastes 6:12, "For who knows what is good for a man in life, during the few and meaningless days he passes through like a shadow? Who can tell him what will happen under the sun after he is gone?" Perhaps James should be interpreted in the same careful fashion as Ecclesiastes.

Some History of the Canon

• The Muratorian, in 190 AD or later, provides us with the earliest accepted list of New Testament canonical books, and it disputes seven of the ones in our Bible today: Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, & Revelation. It also included five books that are not in our Bible: Ignatius of Antioch, 1st Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache.


• By the 3rd century, Irenaeus and Tertullian had confirmed that only 20 of our 27 books were accepted as scripture: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's thirteen Letters, 1st Peter, and 1st John. Thus, 20 of the present 27 books were canonical within about 150 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. The main arguments against the seven that were eventually included were as follows:
  
  • Hebrews - The author was unknown. Some believed that the author was Paul, but it differed from Paul in both style and vocabulary.
  
  
  • James - It was addressed to the Jewish people, rather than to the Church. Also, the author, James, was not an apostle. An apostle was considered to be either one of the twelve disciples who served with Jesus in His earthly ministry, or someone to whom the resurrect Christ has appeared, such as Paul. Instead, James simply introduces himself as “a servant of Christ".
  
  
  • 2 Peter - It differed from 1st Peter in both style and vocabulary.
  
  
  • 2 and 3 John - The author refers to himself as a "presbyter" or "elder", and not an apostle.
  
  
  • Jude - The author was unknown, specified only as a "servant of Christ," not as an apostle. Also, this book was suspect because it quoted from the book of Enoch, a book included in the Old Testament Apocrypha, but not in our 39-book Old Testament.
  
  
  • Revelation - This book was suspect primarily because John referred to himself simply as a "servant" or a "brother," not as an apostle.
  
  
• The first appearance of the exact list of our present 27-book New Testament was in the Festal Letter of St. Athanasius, in 367 A.D.


• The only “undisputed” letters were 1 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans.


• The most-disputed letters of Paul were 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians.


• Other various non-canonical New Testament books include:
  
  • The Gospel of Thomas
  • The Gospel of Peter
  • The Secret Gospel of Mark
  • The Gospel of Mary
  • The Questions of Bartholomew
  • The Acts of Andrew
  • The Acts of John
  • The Acts of Paul
  • The Acts of Peter
  • The Acts of Thomas
  • 3rd Corinthians (part of the Acts of Paul)
  • Laodiceans
  • The First Apocalypse of James
  • The Apocalypse of Peter
  • The Apocalypse of Thomas
  • The Apocalypse of Paul

Conclusion

The book of James is canonical, but unfortunately it is simply misplaced. Its early writing makes it more of a historical narrative, like the book of Acts, instead of a doctrinal book, like Romans. With this in mind, it would be more appropriate if the 27 books of our New Testament were included in our Bibles in the following order:  

• The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
• Acts
• James
• Hebrews
• The other Epistles
• and, The Revelation

We should read the books of James and Hebrews as we do Genesis through John; i.e., we learn God’s truths and principles from them, but usually not applications that we can apply to our daily lives today.

Owen Weber 2009

Christian Data Resources