I would be interested to know what the lawyer argued…

Article follows:

Life Begins When?

I would like to bring a new perspective to the divisive debate surging around stem cell research by asking Christians, and non-Christians, this question: When does life begin?

Every Christian I have approached with this question has immediately replied, “With conception.” And I have asked, “How do you know that?” And have received the same answer from all, “The Bible says so.” “Oh,” has been my reply, “where, exactly, does the Bible say that life begins with conception?” And no one has been able to show me where the Bible says that life begins with conception. I am usually quoted just this one verse as the authority, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” (Jeremiah 1:5 NKJ) And I am quick to point out that “formed you in the womb” does not say life begins with conception. And then I am sucked into the Ultimate Christian Rationale for when life begins, “Well, it is better to err on the side of caution . . .”

Why is better to make a mistake instead of getting it right? I believe the Bible does tell us when life begins, and it is not at conception! The Bible clearly states in Leviticus Chapter 17 Verse 11, “The life is in the blood” and in verse 14, “for the life of all flesh is its blood.” And even earlier in God’s instruction to Noah, the Bible says, “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4). And again in Deuteronomy 12:23, “the blood is the life.”

In fact, from the Garden of Eden to the Book of Revelations the Bible is one Great Big Teaching on the importance and value of Blood. It is the shed Blood of Christ on the Cross that “makes” a person a Christian in the first place. Christianity is the ultimate sacrificial Blood-Based-Religion in the world! If there is no Blood, then there is no Life. No one in the Christian community has ever debated this point with me.

And that is my point, if there is no blood, then there is no life! And it is many days after conception that a fertilized embryo can be said to have rudimentary blood cells. And if there is no blood, and “life is in the blood,” then an embryo without blood cells has no life. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, if you believe that “life is in the blood,” as the Holy Scriptures state, then embryos without blood cells should be made available for stem cell research because they have no life, and this national debate on embryonic stem cell research can be resolved and we can move on to other important issues of the day.

Additionally, in the normal course of things, it is several days after conception that an embryo arrives “in the womb,” conception usually occurring in the fallopian tubes. God knows what He is saying when He says He formed us in the womb. By the time you arrived in the womb, or very shortly thereafter, you had blood, you had life, and you were subsequently formed and in due time brought forth into this world we all share.

It is quite easy to fall into the common trap of believing man’s doctrine and dogma to be more important than Scripture, especially if you have not read the Book. My informal survey of Christians finds that the majority have not read the Book they love to quote. Instead they allow someone else to tell them what the Bible “says” and then they mindlessly parrot what they have been told to believe. (Is this you?)

“Life is in the blood,” and bloodless embryos should be made available to researchers who envision treatments and possible cures to debilitating illnesses that you, or someone you love, may one day encounter.

Doyle Doss, PO Box 2, Fortuna, CA.

– May be reprinted and distributed in its entirety only –

To your second point: “all of us”…absolutely! The content of my testimony is the Gospel, but change the “for me” to “for you” and tell everybody! In fact, my testimony is not the Gospel…the Gospel is the Gospel when it is FOR YOU!

blessings,

Shirley

Where is sola scriptura (scripture alone) taught in the Bible?
I read in the Bible that something more than scripture is necessary to know what is taught in the Bible.

“And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave sense, so that the people understood the reading.” Nehemiah 8:8

“And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, an eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot. And the Spirit said to Philip,’Go up and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked “Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said,’How can I, unless someone guides me?’ and he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” Acts 8:27-31

“First of all, you must understand this, that no prophesy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” 2 Peter 3:15-16

There are many places in the Old Testament showing the need for correct interpretation of the law.
Exod. 18:20, Duet. 17:11 Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26. Ezra, a priest and a scribe, taught the Jewish law to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods and even death.

Even Jesus tells his disciples to respect the teaching authority of the Pharisees who sit on Moses’ seat. (Matthew 23:1-3)

Yes, it is due to human error that we misinterpret the Bible, and no, God doesn’t have a problem communicating, if we are willing to submit to a legitimate authority.

Luther seems check or “run the Bible with all the writings of the doctors.”
You said that, “All Christian churches are by definition are united in their understanding of central doctrinal teaching of the Bible by virtue of their commitment to Ecumenical creeds.”
This is necessary for unity because many of the concepts such as the Trinity, and the two natures of Christ are not explicitly written about in the Bible. In fact that is why the councils were needed in the first place. Saint Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica “So then Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15) This was because early on new teachings which went against the teachings of the apostles had already began, and would multiply into heresies with multi-syllabic names such as Manicheanism (Christ was a visible spirit, not a man) and Arianism (Christ was a man with god-like qualities). The Church had to clarify these misunderstandings, and formulated creeds by referring not only to scripture, but to the teaching of the apostles that was handed down by word of mouth.

The unfortunate situation is that today we Christians are not united on fundamental doctrines. It’s not a matter of sprinkling or dunking, but what is actually occurring at baptism in the first place that is contested.
Christ prayed that we would all be one. There is but one truth. So is it my truth, or yours, or someone else’s that is the TRUTH. And how do we determine that? (HINT: BIBLE and……) That is the question I put to you earlier.
I look forward to your post on the answers to the true or false quiz. And of course, I will be happy comment on the answers.
Peace and unity in Christ,
Aunt Kathy

Thank you for raising this very important issue. I want to hit it head-on. I think Protestants and Roman Catholics, such as yourself, agree on the answers to all but #6, #12, #15 and possibly a couple others (I will post the answers, along with accompanying explanations later this week…In fact, when I do post the answers, please let me know which numbers the Vatican would disagree with).

My response to your questions/statements is to agree with some points made in J.W. Montgomery’s Tractatus Logico-Theologicus. He writes:

“One can indeed get anything out of the Bible–as long as one is erroneously permitted to take anything to the Bible in interpreting it.

The Bible is a remarkably clear book.

Few would maintain, for example, that the passage beginning, ‘There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed,’ [Luke's Gospel] refers to the banana crop in Tanganyika.

‘The Holy Scripture are assuredly clearer, easier of interpretation, and more certain than any other writings, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own treatises to be established and explained by them. But no-one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker. Therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true overlord and master of all writing and doctrines on the earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for?’ [quoting Luther]

‘I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance….Who will maintain that the town fountain does not stand in the light because the people down some alley cannot se it, while everyone in the square can see it?’ [Luther, against Erasmus]

If the Bible is so clear, then why are there many Christian denominations?

Many churches came into existence for purely historical and cultural reasons, not because doctrinal differences (e.g., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, which could no longer maintain its connection with the Anglican Church, owing to the American Revolution).

In the case of those churches which differ theologically with other churches, the points of contention are generally low on the scale of major biblical teaching (e.g., whether to dunk or sprinkle in baptism).

All Christian churches are by definition united in their understanding of the central doctrinal teachings of the Bible by virtue of their commitment to the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian).

Where there is nonetheless disagreement among Christians to what the Bible teaches, this is to be attributed to human failings, not to God’s inability to make himself clear.

The interpretation of the Bible depends on the same general principles which must be employed in understanding any written material–principles which have been codified and are common to literary hermeneutics and to the legal construction of documents.

There is no special, unworldly, ’spiritual’ hermeneutic applicable uniquely to the Bible, for the Scriptures are written in human language and employ the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of human language.

The declared purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal, not to provide a recondite, in-group Gnostic message.

* * * *
Biblical revelation is solid and it is perspicuous; but in order to benefit from it, one must set aside one’s prejudices, suspend one’s disbelief, refuse to force the text into the mold of extra-biblical ideologies, and seek Christ there.

‘Search the Scriptures, for they testify of me’ (Jesus Christ)

‘The whole of Scripture is about Christ alone, everywhere.’ (Luther)”

Very interesting. The Jesuit FitzGerald looks like a
flake. Amazing how bright people can ignore the
preciousness of human life from natural conception to
natural death.

Best wishes,

Good questions and thoughts. It has been a long time, eh?

I am curious to hear more of your conclusions and ponderings as you study at UCLA…

But I still don’t understand the thrust of your statement? Please explain–>

–A.G.

–A. Gilmour