 Posted Monday, June 08, 2009 5:40 PM
|
|
|
|
In another thread, Anonymous poster 16172 made the following comment:
Your answer that you left CS for Biblical Christianity is very snobbish and bigoted. You may not agree with CS, but it surely is Biblical.
In response, I thought it might be interesting to post some examples which show that Christian Science is NOT biblical.
Here's an example:
Mrs. Eddy says the following:
"The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree," than when it was flowing in his veins as he went daily about his Father's business. (Science and Health 25:6-9, emphasis added)
Mrs. Eddy puts quotation marks around "the accursed tree," clearly indicating that she is quoting the Bible. Here's the Bible verse:
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13, emphasis added)
Note that Eddy has said that the TREE is cursed, while the Bible verse actually says that the PERSON who hangs on the tree is cursed. Her misquote is huge, as it allows her to avoid the Bible's many references to Jesus dying as a sacrifice for our sins. Here's the verse in context. (Paul is writing to Jews who have converted to Christianity but have the misconception that circumcision -- an element of Jewish Law -- is required for salvation.)
" All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." (1 Cor 3:10-14, emphasis added)
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 4:57 AM
|
|
|
|
In reading S&H I found Eddy’s use of quotations in some cases referred to bible quotes but in other cases to popular quotes of the times. I just googled the phrase “accursed tree” and “agree to disagree” both used by Eddy in S&H in quotes.
For the quote “accursed tree” one reference is at
http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/longing/4460/
This article refers to a song by Martin Luther:
Here the true paschal Lamb we see,
Whom God so freely gave us;
He died on the accursed tree—
So strong His love!—to save us.
See, His blood doth mark our door,
Faith points to it, death passes o'er,
The murderer cannot harm us. Hallelujah!
So, Eddy probably took this quote from the Martin Luther song. You can find other uses of the phrase “accursed tree” by googling. I even saw some where it’s used in the Quran.
For the phrase “agree to disagree” one reference is at:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/agree-to-disagree.html
This phrase was “first cited in the Selected Letters of the master potter Josiah Wedgwood, 1785.” It may also have appeared in the text of a 1770 sermon by the English theologian John Wesley.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:21 AM
|
|
|
|
So, Eddy probably took this quote from the Martin Luther song.
Perhaps you're right since my Concordance to S&H (copyright 1908) says "see Gal. 3:13" rather than just saying "Gal. 3:13." In any case, she is still at odds with what the Bible says on the topic. For example, the book of Hebrews discusses the Jewish sacrificial system and carefully relates Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to that sacrificial system. Hebrews 10 explains that the sacrifice of bulls and goats was not a permanent solution for sin but that Jesus' sacrifice was a permanent solution:
" 5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:5-10, emphasis added)
Hebrews 9 describes how the shedding of blood was necessary and how, unlike animal sacrifices, Jesus' blood only had to be shed once:
"11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Heb 9:11-15, emphasis added)
"22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Heb 9:22)
God set up the Jewish sacrificial system as a precursor to the ultimate sacrifice -- Jesus' sacrifice -- and this point is not lost on the New Testament writers. Mrs. Eddy apparently missed the point when she said "the spiritual essence of blood is sacrifice." (S&H 25:3, emphasis added) In doing so, she trivialized both the Jewish system of sacrifice and Jesus' death on the cross.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:10 PM
|
|
|
|
| Linda, --This is a good topic for discussion. I understand the gist of your original statement - "that you left CS for Biblical Christianity" and your followup premise that "Christian Science is NOT biblical." When all is said and done here, I think we will find that there is no simple answer to this issue, and it becomes one of degrees of relevance. Not everything in Christian Science is supported by the Bible, but some things are. At least, the Bible is considered one of the Pastors of the church. Even though the King James Version is the primary version, Mary Baker Eddy referenced many others in her study, and many Christian Scientists today study from a wealth of Bible versions and Commentaries. Despite some of her unconventional interpretations of Bible terms or passages, at least Christian Scientists are exposed to the source documents--The Bible, --the Word of God in its purest form. Never discount the power of God's message in the hearts of minds of his people. I take more exception to some of the practices of Christian Science as they relate to the Bible. For example, try as I might, I can find no reference to Jesus refusing to heal someone who was under the care of doctors. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you will fail if you try to mix prayers with medical science. And nowhere does Jesus charge a fee for healing someone.
"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely you have received, freely give." (Matthew 10:8) And while I'm on the topic of healing -- The Bible relates that Jesus went about the countryside, healing the sick. He traveled about, going where he was needed. Not so for most CS or CS practitioners and teachers; the business model they employ is not the Biblical model, but the same one most MDs use. They wait for people to call or come to them.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:04 PM
|
|
|
|
| Rather than debate MBE's version of various Biblical passages I'd like to make a comment about "Biblical Christianity" in a broader view. Here are Christians who rely on the words of the Bible ALONE vs CSers who rely mostly on MBE's interpretation of the Bible, Science and Health. I say "mostly" because that's what they are quoting all the time, thats what they are repeating in their head multiple times a day, the hypnotic litany from Science and Health and the various Christian Science statements to be repeated many times daily or whenever a false "claim" is made. When my husband was ill, dying, he was not reading the Bible, other than the parts of it in the Lesson Sermon. He was reading S&H. Wherever he went he was carring around a dog eared, well used S&H, no Bible in sight. The Bible and Science and Health are not twins, equals, in Christian Science. The Bible is the step-child. Science and Health is the inspired word from God and the Bible is the faulty text that needs to have meanings changed and needs Eddy's INTERPRETATION to be understood. Give a Biblical Christian a life challenge and they will go to the Bible for help and guidance. A Christian Scientist will reach for Science and Health and the familiar, comforting, eutopian litanies. Christian Science is Science and Health Christianity, not Biblical Christianity. Square Peg
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Square Peg,
I think you have hit the nail on the head. After all, it is the First Reader who reads from S&H. It's the SECOND Reader who reads from the Bible. Interesting.
I also remember that we studied the Bible at Prin, yet as I recall, I mentally filtered all that I read in the Bible through Mrs. Eddy's "spiritual interpretation". I remember that whenever something came up in class like "But this passage doesn't agree with Christian Science", that we would be told that we had to see the SPIRITUAL interpretation. We then read up on it in Mrs. Eddy's writings to "clarify" what was REALLY meant.
I was startled at first to read the posts of some folks that CS was not biblical. Yet, in looking back, we were turning to S&H for the "real" information, thus basically saying that in spots the Bible was wrong and Mrs. Eddy was right.
Pretty amazing that we accepted that -- and I can see why you would call CS un-biblical.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:27 PM
|
|
|
|
| Christian Scientists love to point out the fact that the Bible is an integral part of their religion. The first tenet of CS is: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." Mary Baker Eddy's writings are rife with Biblical references. That is one of the key attractions that makes CS seem to be authentically Christian. And there are authentically Christian parts to CS. And that is why some of us make the mistake of thinking that the whole of CS is authentically Christian. But the teachings of CS do not conform to the teachings of other Christian churches -which is why Eddy herself expressed disappointment that the other churches did not at once accept CS and incorporate her teachings into their own doctrines. The reason was not entirely because she was a woman without formal theological credentials. No, the churches of her own day recognized the errors in her theology. And they warned their congregations of the dangers of CS practice. It was the American culture and values which allowed her movement to grow and thrive for a time. And the same American culture and values are behind the decline of CS today. Look around you, ----the world population is growing, but CS churches are closing, there are fewer practitioners, fewer members, -tick, tock, tick, tock. The end of the movement is inevitable.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:56 PM
|
|
|
|
| It would not surprise me in the least that she took this phrase from Luther's song. Here the true paschal Lamb we see,
Whom God so freely gave us;
He died on the accursed tree—
So strong His love!—to save us.
See, His blood doth mark our door,
Faith points to it, death passes o'er,
The murderer cannot harm us. Hallelujah!
So, Eddy probably took this quote from the Martin Luther song. Mrs. Eddy's norm was to take from authoritative sources only to the degree that they could used to undergird her self-made religion. I'm sure Luther would not have minded her usage of his song, but he surely would have objected to her turning its context on its head. His biblical usage of personal pronouns in reference to Christ clearly speaks of a personal Savior, as opposed to Mrs. Eddy's general context of Christ as an simple noun- "the Christ Idea". The Lamb's blood is celebrated in this song as the cause of our salvation; but as Linda quoted, Eddy had nothing but disdain for His blood. Compare & contrast S&H 25:6-9 with Luther's song- see the stark difference in theme between them. They effectively make completely contrary assessments of Christ's cross. She stole the phrase- in that she flipped Luther's meaning completely. Indeed, this is but a microcosm of Mrs. Eddy's brand of biblical scholarship. For her, to quote the messenger contrary to his message was par for the course. She felt perfectly justified in taking (rather, stealing) three words from the Apostle John- "God is love"- for her central creed whilst utterly ignoring the following immediate context where the apostle veritably defines this "love"- 1 John 4:9-10 "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love- not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 5:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Good comments, everyone. I'll put in my 3 cents to the topic...
It just keeps boggling my mind why anyone would want to twist the meaning of scriptures so totally as MBE has done; or how anyone other than a totally delusional person could read their Bible and not be able to see the total misinterpretation that she believed was so "Inspired". And yet, I would never say that MBE was ignorant or deliberately deceptive and evil; nor would I say that she was so crazy as to be socially unbelievable. She was just plain warped in her spiritual thinking. Deeply warped. Delusional.
There was certainly some tremendous twist in her head (or heart?) that would allow her to write, publish, teach and rewrite her totally twisted views of Jesus's mission and teachings. Her need for grandiosity, control, power, praise, attention? Really over-the-top behavior like a lot of the other great leaders in business or religion that have catapulted themselves to fame and fortune in spite of their lack of following genuine Christian understanding and values. I believe she otherwise behaved nicely as a good person. I believe MBE truly BELIEVED she had "divine revelation." It just reminds me of the old saying "ust because someone is sincere, doesn't mean they aren't sincerely wrong."
And, boy, does being sincerely wrong mess up people's lives!
no more CS4me
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, June 20, 2009 4:38 PM
|
|
|
|
| Some of the nicest, brightest, university educated, most sincere, well-meaning people in the world have been extremely wrong. Wrongness is an equal opportunity employer.
|
|
|
|