Religion's Place in Nursing

allnurses Guide · Apr 14, 2004

There are so many of these threads related to religion that I'm confused. Which one is this? Plus I only got 3 hours of sleep last night, had a very wild day (you wouldn't believe it) and now I can't fall asleep. So here I sit . . . .

There have been very interesting posts . . . . and for the most part quite civil.

Thanks.

steph

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

What is rather telling and irrational about Christianity, is what has systematiclly been excluded from the current Bible, because it does not obey common preconceptions of Christians.

How many times do you meet Christians that have never read the Apocrypha (?sp), the Gnostic gospels, the Pseudepigraphia (?sp), the Infancy Testament of James and of Thomas, books of Enoch (revelation visions and the origin of fallen angels), or or the Book of Jubilees (little Genesis)? All of these books come from similar origins as the books in the current accepted Bible and most of them back the other biblical stories with a great deal of credence. Yet they have been barred from biblical inclusion, for some arbitrary reason.

The Fall of the Angels is repeatedly referenced in the Bible. Yet one of the most complete explanations/historys of this event is in the books of Enoch and not listed in contemporary Bible at all.

Of course in the case of the Infancy Testament of Thomas, it is for obvious reasons. Church leaders did not like the portrayal of the young Jesus as a a mischievous child/boy, not always so saintly as many would like him to appear. So rather than include a portrayal of a less than perfect Jesus, theywould rather leave the Bible highly incomplete, with very little information about his childhood. Though obviously, that is a major omission for someone as Jesus is considered in Christianity.

Therefore the "Word of G-d" in most churches is an incomplete story.

As an interesting aside, most Jewish scholars do study these writings though for historical import and not for spiritual reasons. Yet, most Christians do not know that they exist.

Jaaaman · Apr 14, 2004

Professor Dr. Albert Einstein. 1879-1955

IN 1950 Professor Einstein said: "The idea that I am an atheist is a great mistake. Whoever comes to this conclusion from my scientific systems has not understood them. I believe in a personal God, and I can say with good conscience that I have never believed in an atheistic attitude. Even in my student days I considered the theories of Darwin, Huxley and Haekel as hopelessly old-fashioned. Development goes on, not only in techniques, but also in science. Of the majority of physicists it can be said that they agree that religion and science are not inimical to each other." In an interview with a journalist he said: "As a child I received instruction in the Bible as well as the Talmud. I am a Jew, but the shining image of the Nazarene has had an overwhelming influence on me." Asked if he accepted the historical existence of Christ, he answered: "Without doubt no one can read the gospels without feeling the real presence of Jesus. The heartbeat of His personality is heard in every Word."

{The Capital Voice, 200 Laurel Street, Culpeper, Va. 22 70 1}

sbic56, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

I believe everyone has a right to an opinion and their opinion is valid to them. However for an opinion to be true, it has to be studied out, kind of what you said. I didn't say what I said to offend anyone, but neither do I refute what I said.

The problem is, you wish your truth was everyone elses, as well. Others who are atheist, jewish or the multitude of other possibilites have "studied out" our stances very well. I am not about to say you are wrong in what you believe, I only ask the same courtesy and respect for my own views.

Jaaaman · Apr 14, 2004

How many times do you meet Christians that have never read the Apochrypha (?sp), the Gnostic gospels, the Pseudogephygria (?sp), the Infancy Testament of James and of Thomas, books of Enoch (revelation visions and the origin of fallen angels), or or the Book of Jubilees (little Genesis)? All of these books come from similar origins as the books in the current accepted Bible and most of them back the other biblical stories with a great deal of credence. Yet they have been barred from biblical inclusion, for some arbitrary reason.

While it can perhaps be said that the apocryphal books (both those within and outside of the expanded Catholic list) are of interest for historical examination and comparative study, it must be understood with no uncertainty that they are not inspired, God-breathed scripture. These books are of no value for the purpose of building, defending, OR polemicising about doctrine. The reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical are legion. Historically, they have no basis for acceptance by God's chosen people. Traditionally, they have been accepted only by few within the Church, and these were more often than not heretics with other serious flaws in their theology. Most importantly, however, they are doctrinally incompatible with the true canon of Scripture, and are therefore exposed as being counterfeit scripture.

sbic56, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

Good response sbic.
It's hard for me to respond to Angelica without violating the TOS against a personal attack. But Angelica, I read your post and it makes no sense to me, so your post is invalid to me.
However, I will say that I have studied the Bible and read it many times. Attended many a Bible study with instructors, went to a Christian church for over 10 years, and can honestly say I've had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Today, however, I've come to a different understanding of the universe. You don't know the thought process that those of us who don't think as you have gone through to come to our belief system. :)

Thanks, Tweety. I can't be too angry with angelica's post, as she just sounds so confused about the whole thing. Reminds me of an incident that my son went through back in the 5th grade when his teacher, of all people, told him his opinion was wrong. Imagine that. We are forever learning, even teachers. Hopefully angelica will gleen a little piece of new knowledge from the posters on this thread who called her on her mistaken definition of what an opinion is.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

While it can perhaps be said that the apocryphal books (both those within and outside of the expanded Catholic list) are of interest for historical examination and comparative study, it must be understood with no uncertainty that they are not inspired, God-breathed scripture. These books are of no value for the purpose of building, defending, OR polemicising about doctrine. The reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical are legion. Historically, they have no basis for acceptance by God's chosen people. Traditionally, they have been accepted only by few within the Church, and these were more often than not heretics with other serious flaws in their theology. Most importantly, however, they are doctrinally incompatible with the true canon of Scripture, and are therefore exposed as being counterfeit scripture.

That is interesting as many scholars of the Bible consider them highly important, and as valid as the currently incomplete canon that you consider the Bible. Many of them completely validate biblical statements.

What exactly makes them NOT G-d breathed scripture? They are of comparable authenticity, age and documentation as that which makes up the Bible.

And as Jews (G-d's chosen people) have indeed studied Jubilees, the Apocrypha, and the Books of Enoch, maybe you need to study your "chosen people" a little more. As the story of Hanukkah comes from Apocrypha, how can you consider that "invalid" to G-d's chosen people? Almost every good Jew that I know has read those stories, if nothing else, as part of a Midrash, and they are well accepted.

What makes them biblically "incompatible" and "counterfeit"? The fact that the child Jesus was not the little perfect child that Christians like to imagine. The fact that Man fell due to his own transgression, and less blame is placed on woman. That Joseph applied the ancient test of adultery to Mary and she passed as nonadulterous...he didn't just trust her word that she was a virgin.

There are a number of reasons why the Pseudepigraphia is not accepted to CHRISTIANS and very few have to do with heresy and accuracy of the "G-d breathed word". They have more to do with preserving a image than anything spiritual.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

I also suggest that you approach the Eastern Orthodox Churches in Europe/Mediterrannean/Middle East ....one of the oldest and historically relevant churches in the world, how inaccurate, heretical that the Gnostic Gospels are. They consider them quite important and relevant, despite the fact that the men that created the Bible omitted them.

As they substantially outdate Protestantism and many of their members are able to decipher scripts better, as they have studied biblical language/customs/regions more than the average protestant has, I tend to lend them more credence.

Jaaaman · Apr 14, 2004

1. Jesus and His apostles did not accept these books as part of

the Scripture

a. There are no NT references to any of the Apocrypha as being

authoritative

b. The NT writers quote not one part of the Apocrypha

2. Judaism never accepted these books as part of the Scriptures

a. Ancient Jewish leaders specifically rejected the Apocrypha

(Josephus, Philo)

b. While included in the Septuagint (Gr. OT), they were never

accepted as canonical

c. The New American Bible, the new Catholic translation, in a

footnote to the Story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon

frankly admits: "They are excluded from the Jewish canon of

Scripture..."

3. While a few early church leaders appear to take some material

from them, most were opposed to the inclusion of the Apocrypha

into the canon of Scripture (Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,

Jerome, Origen)

4. The Apocrypha itself recognizes our OT canon as a distinct

twenty-four books, which corresponds to the Hebrew Bible as it

is known today

a. In 2 Esd 14:44-48, 70 books are distinguished from 94,

leaving 24, or the exact number of the Hebrew canon, which

became our 39 OT books

b. Not only does the Apocrypha not claim inspiration for

itself, it actually disclaims it when 1 Mac 9:27 describes

an existing cessation of prophecy

5. They include unbiblical teaching, such as praying for the dead

(2 Mac 12:46)

6. They contain demonstrable errors; for example:

a. Tobit was supposedly alive when Jeroboam led his revolt (931

B.C.)

b. He was still living at the time of the Assyrian captivity

(722 B.C.)

c. Yet the Book of Tobit says he lived only 158 years - Tob

1:3-5; 14:11

7. The first official adoption of the Apocrypha by the Roman

Catholic Church came at the Council of Trent in 1546, over

1,500 years after the books were written

8. When the Apocrypha appeared in Protestant Bibles:

a. It was normally placed in a separate section since it was

not considered of equal authority

b. Luther included the Apocrypha in his German Bible, but he

introduced them with the comment, "These are books that are

not to be considered the same as Holy Scripture, and yet are

useful and good to read."

9. No Greek morificecript contains the exact collection of the books

of the Apocrypha as accepted by the Council of Trent

10. While the Syrian church accepted the Apocrypha in the fourth

century, the translation of the Bible into Syrian in the second

century A.D. did not include it

11. The Qumran community had hundreds of books in its library

beyond the Scriptures

a. While the library had some of the Apocrypha, it did not have

commentaries on the Apocrypha it did with OT books

b. The OT books had special script and parchment, unlike the

Apocrypha

c. Qumran clearly considered the Apocrypha as different from

Scripture

CONCLUSION

1. While the Apocrypha of the OT may be of historical value and in some

ways supplement God's truth, they are not canonical

2. Those who accept the authority of Jesus and His apostles will be

content with those books found in the Hebrew OT

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/bible/bible_02.htm[/indent]

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

3. In one sense, the issue might be regarded as irrelevant...

a. The Apocrypha relates to the Old Testament

b. Christians are under the New Covenant of Christ, not the Law of

Moses - Ro 7:6; Ga 5:4

c. Therefore we are to continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine

- cf. Ac 2:42 [

Uhhhh,

The title of the thread is "Religion and Nursing", it is not "Christianity and Nursing". Therefore religion is relevant not just Christianity.

And the Gnostic gospels, Infancy testament of Thomas and James are quite clearly New Testament, not Old. And many of the writings are clearly correlated with those of the New Testament. And as they deal clearly with Jesus' life and with Mary. They are clearly relevant.

And the Pseudepigraphia is still not addressed. And as many of their events are clearly referenced in the Bible (the fall of angels, the creation), they can hardly be considered irrelevant.

Jaaaman · Apr 14, 2004

c. Therefore we are to continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine
- cf. Ac 2:42
Uhhhh,
The title of the thread is "Religion and Nursing", it is not "Christianity and Nursing". Therefore religion is relevant not just Christianity.

I'm sorry about that, I was in such a haste to respond to your post that I missed that statement. I have edited that portion out of my post.

teeituptom, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

Everyone is here is looking for Logic

Its not about logic

Its about faith

It doesnt even matter which faith

christian, catholic, jewish, buddhism , whatever

Its about faith

its about love

its about being good

Go I believe in immaculate conception

YES

Do I believe he raised from the dead

Yes

and everything else also

it is all faith and love

why complicate it