Walau bahasa inggris saya biasa-biasa saja, saya akan mencoba menterjemahkannya namun dengan cara mencicil Kalau ada yang mau membantu, silahkan kirimkan terjemahannya ke yesusmanusia@gmail.com

Berikut tulisannya:

According to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Trinity, he is not saved. [1] Is that the truth? Not from the evidence in the Bible. In fact, the evidence in Scripture is that a person can be saved without even knowing about the Trinity. Before we discuss the issue further, however, we need to know the definition of the Trinity according to orthodox theologians. This is important because some Christians think they are Trinitarians simply because they believe in the Father, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.” But that is not the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together these “three Persons” make one God; and these three are co-equal and co-eternal, the Son having been “eternally begotten” of the Father, and Jesus being simultaneously 100% God and 100% man.

Menurut doktrin ortodox trinitas, jika seseorang mengaku kristen tetapi tidak percaya trinitas, dia tidak diselamatkan. Apakah hal itu benar ? Tidak, kalau melihat bukti yang ada didalam Bible. Faktanya, bukti di dalam kitab suci adalah bahwa seseorang dapat diselamatkan bahkan tanpa mengetahui tentang trinitas.

Sebelum kita mendiskusikan hal ini lebih lanjut, bagaimanapun juga, kita perlu tahu definisi trinitas menurut teologis ortodox. Hal ini penting karena sebagian kristiani berfikir bahwa mereka adalah trinitarian hanya karena mereka percaya Bapak, Anak, dan Roh Suci. Tapi itu bukan konsep trinitas.

Doktrin trinitas adalah bahwa Bapak adalah Tuhan, Anak adalah Tuhan dan Roh Suci adalah Tuhan, dan bersama-sama ketiga unsur tersebut membentuk satu Tuhan; dan ketiganya adalah sederajat dan sama-sama abadi, sang anak menjadi abadi dari Bapak, dan Yesus secara bersamaan adalah 100% Tuhan dan 100% manusia.

We of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International have encountered Trinitarians who say that a person will be saved if he believes that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, even if he does not believe the full doctrine of the Trinity. First, that is not the doctrinal position of the Orthodox Church, and second, the Bible never says that believing Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man is necessary for salvation. Non-Trinitarians assert that a person can be saved without believing in the Trinity, and demand, as did Martin Luther during the Reformation, that we be convinced from Scripture that what Trinitarians teach is true. Perhaps a good question to begin this study is, “When did God start requiring that a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?”

Kami dari Spirit & Truth Fellowship International sudah berhadapan dengan Trinitarian yang mengatakan bahwa seseorang akan diselamatkan jika percaya bahwa Yesus itu 100% Tuhan dan 100% manusia, sekalipun jika dia tidak percaya secara penuh, doktrin trinitas.

Pertama, bahwa itu bukan posisi doktrin Gereja Ortodoks, dan kedua, Bible tidak pernah mengatakan bahwa meyakini Yesus adalah 100% Tuhan dan sekaligus 100% manusia itu diperlukan untuk penyelamatan.

Non trinitarian menegaskan bahwa seseorang dapat diselamatkan tanpa meyakini trinitas dan menuntut, seperti yang dituntut Martin Luther selama Reformasi, bahwa kita diyakinkan dari kitab suci bahwa apa yang diajarkan trinitarian adalah benar.

Mungkin pertanyaan yang pas untuk memulai studi ini adalah : “Kapan Tuhan mengatur bahwa orang yang percaya pada trinitas akan diselamatkan ?

The Old Testament

The Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, or even set forth clearly that the Messiah would be God. Therefore it is unreasonable to think that someone back then had to believe it to be saved. [2] There is no evidence of anyone knowing about, or believing in, the Trinity in all the Jewish literature before Christ, including the Old Testament, the Jewish targums and commentaries, the Apocrypha or other apocryphal literature, or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is well known that the foundational tenet of the Old Testament faith was, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4 – KJV), and the Jews fiercely defended that faith against polytheism of all kinds. There are some singular verses that Trinitarians today say point to the doctrine of the Trinity underlying the revelation of the Old Testament, but none expound it clearly enough that anyone would have formulated the doctrine of a Triune God from them, and there is no historical record that anyone did (which is good evidence for the validity of our point that all those verses have a non-Trinitarian explanation).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Trinitarian scholars are aware of the fact that the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity. The distinguished Trinitarian scholar Bertrand de Margerie writes:

“…contemporary exegetes [Bible teachers] affirm unanimously that the Old Testament did not bring to the Jewish people a clear and distinct Revelation of the existence of a plurality of persons in God. In this they agree with the clear and frequent affirmation of Fathers such as Irenaeus, Hilary, and Gregory of Nazianzus: that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed only in the New Testament.” [3]

So Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament, and thus both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that before Jesus’ ministry a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Four Gospels

We have seen that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that a person living during the Old Testament did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved because there was no presentation of the Trinity in the Old Testament for them to believe. However, Trinitarians hold that during the ministry of Jesus, and afterward, a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. This means that if Jesus or the Apostles wanted anyone to be saved, they had to teach the person more than was in the Old Testament. If Trinitarians are correct, we should see a clear presentation of the Trinity in Scripture, but we do not, nor is there any record that Jesus, or anyone else, ever taught the doctrine of the Trinity to anyone in order to get him saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

To know what people during the time of Jesus had to do to be saved, all we have to do is read the Gospels. Before we go any further, however, we should understand what the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting in a Messiah. The Messiah the Old Testament portrayed was a human empowered by God. He would be from the line of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:12 and 13), a Lord under Yahweh, the God of Israel (Ps. 110:1), [4] and he was to be one of their own people: “Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them…” (Jer. 30:21). Although they did understand these things about their Messiah, the first-century Jews were not expecting their Messiah to be born of a virgin, which is why the angel had to instruct Mary about it (Luke 1:34 and 35). Nor did they expect him to die (Matt. 16:21 and 22; John 12:32-34). They were correct, however, in that they were not expecting a God-man, a “Person” of the Godhead, a part of a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

When it came to the first century Jews not expecting the Messiah to die, Jesus worked very hard to correct that misunderstanding, teaching over and over that he must die (Matt. 16:21, 17:9, 20:19 and 28, 26:2, 12 and 27-32). But there is not one single account of Jesus correcting anyone’s belief that he was a fully human Messiah. Never did he say he was part of the Trinity, or that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. Furthermore, the first century Jews believed that “the Spirit of God” or “the Holy Spirit” was not a separate Person in the Trinity, but was another name for God, just as Yahweh, Elohim, or El Shaddai, were other names for the one true God. When Genesis 1:2 mentions “the Spirit of God,” Jews correctly believed it was another name for God or a reference to His invisible power at work. Yet there is no record of Jesus ever trying to “correct” them and show that the Holy Spirit was a third Person in the Trinity. That is very solid evidence that they did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If Jesus had taught that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, the perfect time for him to have done so would have been when a young man came to him and asked, “…Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16). If this young man had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, this was the time to say so. Instead, Jesus said, “…If you want to enter life, obey the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). Jesus further instructed the man that if he wanted to be “perfect” (which Mark 10:21 equates as having treasure in heaven) he should sell his worldly possessions and follow him (Matt. 19:21). Jesus never said to the man that belief in any aspect of the Trinity was necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Another time Jesus could have easily taught the Trinity, or even that he was God, was when he traveled through Samaria, the district north of Jerusalem and south of Galilee. The Samaritans were not Jews, but foreigners who had been brought into the area and had adopted some parts of the Jewish religion. The Jews regarded them as horrible pagans and pretenders, and had nothing to do with them. When Jesus met the woman at the well in Samaria, she said she knew the Messiah was coming (John 4:25). However, her understanding of the Messiah would have come from the Old Testament and what her tradition taught, so when Jesus said, “…I who speak to you am he” (John 4:26), she never would have concluded that he was somehow God, or part of a Triune God. If she needed to believe that to be saved, Jesus would have taught it to her, as well as to the people from Samaria who came to meet him after the woman told them about him (John 4:41). However, there is no hint in Scripture he ever mentioned the Trinity. Did he ignore their need for salvation? Of course not. What is evident from this record is that a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Another example of a person being saved without believing in the Trinity is the immoral woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with her tears while he was eating. All Jesus said to her was, “…Your sins are forgiven” and “…Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:48 and 50). Are we to believe that somehow this Galilean Jewess knew that Jesus was part of a Triune God, and by knowing that she gained salvation? Such an assumption would be to stretch the record beyond credible limits. The woman was a sinner, not a theologian, and if she went to synagogue at all, which is questionable, she would have known about the Messiah only from what the Old Testament taught. There is no reason to believe that she somehow pasted together statements Jesus had made to build a case for the Trinity, and then believed it. She, like millions of Old Testament believers before her, was saved without believing in the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Theologians build the doctrine of the Trinity with verses pulled from all over the Bible, but only a few actually spoken by Jesus can even be used to support it, and none of those mention “the Holy Spirit” in any decisive sense as being a distinct “Person.” [5] Furthermore, each statement Jesus made that modern Trinitarians use to paste together their case for a Trinity has an alternative, non-Trinitarian explanation. This is important, because although a person who already believes in the Trinity might think that what Jesus said supported the doctrine of the Trinity, someone who never heard of the Trinity would understand what Jesus said in a totally different way.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

A good example of this was when Jesus said, “…if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24). Some Trinitarians see this statement as supporting the Trinity, but someone who did not know that doctrine would understand the statement in light of what he knew and believed, especially if what Jesus said made sense in terms of the beliefs he already held. In the case of John 8:24, the Jews he was speaking to were expecting a human Messiah and that people who rejected him would die in their sins. What Jesus said fit their understanding perfectly. Jesus had to have known that, so if he was trying to say that anyone who did not believe in the Trinity was unsaved, he did a poor job of making his point. He certainly never stated that if someone does not believe in the Trinity, he would die in his sins.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If a person did need to believe in the Trinity to be saved, we would expect that Jesus would have been at least as aggressive in teaching that as he was about correcting other erroneous beliefs of his day. For example, we mentioned earlier that Jesus plainly taught his disciples that he had to die, even though they were not expecting it. He also corrected the Sadducees concerning the resurrection very plainly, telling them, “You are in error” (Matt. 22:29). Time after time he openly corrected the errors believed by the people around him. In the Sermon on the Mount he corrected many erroneous teachings, including the people’s misunderstanding about love, revenge, adultery, divorce, and anger, often saying, “You have heard that it was said…But I tell you…” (Matt. 5:21-44). But never in that important teaching that spans three entire chapters in Matthew does he correct their ideas about him being a real human being, or teach them about the Trinity, which he would have were it necessary to believe that to be saved. After all, which is the more important theological mistake, being wrong about anger, or taking an oath, or praying in public, or being wrong about the true nature of God?

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If the Trinity were a true doctrine, and especially if a person has to believe it to be saved, we would have expected Jesus to say something in the Sermon on the Mount such as this:

“You have heard that it was said” that God is One, “but I tell you” that God is a Trinity, one God made of three distinct Persons. [6] “You have heard that it was said” that the Messiah will be one from among you, “but I tell you” he will be more than that, he will be God incarnated in human flesh. “You have heard that it was said” that the holy spirit is the invisible spirit power of God, “but I tell you” that Holy Spirit is much more than that, he is the third Person in a Triune Godhead.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Are we to believe that Jesus openly and plainly corrected errors in people’s understanding about many different issues while never correcting people’s erroneous thinking that he was the human Messiah they expected, and not a “Person” in a Triune God, especially if their error meant they were not saved? That makes no sense. He did not even correct his closest disciples about the Trinity. When Jesus asked Peter, “…Who do you say I am?” (Matt. 16:15), …Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16). Peter believed Jesus was the Christ he had been taught about in synagogue and was expecting, not God in the flesh who was part of the Trinity. Yet Jesus did not correct Peter, but instead complimented him on his insight, saying he was “Blessed” (Matt. 16:17).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Jesus never taught the doctrine of the Trinity or told anyone he had to believe it to be saved. Furthermore, he never corrected anyone’s belief that he was the human Messiah they expected and not part of a Triune God. When he taught about himself from the Old Testament, as he did in Nazareth when he quoted from Isaiah (Luke 4:18 and 19), he never even hinted that there was more to believe about him than the Old Testament scriptures taught. Nor did he ever correct anyone’s understanding about the Holy Spirit. All this is conclusive evidence that Jesus did not teach that a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Book of Acts

The book of Acts records the teachings of the Apostles and disciples as they spread the good news of Jesus. It is reasonable that if the doctrine of the Trinity were a truth not revealed in the Old Testament but necessary for Christian salvation, it should be clearly taught in Acts. After all, many Trinitarians believe that for an unbelieving Jew or pagan Gentile to be saved, he must believe in the Trinity. The book of Acts, then, is a proving ground for what unbelievers need to know in order to be saved. So what do we see in Acts? In all the sermons in the book of Acts there is not one presentation of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

What Acts does record very clearly is that Jesus was a man, the servant of God, who was God’s anointed (“Messiah” in Hebrew, “Christ” in Greek), who died, whom God raised from the dead and exalted, and who will be the future King and Judge of all mankind. Furthermore, those who hear and believe that message get saved without hearing anything about the Trinity. Time after time Paul and others went into Jewish Synagogues and taught from the Old Testament about the Messiah, explaining that Jesus was the Messiah the Old Testament spoke of, and that teaching was enough to get people saved. There is not one record of Paul or others saying that what the Old Testament taught about the Messiah was not enough for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

What follows are summations of teachings in the book of Acts when believers preached the Word of God in order to get people saved. Almost every record listed below includes something that a speaker actually said to convince the audience about Jesus. If a record in Acts simply notes that someone such as Paul taught, but it does not record what he said, or if the purpose of the conversation was not about getting someone saved, the record is not included in the list below. Each will show that there was no presentation of the Trinity, or that believing it was necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 2:14-36. Peter spoke to the crowd of unsaved Jews in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost, just 50 days after Jesus was crucified. These Jews did not live in Israel, but had come to Jerusalem from the far reaches of the Roman Empire, including Parthia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Crete, Arabia, and parts of what today is the nation of Turkey (Acts 2:9-11). They had not heard Jesus or the Apostles teach. All they knew about the Messiah was from the Old Testament and traditions about him, none of which included the doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus being God. Thus it is fair to conclude that if they needed to believe in the Trinity to be saved, someone would have to teach them about it. On Pentecost, however, Peter presented Jesus as a “man approved of God” who was crucified and whom God raised from the dead, much of which he backed up by quoting the Old Testament. Peter never mentioned the Trinity or Jesus being God, yet about three thousand people got saved that day. This is conclusive evidence that on the Day of Pentecost, the start of the Christian Church, a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 3:12-26. Peter spoke to a crowd that had gathered in the Temple because a lame man had been miraculously healed. This crowd gathered inside the Temple, so they would have been Jews or interested Gentiles who were not saved. That means that they had either not heard, or had rejected, earlier presentations about Jesus being the Messiah, including the one taught close to the very spot where they were standing on the Day of Pentecost. [7] Peter taught these unsaved men and women that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob glorified “His servant Jesus.” He further taught that Jesus had died and God had raised him from the dead. He also quoted Deuteronomy 18:15, that Christ was to be “a prophet like me [Moses].” There was nothing in Peter’s teaching about the Trinity or Jesus being God, and yet so many people were saved that the number of Christians in Jerusalem grew to 5,000 men, not counting the women and children (Acts 4:4).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 4:8-12. Peter spoke to the Jewish rulers and elders, and taught that although they had crucified Jesus of Nazareth, God raised Him from the dead. He did not make any presentation of the Trinity or Jesus being God. These were mostly the same men who were at Jesus’ trials, and there is no record in Scripture that any of them believed what Peter said and got saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 5:29-32. Peter and the Apostles were again brought before the Jewish rulers, and Peter again presented to them that although the Jews had killed Jesus, God had raised Him from the dead and set him at his right hand as “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). Nothing Peter said referred to a Trinity of co-equal, co-eternal beings in a Godhead. The vocabulary of “God” raising up Jesus and setting him at His right hand fit exactly with what these leaders already believed about the Messiah from the Old Testament, because Peter spoke of two separate beings, a ruler (God) and His “right hand man” (Jesus), not one Being in three persons. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus is then referred to as the “Prince,” not “God.” As when Peter was before the rulers earlier, there is no record that any of them got saved, but if they had believed Peter, they would have been saved without knowing anything of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 7:2-53. Stephen made a presentation to the Jewish rulers, and gave a history of Israel. Like Peter had done (Acts 3:22), he quoted Deuteronomy 18:15 that the Messiah would be a prophet from among the people. He asserted that they had killed the “Righteous One,” and then spoke about the vision he had that Jesus was at the right hand of God, something the Jews would have clearly understood to mean that Jesus was now God’s second in command. Stephen was trying to win the Jews to the Christian faith, and he did so without mentioning the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Furthermore, no one in his audience would have ever thought that Jesus was “co-equal” to the Father when Stephen spoke of him being raised by God and now at God’s right hand.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 8:30-39. Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to meet, and speak with, a eunuch from Ethiopia, which he did. The Ethiopian was reading from the book of Isaiah, and Philip began there and told him the Good News about Jesus. The eunuch believed and was baptized with no hint that Philip tried to teach him about the Trinity or that Jesus was God. Actually, if you think about it, how could Philip have presented the Trinity? All the Ethiopian had were scriptures from the Old Testament. How would he have reacted if Philip had said, “Well, we know the Hebrew Scriptures present Jesus as a Messiah from the line of David, but actually he was God incarnate, 100% man and 100% God, and you have to believe that to be saved”? Because the Old Testament never said the Messiah would be a God-man, the eunuch would have dismissed Philip as being very misguided in contradicting the Scriptures. What we learn from the record of Philip and the eunuch is that the eunuch got saved without ever knowing about the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 9:3-6, 17 and 20. The Apostle Paul became a Christian when the Lord Jesus himself appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Paul was a trained Rabbi and was expecting the Messiah, but he had resisted the Christian teaching that Jesus was that Messiah. Meeting Jesus proved that Jesus was the Messiah he had been expecting, but there is nothing Jesus, or Ananias who prayed for Saul, said about the Trinity or Jesus being God, so there is no reason to believe Saul had to believe it to be saved. Furthermore, immediately after being saved, Paul went into the Synagogue and taught. Like all new converts, Saul would have been very enthusiastic about his new beliefs, but there is no mention that he mentioned the Trinity. Instead, he taught what he himself had just come to know, that Jesus was “the Son of God.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 10:34-43. At the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, Peter taught the Gentiles gathered there that Jesus died, but God raised him from the dead. He taught how God had anointed Jesus with holy spirit (there is no article “the” in the Greek text), made him Lord, and appointed him as Judge. He did not mention the Trinity or say that Jesus was God, but the Gentiles who listened to Peter were saved and filled with the power of holy spirit right in the middle of his teaching.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 13:16-41. Paul spoke in a synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, a Roman province in what today is the country of Turkey. He addressed the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles who were gathered there, and taught a very effective salvation message. He gave a short history of the Jews, showing that Jesus, a descendant of David, was the Savior, crucified by the Jews, raised from the dead by God, and that he showed himself alive to many of his disciples who testify about him. He further taught that God now offers forgiveness of sins through him. Many people were saved. There is no mention that Paul taught any of the concepts of the modern Trinity, such as that Jesus was God, or incarnated, or co-equal with the Father.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 15:1-29. In this record, a dispute arose between Paul and members of the Pharisees who claimed circumcision and observance of the Law was necessary for salvation. A council at Jerusalem was convened specifically for the purpose of discussing what was necessary for the Gentiles to be saved—Gentiles whose belief system had no conception of a Trinity. The decision of the council was to “…not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19) and “…not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (15:28), which were to abstain from food offered to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality. Neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ was mentioned as necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 16:30 and 31. Paul and Silas were put in jail in Philippi and were miraculously released when an earthquake hit the area. The jailor asked, “…Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” This is a very important question for this study, because if someone must believe in the Trinity to be saved, Paul should have said something about it. Instead, Paul responded, “…Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:1-4. In this record, Paul arrived in Thessalonica, went into the synagogue, and “…reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ…’” (Acts 17:2-4). Paul taught from the Scriptures, which in a synagogue at that time were only the Old Testament. Thus, Paul could not have mentioned anything about the Trinity, which, as we have seen, was not in the Old Testament. Instead, Paul showed that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead, all easily shown from the Old Testament, and then he made the case that Jesus was the Messiah. The result was that some of the Jews were won to the faith, along with a “large number” of Gentiles, including a number of the prominent women of the city. There was no mention of the Trinity, yet many were saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:10-13. Paul and Silas traveled from Thessalonica to Berea, went into the Synagogue, and spoke to the Jews. This is a very important record for our study because it specifically states that the Jews of Berea were more noble than the Jews of Thessalonica because they searched their Scriptures, the Old Testament, to see if what Paul and Silas were saying was true. However, we have already seen that the Trinity is not in the Old Testament, so what the people of Berea would have seen was that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, believed he was the Messiah, and gotten saved. They would not have seen that Jesus was one Person in a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 17:22-31. Paul went to Athens and spoke to the Greeks. He taught the resurrection and lordship of Christ and said: “For he [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed….” Paul said God proved His point by raising Christ from the dead. Paul’s short message was effective, because there were a few men who believed. They got saved without ever hearing anything about the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 18:1-5. Paul went to Corinth, and as in many other cities, went into the synagogue to speak about the Lord Jesus. Scripture is clear that Paul was “…testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:5), and there is no mention that he taught the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 18:24-28. Apollos was an eloquent man who knew the Scriptures. He also had been given instruction by Aquila and Priscilla, who themselves had been personally taught by Paul. He helped the believers by publicly showing from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, something he would have shown from the Old Testament. There is no mention of any aspect of the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 22:3-21. Paul spoke to a crowd at the Temple in Jerusalem. His testimony was cut short, but nothing he said even hinted at the doctrine of the Trinity. He spoke of “God” (not “the Father”) and the Righteous One (the Messiah), which would have agreed with what the Jews believed from the Old Testament, that there was one God, and His Messiah, not that the Messiah was somehow also God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 25:13-21. Governor Festus was speaking with King Agrippa. This is a very important record for our study, because neither of the two men was saved. Festus was relating to Agrippa what Paul had said to him, and why the Jews were angry at Paul. Festus says that Paul is disputing with the Jews about “…a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive.” Festus did not believe what Paul said, but he understood that Paul was saying Jesus had been raised from the dead. This record conforms completely to the other places in Acts that record what Paul taught about Jesus, which was that he died on the Cross, but God raised him from the dead. The evidence from this record is clearly that Paul was not teaching the Trinity, which would have been so different from what Festus had ever heard that he surely would have mentioned it to King Agrippa.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 26:2-23. Paul told King Agrippa that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and proclaimed as a light to “…his own people and to the Gentiles.” Paul was trying to get King Agrippa saved, and pressed him to believe, saying, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do” (Acts 26:27). Agrippa realized Paul was trying to get him to be a Christian, and responded, “…Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). Agrippa could have become a Christian that very day had he believed Paul’s message, yet Paul never mentioned the Trinity, a pre-existent Christ, or that Jesus was God. Anything foreign to the Old Testament such as that would only have confused King Agrippa. Paul’s message of salvation came from “the prophets,” who did not mention the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Acts 28:23. In this short but powerful record that closes the book of Acts, Paul is trying to convince the Jews of Rome “about Jesus” from the Law and the Prophets, which we know do not present the Trinity. Had Paul tried to convince those Jews that Jesus was both man and God using the Old Testament, they would have considered him out of his mind. What we need to pay close attention to is that a person could be saved by believing only that Jesus of Nazareth was the one who fulfilled those things that the Old Testament clearly taught about the Messiah: that he would suffer and die, be raised from the dead and be exalted to second in command under God Himself.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Paul and the Jews in Acts

There is another way that Acts reveals Paul was not teaching the Trinity: The Jews and even some Jewish Christians who still followed the Mosaic Law constantly harassed the Apostle Paul. In some cases they even followed him from city to city and stirred up the people against him (Acts 17:13). When Paul was in Jerusalem, James told him about all the Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20), and when Paul was in the Temple, Jews who knew him shouted, “…Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place…” (Acts 21:28). The Jews accosted Paul about all kinds of issues, including differences about the Law, circumcision, and Jesus being the Messiah, but they never once accused him of going against their monotheistic teaching and speaking about a Triune God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Anyone who has studied the history of the Jewish nation under Greek and Roman domination knows that the Jews were so fiercely monotheistic that there had been riots and rebellions over the issue of idols, and even the Roman eagle, in Israel. Had Paul been teaching that their God was not one God, but a part of a Trinity, that surely would have aroused their anger and come up as an issue in the book of Acts. After all, it would have been at least as important as circumcision, which comes up in both Acts and the Epistles. The fact that at no time in Acts or the Epistles is there any Jewish opposition to the Trinity is very good evidence that it was not being taught by early Christians and was not essential to salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Conclusion from Acts

After reading and studying the entire book of Acts and looking for evidence about how a person gets saved, we must conclude that no one had to believe in the Trinity. Furthermore, Acts is the record of the rise and expansion of the Christian Church, so what holds true in Acts should be true for the entire Church Age.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Romans through Revelation: The Rest of the New Testament

We have now seen that a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved during the Old Testament times, and we have also seen from the Four Gospels and Acts that people got saved without believing in the Trinity or even that Jesus was both God and man. In studying the Epistles we see more of the same; that there is no clear expression of the doctrine of the Trinity from Romans through Revelation, and no evidence anyone had to believe it to be saved. God’s plan of salvation through faith in Christ is presented many times without a single verse saying a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Scholars freely admit that the Trinity is never presented as a complete doctrine in the New Testament, but rather is built from scattered verses. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, “In the NT there is no explicit statement of the doctrine….” [8] The New Bible Dictionary says: “…it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible….” [9] The Holman Bible Dictionary is very clear: “The New Testament does not present a systematic presentation of the Trinity. The scattered segments from various writers that appear throughout the New Testament reflect a seemingly accepted understanding that exists without a full-length discussion.” [10] Theologians admit that the New Testament does not state what the Trinity is, i.e., that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal “Persons,” together making one God, and that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man. Furthermore, there is no clear teaching that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

If a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved, we would expect to find that clearly stated in the book of Romans. Theologians commonly teach that the theme of Romans is God’s plan of salvation. Some assert that the theme is justification by faith, and that certainly is a major aspect of the Epistle, but the NIV Study Bible well states what is generally thought of as the major theme of Romans: “…Paul’s primary theme in Romans is the basic gospel, God’s plan of salvation, and righteousness for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike (1:16 and 17).” [11]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We agree with orthodox theologians that the plan of salvation and righteousness for all mankind is the theme of Romans, but it never presents the doctrine of the Trinity or states that a person has to believe Jesus is God to be saved. Could it be that the one book in the New Testament whose theme is salvation never clearly teaches how to get saved? The answer to that question is an obvious “No.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Romans 10:9 is perhaps the clearest presentation of how to get saved in the Epistles:

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This instruction does not require one to even know about, much less believe, the Trinity in order to get saved. However, according to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, simply obeying the above verse will not get a person saved, because to be saved he must believe that Jesus is not just “Lord,” but “God,” 100% man and 100% God, and co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is safe to say that Paul penned the book of Romans to the people in Rome in the confidence that if they believed and acted on what they read, especially Romans 10:9, they would be saved. It is also safe to say that Paul knew that Rome was filled with Jews who had only the Old Testament and traditions about the Messiah to rely on, and Gentiles who knew nothing about the Jewish Messiah at all. It is also important for us to remember that the first century Jews and Gentiles would have thought about Jesus being “Lord” in terms of their culture. Although modern Trinitarians assert that in the context of Romans, “Lord,” means “God,” no Roman Jew or Gentile in the first century would have believed that. “Lord” was a term for boss, owner, husband, or ruler. The Romans had many “lords,” and they were not “God.” Without clearer instruction on the matter, no Roman would have read “Lord” and thought it meant “God, the creator,” especially since Romans 10:9 also says “God” raised this “Lord” from the dead. A simple and straightforward reading of the verse presents two beings: God and the Lord Jesus, whom God raised from the dead. There is no Trinity, and no mention that the God and the Lord in the verse are both parts of the same Triune God, and that a third “Person” in the Trinity is missing from the verse.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Could it truly be that a non-Christian could read the book of Romans, believe its message, and not be saved? We say, “No.” The book of Romans clearly shows that Jesus was the Messiah, that he died for the sins of mankind, and that God raised him from the dead, and anyone who believes it is saved. There is just no logical way to read Romans, knowing that it was addressed to the first century people in Rome to get them saved, and say that they would have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Perhaps the next best book after Romans to study to see if a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved is Hebrews. The content of Hebrews tells us that it was addressed to Jews (or Jewish Christians) who were intimately familiar with the Old Testament. Every chapter is packed with Old Testament references, and there is much discussion about the Law. Hebrews teaches that obeying the Law will not get people saved, but what will is faith in Jesus, the one who died for our sins and is now our living High Priest, elevated even higher than angels.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Jews fiercely held to the Law, which was given by Moses. To persuade them to let it go and move on to something else, God would have to offer something “better,” and that is a major theme in Hebrews. [12] Hebrews teaches that God has done something in Jesus that is “better” than what He had done in the Law. [13] Jesus is specifically said to be better than angels (1:4); he brings a better hope (7:19); guarantees and mediates a better covenant that is founded on better promises (7:22, 8:6); is a better sacrifice than those offered under the Law (9:23); reminds people of better possessions in the future, including a better future country (10:34, 11:16); offers a better resurrection (11:35), brings something better for us than the Old Testament believers had (11:40); and his blood speaks better than the blood of Abel’s sacrifice (12:24). Hebrews also shows (without specifically using the word “better”) that Jesus was a greater High Priest than Aaron (4:14-5:10) and ministers in a better sanctuary (9:11-14).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Clearly, the book of Hebrews is trying to get people saved or to understand their salvation, and change their attitude toward the Law. It follows the pattern for salvation that we see in Acts and Romans in that it shows that Jesus died for the sins of the people, was raised by God, and is Lord. It never says that believing the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah is not enough to get someone saved, never says the prophecies about the Messiah were telling only a part-truth about God and the Messiah, never presents the doctrine of the Trinity, and certainly never states that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. [14]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

In conclusion, without addressing each epistle in the New Testament, it is enough to say that they set forth the same plan of salvation as Acts, and never teach that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved. If the book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles, the very foundation of the Christian Church, do not say that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, then Christians should take that as the true doctrine of the Church and not insist that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Creeds of Christendom: The Doctrine Develops

We can see the developing and increasing influence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the increasing complexity of the creeds of Christendom, and the clarity with which they promote the Trinity. A creed is a formal and fundamental statement that clarifies a position, and determines who is “in” and who is “out” of the community defined by the creed. It is a type of statement of beliefs. The creeds are important because their content reveals what issues were being debated at the time the creed was written. For example, if a creed mentions baptism, that was important to the group. If it does not, then likely baptism was a non-issue, either because everyone agreed about it without debate, or because it was not important to the group.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

One of the earliest creeds in Christendom is the well-known Apostles’ Creed. Its date is not known, but we assume from its simple structure and content that it pre-dated the theological debates that raged in the fourth century. The later creeds are much more complex and specifically address the issues of their time. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention the Trinity or any fundamental part of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Jesus or the Holy Spirit being God. Christians who confess the Apostles’ Creed believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, who died and whom God raised from the dead, much like the teachings we find in the book of Acts. It seems conclusive that the authors of the Apostles’ Creed did not consider belief in the Trinity necessary for salvation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Nicene Creed was developed in the fourth century, likely in 381 by the Council of Constantinople, and by that time much of the Trinitarian doctrine was more clearly developed. It states that the Son was “eternally begotten” and one Being with the Father. It also mentions that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be worshipped and glorified. Despite the clear Trinitarian doctrine of the Nicene Creed, it does not state that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved. This makes sense in light of the time period in which it was written. At that time many people in the church believed in the Trinity, but many did not. Although many Christians have heard of Emperor Constantine, who presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was a Trinitarian, most people are not aware that his son Constantius, who was the Roman emperor after him (337 to 361), was not a Trinitarian, and actually was known to persecute Trinitarian bishops. The point is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not settled in the Church yet, so it makes sense that a creed published in the late 300s would include the doctrine of the Trinity but not demand that one had to believe it to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

By the time the Athanasian Creed was written, likely in the late fifth or early sixth century, more than a hundred years after the Nicene Creed, the situation in Christendom had changed. Trinitarians had become firmly in control of the Church, and non-Trinitarians were routinely persecuted, which is why, looking backward through history, there seemed to be so few of them during the Middle Ages. In contrast to the earlier creeds, the Athanasian Creed plainly states that a person had to be a Trinitarian to be saved. It was written in Latin, so English translations of it differ slightly, but it clearly reflects the conflict going on in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries about the formulation of, and belief in, the Trinity. We know that because the one subject it covers in great detail is the Trinity, and how its members relate to each other. The Athanasian Creed clearly states that a person who does not believe in the Trinity, or the incarnation of Jesus, or that Jesus is both God and man, is not saved, and this man-made document expressed what became the uncompromising teaching of the Orthodox Church.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Athanasian Creed, and pronouncements similar to it, proliferated through the Middle Ages and were maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, and then by the Protestant Church. Although there was a great resurgence of non-Trinitarian believers at the time of the Reformation, they were persecuted and even put to death by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Many of their writings were burned, but thankfully a few survived and are available today, giving us a window into non-Trinitarian thought during the Reformation.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The constant persecution of non-Trinitarians resulted in their becoming a miniscule minority through the Middle Ages and Reformation, and in the modern church, something that most churchgoers greatly misinterpret. Most people believe there are so few non-Trinitarian believers because their doctrinal position is weak, but that is drawing the wrong conclusion. The truth is that most who openly shared their faith were killed or persecuted, or were told the Trinity was a mystery they could not understand, and so the vast majority of them learned to be quiet about what they believed. The persecution of non-Trinitarians continues today, and the vast majority of them keep their beliefs to themselves so they will not be ejected from Christian meetings, called “unsaved” (or worse), and rejected by other Christians they have befriended.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Modern Church

The Sinner’s Prayer

Like the Medieval Church doctrine, the modern Orthodox Church doctrine is that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, but on a practical level there is some serious double-mindedness going on in the Church. This is true, first when it comes to evangelism and winning new converts, and second, in assuring that long-time Christians believe in the Trinity and are actually saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

When it comes to evangelism, Trinitarian evangelists and pastors teach the salvation message in a simple way, just as was done in Acts, and believe their teaching saves people. For example, Trinitarians all over the world say they get people saved by having them pray what is referred to as “the sinner’s prayer.” Although it varies somewhat from church to church, it goes something like this:

“Heavenly Father: I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, and that he died on the Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my sins and will Worship you all the day’s of my Life. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus’ Name, Amen.” [15]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

This prayer clearly shows the double-mindedness of Trinitarians because thousands of them use it to get people saved in their churches, while at the same time their doctrine says it will not get someone saved because it does not teach the Trinity. We non-Trinitarians say that based on the teaching of the New Testament, anyone who prayed and believed the above prayer is saved. We say that this practice of the Trinitarians is correct, and it is their doctrine that is in error.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The second evidence for double-mindedness among Trinitarians concerns long-time members of the Church who do not believe the Trinity because they either do not know what it is, or they do not understand it and thus do not really “believe it,” they just more or less ignore the whole doctrinal position. Spirit & Truth Fellowship International is openly non-Trinitarian, and we have been in many discussions and debates with Trinitarians since our inception in 1989. Our experience is that a significant percentage of those who attend Trinitarian churches openly confess that they do not know what the Trinity is, or when questioned, cannot define it accurately. In our experience, many churchgoers think the Trinity is simply that there are three beings, the Father God, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.”

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Many of the supposed Trinitarians we have encountered do not even believe that Jesus is God, much less that he is one of three Persons in the Trinity, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal and who together make up the One God of Christian orthodoxy. If orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, imagine the sad plight of these churchgoers on the Day of Judgment. They would stand before the Judgment Seat, expecting to live forever with Jesus because they believe God raised him from the dead and have confessed him as Lord. But instead of being granted everlasting life, the Righteous Judge condemns them to everlasting death, saying they were not really saved because they did not believe in the Trinity.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We assert that if the pastors of local churches really believed that a person had to believe in the Trinity to have everlasting life, they would teach it in great detail; regularly have sermons, classes and seminars on it; make sure that all the elders and deacons were well versed about it; and sit with new converts and any new members of their church to confirm that the person was actually saved. The actions of Trinitarian churches around the globe are speaking louder than their manual of doctrine. It seems clear that, in reality, leaders in the modern church do not really think a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

We of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International have encountered a number of people in the Church today, including pastors, who believe that the Trinity is true but admit that it is not clearly presented in the Bible, and thus say that one need not believe it to be saved. These Trinitarian Christians have seen that there is no command to believe in the Trinity, and admit non-Trinitarian believers into their churches and fellowships as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The Manifestations (or “Gifts”) of the Spirit and Salvation

The modern Church is waking up to the spiritual power Christians have, and many in different denominations are manifesting the power of God by speaking in tongues, prophecy, words [messages] of knowledge and wisdom, and healing. More and more Christians are seeing that the verse, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues…” (1 Cor. 14:5), is for all Christians. Although speaking in tongues used to be considered something done only by Pentecostals and Charismatics, now people from very diverse denominations and groups are speaking in tongues, even in the Roman Catholic Church (these are referred to as “Charismatic Catholics”).

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

It is widely admitted that the power to speak in tongues comes from God to those who are saved. Speaking in tongues, then, should be one of the great proofs of who is, and who is not saved, and if non-Trinitarians are not saved, they should not be able to speak in tongues. But many non-Trinitarian groups have members who do speak in tongues. In fact, Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian groups are similar when it comes to speaking in tongues, because some do and some do not. However, if speaking in tongues is an evidence of the presence of the spirit, and thus salvation, which we assert that it is, the fact that people who have accepted Jesus as their Lord, but who are non-Trinitarians speak in tongues is very solid evidence they are saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Conclusion

Most Christians assert that the Bible teaches the way of salvation. However, if orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, the Bible does not clearly teach how to be saved because it never clearly teaches the Trinity. Could it be that we have to teach a “more complete” message to get people saved than did Jesus, Peter, or Paul? Could it really be the case that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, even though there is not one clear presentation of it in the entire New Testament? Certainly not. We assert that the message of Peter, Paul, and others was enough to get their audiences saved and there is no evidence that God, after the book of Acts, somehow changed the rules so that now a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

The book of Acts makes it clear that when the early Christians presented Jesus Christ to the unsaved, they taught that he was a “man approved of God” who was crucified but whom God raised from the dead and who now is our Lord. This simple message has been getting people saved for some 2000 years now, and there is no evidence in Scripture or in the practices of churches around the world that one has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. We reject the decision made by men in the Church, somewhere around 500 A.D., that a person must believe in the Trinity to be saved, even though that decision and belief has been supported by Church tradition for centuries now. It is the Word of God, not tradition, that lives and abides forever.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Like the great reformers of the Protestant Reformation, who demanded to be convinced from Scripture that a doctrine is true, we demand that Trinitarians show us from Scripture that a person needs to believe in the Trinity to be saved. If they cannot do so, we respectfully submit that they retract this doctrine. Christians will never be able to achieve what our God wishes, that “…we all reach unity in the faith…” (Eph. 4:13), until Trinitarians stop demanding that to be considered Christian a person must believe something that cannot be proven from the Bible. It would be a wonderful thing if Trinitarians would draw their doctrine as well as their practice from the Word of God and welcome non-Trinitarian Christians as part of the family of God.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Epilogue

In the above study we have shown from Scripture that a person does not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved. However, there is another point we feel compelled to make. If the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, if Jesus never taught it, if no one in the book of Acts ever taught it, and if the Epistles do not clearly set it forth, can it really be that the Trinity is right doctrine? Can it be that the very foundation of the Christian faith is a doctrine that is never once set forth clearly in Scripture, but is gathered from isolated texts? God very clearly sets forth the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, including salvation, redemption, righteousness, the character of God (that He is love, light, merciful, etc.), the fallen nature of man and the need for a Savior, and the work of the Messiah. Which makes more sense, that God is clear about the foundational tenets of the Christian faith except the most important one, the Trinity, which must be gathered from isolated texts, or that the Trinity is actually a man-made doctrine, built from verses that can each be explained in a non-Trinitarian way? To us, the answer to that question is clear.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Going strictly by the evidence in Scripture, the correct biblical doctrine is the one that can be clearly seen in the Old Testament and was confirmed again and again in the New Testament. There is one God. He is spirit, so His invisible power and nature are known as the holy spirit (or the Holy Spirit). God had a Son, the Messiah, who we know as the Lord Jesus Christ, who was of the lineage of Abraham and David, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of God. All of this was taught in the Old Testament and confirmed many times in the New Testament without once being corrected to include the idea of a Triune God. There is no reason not to believe that simple message is the correct biblical doctrine.

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

[For further study, please read our article titled What About John 1:1?, and our explanation of verses commonly used to try to support the Trinity.]

Ada yang mau bantu menterjemahkan ?

Apakah begitu Yesus wafat, ajaran yang berkembang pada saat itu sama persis dengan ajaran kekristenan yang kita kenal sekarang ? Apakah Paulus satu-satunya rasul yang menyebarkan ajaran kristen saat itu ? dan ada banyak lagi pertanyaan..

Saya akan coba uraikan dengan sederhana di postingan ini. Dan tentunya bisa menjadi dasar diskusi yang lebih dalam lagi.

Menurut saya, setidaknya kita bisa bagi menjadi 2 kelompok besar, yaitu:

1. ajaran yang disebarkan kepada bangsa yahudi
2. ajaran yang disebarkan kepada bangsa non yahudi

12 rasul adalah penyebar ajaran Yesus kepada bangsa yahudi sesuai dengan perintah Yesus ketika masih hidup kepada 12 rasul:

Mat. 10:5: Kedua belas murid itu diutus oleh Yesus dan Ia berpesan kepada mereka: “Janganlah kamu menyimpang ke jalan bangsa lain atau masuk ke dalam kota orang samaria

Lalu siapakah penyebar ke bangsa non yahudi ? Kita sudah tahu semua, yaitu Paulus. Paulus adalah eks penyiksa pengikut Yesus bahkan terlibat dalam pembunuhan Stefanus. Paulus gak pernah belajar langsung kepada Yesus karena Paulus gak pernah bertemu secara fisik dengan Yesus ketika dan selama Yesus masih hidup. Paulus juga bukan anggota 12 rasul.

Paulus mendapatkan perintah untuk menyebarkan ajaran ke bangsa non yahudi itu dari penampakkan Yesus yang sudah wafat, alias bukan dari Yesus ketika Yesus masih hidup.

Ini saya kutip lagi kisahnya:

• 22:6 Tetapi dalam perjalananku ke sana, ketika aku sudah dekat Damsyik, yaitu waktu tengah hari, tiba-tiba memancarlah cahaya yang menyilaukan dari langit mengelilingi aku.

• 22:7 Maka rebahlah aku ke tanah dan aku mendengar suatu suara yang berkata kepadaku: Saulus, Saulus, mengapakah engkau menganiaya Aku???

• 22:8 Jawabku: Siapakah Engkau, Tuhan? Kata-Nya: Akulah Yesus, orang Nazaret, yang kauaniaya itu.??

Coba kamu bayangkan, bagaimana paulus bisa tahu dan kenal bahwa suara yang didengarnya itu adalah benar2 suara Yesus padahal pernah ketemu aja enggak..

<<Tambahan tanggal 13 april 2009>> rujukan yang mendukung bahwa Paulus adalah rasul bagi orang-orang non yahudi:

Paulus menceritakan bahwa penampakan Yesus menyuruhnya pergi dari Yerusalem:

22:17Sesudah aku kembali di Yerusalem dan ketika aku sedang berdoa di dalam Bait Allah, rohku diliputi oleh kuasa ilahi.

22:18Aku melihat Dia, yang berkata kepadaku: Lekaslah, segeralah tinggalkan Yerusalem, sebab mereka tidak akan menerima kesaksianmu tentang Aku.??

Paulus kemudian melakukan pengakuan dosanya yang membuat dia tidak bisa tinggal di Yerusalem :

22:19Jawabku: Tuhan, mereka tahu, bahwa akulah yang pergi dari rumah ibadat yang satu ke rumah ibadat yang lain dan yang memasukkan mereka yang percaya kepada-Mu ke dalam penjara dan menyesah mereka.

22:20Dan ketika darah Stefanus, saksi-Mu itu, ditumpahkan, aku ada di situ dan menyetujui perbuatan itu dan aku menjaga pakaian mereka yang membunuhnya.

Lalu, menurut Paulus, penampakan Yesus itu bilang seperti ini:

22:21Tetapi kata Tuhan kepadaku: Pergilah, sebab Aku akan mengutus engkau jauh dari sini kepada bangsa-bangsa lain.”??

Coba bayangin, yang memerintahkan Paulus ke orang non yahudi adalah ‘penampakkan Yesus’ dan bukannya Yesus sendiri ketika masih hidup..

Jadi, kita bisa memperkirakan betapa berbedanya ajaran yang disampaikan oleh Paulus kepada bangsa bukan yahudi dengan ajaran yang disampaikan oleh 12 rasul kepada bangsa Yahudi.. Lha wong, Paulus gak pernah belajar ke Yesus dan ke 12 rasul.. tiba2 aja dia jadi pengikut Yesus dan langsung ikutan menyebarkan ajaran dari Yesus yang dia aja gak belajar..

Kita bisa berasumsi bahwa ke-12 rasul itu pasti menyampaikan Injil (=kabar baik) juga ke bangsa yahudi.. dan Paulus juga menyampaikan Injil (=kabar baik) versi dia tentunya kepada bangsa non yahudi.

Kalau dari fakta tersebut, ajaran siapakah yang bisa kita bilang bidat ? Pasti Anda sudah tahu jawabannya, tentu saja ajaran Paulus lah yang paling masuk akal kita bilang sebagai bidat. Gak mungkin kan kita atau paulus dan rekan bilang bahwa ajaran 12 rasul yang bidat?

Dari postingan ini, kita bisa mengeksplorasi banyak hal lagi, misalnya:

1. Setelah Yesus wafat, siapa ya yang memimpin 12 rasul ?
2. Apakah Paulus pernah ‘bentrok’ dengan 12 rasul ?
3. Bagaimana posisi Petrus (anggota 12 rasul) yang katanya menjadi Paus pertama dari Gereja Roma ?
4. Bagaimana cerita pengajaran oleh 12 rasul tersebut ?
5. Kok sekarang gak terdengar lagi ?

Menarik kan? nanti kapan2 saya akan lanjutkan.. ada banyak buku yang harus dibaca, jadi mungkin agak lama..

Coba baca juga ini:

1. Yesus menyembah Tuhan atau tidak ya?
2. Kisah Paulus: Paulus dan Pemilu…

Saya menyajikan wawancara ini bukan karena saya memuja Ehrman tapi saya cuma mau sharing cara pandang yang berbeda dan punya pijakan logika yang juga kuat.

NPR melakukan wawancara dengan Ehrman mengenai buku barunya tersebut. Berikut wawancaranya:

Artikel nya bisa dibaca disini:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895 atau baca copas nya :

What is the story of Jesus’ birth? How did Judas die? What did Jesus say when he was crucified?

The answers to those questions vary depending on which Gospel you read, says Bible scholar Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them). He says that each Gospel writer had a different message — and that readers should not “smash the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think that [they] get the true understanding.”

“When Matthew was writing, he didn’t intend for somebody … to interpret his Gospel in light of what some other author said. He had his own message,” Ehrman tells Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross.

In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, Jesus dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die and asking why God has forsaken him. But in the book of Luke, Jesus prays for forgiveness for his killers. The two stories offer very different accounts, says Ehrman, yet many people tend to merge them.

“They put the two accounts into one big account,” says Ehrman. “So Jesus says all the things that he says in Mark and in Luke, and thereby robbing each account of what it’s trying to say about Jesus in the face of death. … What people do is, by combining these Gospels in their head into one Gospel, they, in effect, have written their own Gospel, which is completely unlike any of the Gospels of the New Testament.”

Now a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He was initially an evangelical Christian who believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing the contradictions among the Gospels. Eventually, he lost faith in the Bible as the literal word of God. He now describes himself as an agnostic.

Kalau mau baca cuplikan bab 4 nya silahkan klik http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895

Tapi, untuk mendengarkan seluruh isi wawancaranya silahkan play video berikut:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Bagaiaman pendapat Anda?

Diluar apa yang kita percayai tentang Yesus apakah Tuhan atau bukan, tentu menarik juga untuk mengetahui apakah sebagai seseorang manusia, Yesus juga percaya pada Tuhan atau tidak.

Mungkin ini issue yang asing bagi sebagian besar pembaca blog ini tetapi adalah suatu yang wajar jika kita ingin mengetahui apakah seorang manusia itu menyembah Tuhan atau tidak. Apalagi untuk seorang manusia sekaliber Yesus.

Tertarik gak?

Sampai saat ini, kelihatannya banyak saudara-saudara kristen yang masih memahami bahwa ajaran kekristenan yang mereka terima sekarang ini adalah sama saja dengan ajaran yang disampaikan Yesus semasa hidupnya.

Ternyata hal tersebut tidak tepat. Misalnya, Yesus tidak pernah menyembah dirinya sendiri selama masa hidupnya tetapi sekarang Yesus disembah oleh saudara-saudara kristen (christianity).

Malah kalau kita baca isi PB, sering kali tergambar dengan jelas interaksi berbentuk doa atau curhat dari Yesus ke Tuhannya, misal yang terkenal pada saat Yesus akan dan sedang disalib:

Mat. 26:39 Maka Ia maju sedikit, lalu sujud dan berdoa, kata-Nya: “Ya Bapa-Ku, jikalau sekiranya mungkin, biarlah cawan ini lalu dari pada-Ku, tetapi janganlah seperti yang Kukehendaki, melainkan seperti yang Engkau kehendaki.”

Mrk. 15:34 Dan pada jam tiga berserulah Yesus dengan suara nyaring: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakhtani?”*, yang berarti: /Allahku, Allahku, mengapa Engkau meninggalkan Aku?

Atau, pernah juga beberapa kali Yesus mengucapkan bahwa kita harus menyembah Allah yang esa:

Mrk. 12:29 Jawab Yesus: “Hukum yang terutama ialah: Dengarlah, hai orang Israel, Tuhan Allah kita, Tuhan itu esa.

Yoh. 5:44 Bagaimanakah kamu dapat percaya, kamu yang menerima hormat seorang dari yang lain dan yang tidak mencari hormat yang datang dari Allah yang Esa?

Tuhan yang esa itu adalah definisi Tuhan yang disembah Yesus dan sama dengan definisi Tuhan yang disembah bangsa Yahudi pada umumnya seperti bunyi ayat berikut:

Ul. 6:4 Dengarlah, hai orang Israel: TUHAN itu Allah kita, TUHAN itu esa!

Keempat ayat pertama pada contoh diatas adalah kutipan dari ucapan langsung Yesus ketika masih hidup. Dari situ kita dapat meyakini bahwa Yesus itu termasuk kedalam manusia yang berTuhan.

Lalu, apa agama Yesus? kemungkinan terbesar agama Yesus adalah Agamanya orang Yahudi. Karena Yesus itu orang Yahudi. dan dia sudah disunat ketika masih kecil seperti lazimnya orang yahudi yang lain. Dia juga sering pergi ke rumah ibadat orang Yahudi, termasuk untuk berdoa dan pastinya bukan untuk menyembah dirinya sendiri..

Gimana, apa pendapat kamu ?

God Bless You
To God be the Glory

PS. O ya, jika kamu rajin baca PB coba cari ayat2 mana lagi yang termasuk kategori percakapan Yesus dengan Tuhannya..

Baca juga ini:

1. Tuhan telah lahir ke dunia!!!
2. Adakah bukti yang menunjukkan Yesus itu Tuhan?
3. Yesus disunat!
4. (sambungan ke-1) Yesus disunat!
5. Good marketing – Pendekatan tipikal agar orang meyakini Yesus itu adalah Tuhan..
6. Saudara kandung Yesus
7. Video: Bayi Tanpa Ayah Lahir di Sulsel.. Apakah Dia Tuhan?
8. Darimanakah datangnya ‘percaya’ ?
9. Setelah Yesus wafat, siapa aja sih yang menyebarkan ajaran ‘kekristenan’ ? siapa yang bidat ?
10. Daftar Isi

Sebetulnya buku aslinya sudah diterbitkan sejak 1989, dan buku terjemahan nya ini baru diterbitkan maret 2007 oleh Ramala Books dengan penterjemahnya Ursula Gyani B.

Buku ini sangat menarik. Nanti suatu saat akan saya jadikan rujukan postingan berikutnya. Tapi ada yang mau saya curhatkan dari buku ini.

Pada pendahuluan buku ini, tepatnya di halaman 17 ada paragraf yang membuat saya tersenyum.. saya cukup mengerti dengan maksud penulis di paragraf tersebut:

Kami tidak sedang melancarkan Perang Salib jenis apapun. Kami tidak berhasrat untuk mengupayakan orang agar “berpindah agama”. Sudah tentu kami tidak memiliki kesengajaan untuk mencoba mengguncang iman orang.

Dalam The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, motivasi kami sangat sederhana.Kami memiliki kisah untuk dituturkan, dan kisah itu tampaknya sangat layak disampaikan.

Itu juga yang saya alami. Sepertinya semakin sering saya nyatakan bahwa saya tidak bermaksud seperti itu tapi semakin orang tidak percaya.. kayak mana lagi saya harus jelaskan..

Tapi saya juga sangat mengerti kenapa ada dan selalu akan ada orang yang beranggapan bahwa saya sedang berusaha untuk mengupayakan orang agar “berpindah agama”. Padahal, saya gak terlalu perduli siapapun mau beragama apapun. Itu pilihan pribadi masing-masing. Bahkan, menurut saya, Tuhan pun membebaskan kita untuk memilih agama apapun bahkan membebaskan kita untuk tidak mempercayainya.. Itulah kenapa banyak perbedaan pemahaman tentang Tuhan.

Kalau Tuhan mau, kan mudah. Tinggal tanamkan didalam setiap manusia suatu setting yang membuat manusia itu selalu tahu siapa Tuhan yang sebenarnya. Tapi ini kan tidak.

Oleh karena itu makanya saya percaya bahwa Tuhan punya maksud lain, yaitu ingin mencari tahu mana manusia2 yang bisa mengenaliNya, menyayangiNya, dan mematuhiNya..

Jadi akan selalu ada manusia2 yang gagal untuk mengenaliNya bahkan tidak mengakui keberadaanNya.. Apakah ini menunjukkan Tuhan tidak Kasih? saya akan jawab bahwa itu gak ada hubungannya alias jaka sembung naik ojek.. Kasih Tuhan diberikan kepada semua orang untuk membantu orang tersebut mengenaliNya.. Tetapi, kasih Tuhan tidak akan dilanjutkan kepada orang yang pada akhirnya (setelah mati) tidak bisa mengenaliNya apalagi tidak mengakui keberadaannya..

Gara2 pemahaman itu juga  lah makanya pada akhirnya saya tersentak bahwa Tuhan gak perlu repot2 menyelamatkan umat manusia. apalagi sampai mengorbankan diriNya sendiri. Kalau kita berharap atau berfikir bahwa Tuhan memang akan menyelamatkan umat manusia maka lebih masuk akal kalau:

1. Gak usahlah manusia itu sampai tergoda dan turun ke bumi. Kan ngerepotin aja kalau udah terlanjur turun ke bumi terus repot2 nyari cara untuk menyelamatkannya.
2. Kalau memang manusia harus hidup di dunia, maka gak usahlah manusia itu diberikan nafsu2, pikiran2 dan perasaan negatif segala alias manusia itu dibikin seperti robot aja..
3. Kalau emang mau nyelamatin manusia, kan Tuhan tinggal bilang: hai semua umat manusia, yg sudah mati, yang masih hidup dan yang mau lahir.. Dosa kamu semuanya sudah saya hapus.. Gampang kan? gak perlu repot2.. Tuhan gitu lo! secara Dia yg sangat kuasa!

Ya gak ?

Anyway, gimana ya caranya kita bisa menyatakan suatu pendapat tapi tidakdisalahpahami orang..?? padahal saya sudah bekerja keras untuk memilih dan menggunakan kata2 yang tidak kasar..

Agak seru juga memang kalau mengamati pemilu di negeri tercinta ini. Pendapat orang sangat beragam, umunya tidak bisa diprediksi.. dan disitulah menariknya pemilu.

Berita terakhir yang agak seru adalah soal terbitnya buku biografi dari Sintong Panjaitan, dimana salah satu isi yang menjadi ramai adalah soal Prabowo menurut versi Sintong Panjaitan.

Terlepas dari soal benar atau tidak benarnya, tapi yang saya lihat adalah adanya tuntutan dari sebagian masyarakat kita tentang latar belakang yang bersih dari calon presiden.

Lalu apa kaitannya dengan Paulus ??

Kita semua mungkin sudah tahu masa lalu yang kelam dari Paulus, seperti yang dituliskan di Kisah Para Rasul di PB, yaitu:

• 22:4 Dan aku telah menganiaya pengikut-pengikut Jalan Tuhan sampai mereka mati; laki-laki dan perempuan kutangkap dan kuserahkan ke dalam penjara.

• 22:5 Tentang hal itu baik Imam Besar maupun Majelis Tua-Tua dapat memberi kesaksian. Dari mereka aku telah membawa surat-surat untuk saudara-saudara di Damsyik dan aku telah pergi ke sana untuk menangkap penganut-penganut Jalan Tuhan, yang terdapat juga di situ dan membawa mereka ke Yerusalem untuk dihukum.

atau ketika terlibat pembunuhan Stefanus, masih di Kisah Para Rasul:

• 8:1 Saulus juga setuju, bahwa Stefanus mati dibunuh. (8-1b) Pada waktu itu mulailah penganiayaan yang hebat terhadap jemaat di Yerusalem. Mereka semua, kecuali rasul-rasul, tersebar ke seluruh daerah Yudea dan Samaria

• 8:2Orang-orang saleh menguburkan mayat Stefanus serta meratapinya dengan sangat.

• 8:3Tetapi Saulus berusaha membinasakan jemaat itu dan ia memasuki rumah demi rumah dan menyeret laki-laki dan perempuan ke luar dan menyerahkan mereka untuk dimasukkan ke dalam penjara.

Juga di pengakuan Paulus lainnya soal keterlibatannya di pembunuhan Stefanus:

• Kis. 22:20 Dan ketika darah Stefanus, saksi-Mu itu, ditumpahkan, aku ada di situ dan menyetujui perbuatan itu dan aku menjaga pakaian mereka yang membunuhnya.

Tapi, kemudian, Paulus mengaku bahwa dia menemukan penampakan Yesus, seperti diceritakan di Kisah Para Rasul:

• 22:6Tetapi dalam perjalananku ke sana, ketika aku sudah dekat Damsyik, yaitu waktu tengah hari, tiba-tiba memancarlah cahaya yang menyilaukan dari langit mengelilingi aku.

• 22:7Maka rebahlah aku ke tanah dan aku mendengar suatu suara yang berkata kepadaku: Saulus, Saulus, mengapakah engkau menganiaya Aku???

• 22:8Jawabku: Siapakah Engkau, Tuhan? Kata-Nya: Akulah Yesus, orang Nazaret, yang kauaniaya itu.??

Lalu Paulus menceritakan secara langsung bagaimana akhirnya dia akan mendapat tugas dari penampakan Yesus:

• 22:10Maka kataku: Tuhan, apakah yang harus kuperbuat? Kata Tuhan kepadaku: Bangkitlah dan pergilah ke Damsyik. Di sana akan diberitahukan kepadamu segala sesuatu yang ditugaskan kepadamu.??

Dia cerita juga perjalanannya ke damsyik:

• 22:11Dan karena aku tidak dapat melihat oleh karena cahaya yang menyilaukan mata itu, maka kawan-kawan seperjalananku memegang tanganku dan menuntun aku ke Damsyik.

Setibanya di damsyik, Paulus bertemu dengan Ananias yang menyembuhkan penglihatannya:

• 22:12Di situ ada seorang bernama Ananias, seorang saleh yang menurut hukum Taurat dan terkenal baik di antara semua orang Yahudi yang ada di situ.

• 22:13Ia datang berdiri di dekatku dan berkata: Saulus, saudaraku, bukalah matamu dan melihatlah! Dan seketika itu juga aku melihat kembali dan menatap dia.

Malah menurut Kisah Para Rasul, Ananias memberitahukan tentang masa depan Paulus:

• 22:14Lalu katanya: Allah nenek moyang kita telah menetapkan engkau untuk mengetahui kehendak-Nya, untuk melihat Yang Benar dan untuk mendengar suara yang keluar dari mulut-Nya.
• 22:15Sebab engkau harus menjadi saksi-Nya terhadap semua orang tentang apa yang kaulihat dan yang kaudengar.
• 22:16Dan sekarang, mengapa engkau masih ragu-ragu? Bangunlah, berilah dirimu dibaptis dan dosa-dosamu disucikan sambil berseru kepada nama Tuhan!

Lalu, Paulus menceritakan bahwa penampakan Yesus menyuruhnya pergi dari Yerusalem:

• 22:17Sesudah aku kembali di Yerusalem dan ketika aku sedang berdoa di dalam Bait Allah, rohku diliputi oleh kuasa ilahi.

• 22:18Aku melihat Dia, yang berkata kepadaku: Lekaslah, segeralah tinggalkan Yerusalem, sebab mereka tidak akan menerima kesaksianmu tentang Aku.??

Paulus kemudian melakukan pengakuan dosanya:

• 22:19Jawabku: Tuhan, mereka tahu, bahwa akulah yang pergi dari rumah ibadat yang satu ke rumah ibadat yang lain dan yang memasukkan mereka yang percaya kepada-Mu ke dalam penjara dan menyesah mereka.

• 22:20Dan ketika darah Stefanus, saksi-Mu itu, ditumpahkan, aku ada di situ dan menyetujui perbuatan itu dan aku menjaga pakaian mereka yang membunuhnya.

Lalu, menurut Paulus, penampakan Yesus itu bilang seperti ini:

• 22:21Tetapi kata Tuhan kepadaku: Pergilah, sebab Aku akan mengutus engkau jauh dari sini kepada bangsa-bangsa lain.”??

Mungkin kamu terus bertanya, apa hubungannya kisah Paulus itu dengan Pemilu ??

Nah, bayangkan kalau Paulus dengan pengakuannya tentang latar belakangnya yang kelam itu, mau jadi calon Presiden ?? Kemungkinan besar, sebagian besar masyarakat akan menolaknya mentah2.. Bagaimana mungkin masa depan negara dan bangsa ini digantungkan pada seseorang yang bermental pembunuh seperti itu?

Tentu saja kita tidak akan bilang bahwa Tuhan tidak mau mengampuni Paulus karena itu kewenangan Tuhan. Dan apakah dia benar2 diampuni dosanya atau tidak itu hanyalah Tuhan yang tahu. Siapa saja bisa aja menyimpulkan bahwa dia sudah diampuni atas dosanya, tapi sekali lagi, hanya Tuhan yang tahu.. Jadi, biarlah itu menjadi urusan pribadi yang bersangkutan dengan Tuhannya.

Dan kita semua akan senang kalau ada seseorang yang mau bertobat. Kita berharap agar yang bersangkutan kembali menjadi orang yang baik tetapi mohon maaf kita tidak bisa menunjuk Anda menjadi pemimpin kami.

Gitu gak kira2 pemikiran orang sekarang ? Singkatnya, kebanyakan gak ada yang mau punya pemimpin yang pernah melakukan kesalahan terbesar dalam hidupnya. Kita akan memaafkan kesalahan calon pemimpin itu tapi kita tidak berselera menjadikan dia sebagai pemimpin kita..

Kita semua akan berdoa supaya Tuhan memaafkan dosa Paulus, tetapi bagaimana kita bisa mengandalkan ajaran Paulus menjadi inti ajaran kekristenan kita sekarang?

Jika kamu termasuk orang yang tidak mau mempercayakan masa depan orang banyak pada pemimpin yang mempunyai masa lalu yang sangat kelam, MUNGKIN kamu akan berfikir seperti ini:

1. cerita paulus tentang penampakkan Tuhan itu gak bisa di buktikan dari sumber2 lain yang independen. memang Paulus bercerita ada serombongan orang lainnya dan ada Ananias, tapi sekalilagi itu adalah cerita dari Paulus sendiri.
2. cara paulus mengakui dosanya adalah usaha untuk mendramatisasi  situasi pertobatannya agar banyak orang percaya pada pertobatannya.
3. Dan keliatannya sekaligus sebagai usaha Paulus untuk melegalisasi usaha penyebaran pemahamannya tentang Yesus kepada bangsa selain Yahudi.. Padahal, selama hidup Yesus tidak pernah melakukannya.. Hanya PENAMPAKKAN YESUS versi Paulus lah yang menyuruh untuk menyebarkan ajarannya kepada bangsa non Ya

Gimana menurut pendapat kamu ?

Nanti saya lanjutkan lagi tulisannya.. Anyway, ternyata ajaran Paulus itu berbeda dengan ajaran Yesus yang diteruskan oleh saudara kandung Yesus. Tapi sementara ini baca dulu ini ya:

1. Saudara kandung Yesus
2. Apakah Maria berhubungan suami-isteri dengan Yusuf, setelah melahirkan Yesus..?
3. (sambungan ke-1) Apakah Maria berhubungan suami-isteri dengan Yusuf, setelah melahirkan Yesus..?
4. (sambungan ke-2) Apakah Maria berhubungan suami-isteri dengan Yusuf, setelah melahirkan Yesus..?

Catatan:

Artikel ini tidak bermaksud menjelek2kan nama baik Prabowo atau Sintong Panjaitan. Sampai dengan postingan ini ditulis, tidak ada kesepakatan resmi (misal melalui pengadilan) bahwa apa yang dituliskan Sintong Panjaitan tentang Prabowo itu benar. Jadi terserah pribadi2 Anda untuk mengikuti pendapat Sintong Panjaitan atau Prabowo. Kamu semua adalah mahluk bebas!

Saya cuma mau njelasin logika sederhana yang bisa menjadi dasar untuk bilang bahwa Injil itu gak asli. Dengan bilang gak asli bukan berarti saya tidak mempercayai isinya 100% lho! Itu issue yang berbeda..Misal, kamu sedang fotocopy bahan kuliah dari dosen. Karena terburu-buru, aslinya ketinggalan di tempat fotocopy. Lalu pas kamu balik, ternyata udah aslinya udah gak ada gak tau kemana. Tukang fotocopynya juga gak tau.

Nah, pertanyaannya sederhana aja. Hasil fotocopian yang kamu pegang itu asli gak? Pastilah semua orang akan sepakat bahwa itu bukan aslinya karena aslinya dah ilang.

Logis gak, kalau kamu ngotot bahwa itu asli sambil menantang: “kalo kamu bilang ini gak asli, coba tunjukkin yang asli nya mana ?, kalo kamu gak bisa nunjukkin, maka berarti yang saya pegang ini adalah asli” Gak logis kan?

Kalau ditanya, sama gak fotocopiannya dengan yang asli? Kamu pasti bilang sama kan! Tapi apakah orang lain akan langsung 100% percaya ? belum tentu karena ada kemungkinan salahsatu lembarannya gak ke copy atau misalnya sengaja kamu umpetin supaya temen kamu gak bisa belajar isinya dan lain-lain..

Gimana kalau fotocopian itu difotocopy oleh 1 temen kamu yg beda kampus dan 20 temen 1 kampus? gimana kalau kemudian di fotocopy lagi oleh famili 1temen kamu yang beda kota.. Gimana kalau copy-mengcopy itu berlangsung ratusan tahun? pasti fotocopian itu akan menjadi banyak dan tersebar kan?

Lalu misal suatu saat ada seseorang menemukan fotocopian itu jadi bungkus kacang rebus yang dia beli, pertanyaannya, asli gak tuh? itu salinan turunan yang keberapa ya? bisa gak kita ikutin silsilah copiannya itu sampai ke aslinya?

Nah sekarang apakah perumpamaan itu cocok buat Injil ? ternyata cocok, karena Injil yang biasa kita baca itu berasal dari salinan dari salinan yang kesekian dari yang asli, yang ditulis kira2 abad ketiga. Menurut taksiran para ahli, Injil Markus yang ditulis paling duluan, itu ditulis sekitar tahun 70an, sedangkan yang kita miliki itu adalah salinannya yang ditemukan di abad ke-3.

Jadi, dulu, untuk mendistribusikan suatu tulisan ke jamaat di daerah2/kota2 yang jauh maka dibuatlan beberapa salinan2nya yang kemudian dibuatkan lagi salinannya lagi. Masalahnya, dulu belum ada mesin fotocopy, jadi ya disalin ulang. Nah keakuratannya sangat tergantung pada kelakuan individu2 penyalinnya.

Jadi kalau ditemukan suatu salinan Injil di daerah tertentu, pertanyaannya selalu klasik. Ini kira2 berasal dari salinan yang keberapa ya? dari tahun berapa? dst..

Gimana menurut pendapat kamu?

Kita gak bisa bilang bahwa isi Injil sekarang tidak sama 100% dengan Injil tersebut pada saat pertama kali ditulis, ya nggak? Tapi kita juga gak bisa yakin bahwa Injil sekarang itu sama 100% dengan Injil yang asli pertama kali ditulis..

Ternyata Injil yang asli itu dah disalin (untuk disebarluaskan) menjadi beberapa salinan, dan salinan itu disalin lagi menjadi beberapa salinan.. begitu seterusnya ratusan tahun..

Nah kadang untuk suatu naskah suci ditemukan dalam beberapa salinan yang berasal dari tahun dan lokasi penemuan yang berbeda. Masalahnya, ternyata dari perbandingan terhadap nasakah2 salinan tersebut ditemukan perbedaan2.

Coba baca bahasan detilnya di postingan lain yang terkait:

1. Daftar isi

Postingan saya

1. Tambahan nas / ayat pada Injil Markus tentang penampakkan diri Yesus
2. (Sambungan ke-1) Tambahan nas / ayat pada Injil Markus tentang penampakkan diri Yesus
3. Memahami kemungkinan terjadinya distorsi pada isi Perjanjian Baru..
4. Memahami silsilah penyusunan Alkitab dan “Kritik Naskah”

Postingan kutipan berasal dari Misquoting Jesus oleh Bart D. Ehrman

1. Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis
2. (Sambungan ke-1) Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis – Antiadopsionis
3. (Sambungan ke-2) Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis – Antiadosetik
4. (Sambungan ke-3) Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis – Antiseparasionis

Mengenal Bart D. Ehrman:

1. Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
2. (Sambungan ke-1) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
3. (Sambungan ke-2) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
4. (Sambungan ke-3) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
5. (Sambungan ke-4) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
6. (Sambungan ke-5) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
7. (Sambungan ke-6) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”

Video terkait:

1. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 1/10
2. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 2/10
3. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 3/10
4. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 4/10
5. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 5/10
6. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 6/10
7. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 7/10
8. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 8/10
9. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 9/10
10. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 10/10

Saya mendapatkan sebuah buku bagus yang berjudul “Naskah Laut Mati (1); Terjemahan Terbaik dan Komprehensif dari Gulungan-Gulungan Naskah Kuno Kontroversial. Memuat materi yang belum pernah dipublikasikan atau diterjemahkan”.

Buku itu berisi terjemahan Naskah Laut Mati oleh dan komentar dari Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr, dan Edward Cook.

Buku tersebut aslinya berbahasa inggris berjudul The Dead Sea Scrolls yang diterbitkan tahun 2005 oleh Harper San Fransisco, A Division of HarperCollinsPublisher.

Edisi Bahasa Indonesianya diterbitkan oleh Serambi Ilmu Semesta 2008 dan diterjemahkan ke bahasa indonesia oleh FX Dono Sunardi.

Berikut saya salin tulisan dari halaman 19 sampai dengan halaman 25 yang menjelaskan secara singkat isi dari salinan-salinan Gulungan Laut Mati.

Saran saya sih, beli saja bukunya.. bagus deh.. terutama yang tertarik dan memiliki rasa ingintahu tentang apa yang terjadi pada masa-masa sekitar kelahiran dan kehidupan Yesus.

Berikut kutipannya, perhatikan kalimat yang saya tebalkan hurufnya:

ISI

Seperti sudah disinggung sebelumnya, seluruh gulungan tersebut, dengan beberapa pengecualian kecil, merupakan teks religius orang Yahudi.
Dalam pengertian tertentu, fakta bahwa semua tulisan itu besifat religius sungguh mengejutkan. Mengapa tidak ada salinan karya-karya tentang pertanian atau peternakan — mengenai berbagai topik praktis ? Orang-orang Yahudi pada periode ini merupakan kaum petani. Tidakkah mereka ingin atau butuh membaca kitab-kitab sekuler atau duniawi semacam itu?
Bila kita mempertimbangkan isi gulungan-gulungan tersebut, dengan segera kita mulai bisa melihat adanya unsur intensionalitas atau “kesengajaan” di dalam fakta bahwa mereka dikumpulkan dan disembunyikan di dalam gua. Ini bukanlah suatu koleksi acak dari “apa yang terdapat disana” — bukan suatu temuan kebetulan dari rak buku ini dan itu.

Berbagai tulisan religius ini terbagi menjadi dua jenis: biblis dan bukan biblis. Teks-teks biblis merupakan salinan dari Alkitab Ibrani (istilah yang, secara religius, netral untuk menyebut himpunan Perjanjian Lama Kristen), dan menyusun sekitar seperempat dari jumlah keseluruhan gulungan yang ada. Himpunan ini berisi satu salinan dari tiap-tiap kitab di dalam Alkitab orang Yahudi, kecuali, kitab Esther.

“Gulungan Laut Mati” merupakan kumpulan manuskrip Perjanjian Lama tertua yang pernah ditemukan — setidak-tidaknya seribu tahun lebih tua daripada berbagai teks Ibrani tradisional dari periode awal abad pertengahan yang dijadikan landasan bagi semua terjemahan Alkitab modern kita.
Dalam banyak hal, gulungan-gulungan tersebut mendukung atau sesuai dengan teks Alkitab yang tradisional, tetapi, dalam hal-hal lain, yang berbunyi di dalam berbagai ayat khususnya (“bacaan” mereka) sejalan dengan dengan versi-versi non tradisional seperti Septuaginta. (Septuaginta adalah terjemahan kuno Perjanjian Lama ke dalam bahasa Yunani yang digunakan oleh orang-orang Yahudi di Mesir.) Kadang-kadang, gulungan tersebut mengandung bacaan yang sebelumnya tidak pernah kita ketahui keberadaannya.

Dalam kasus lain, gulungan-gulungan tersebut memuat berbagai perbedaan yang lebih mendalam daripada bacaan ayat-ayat individual.
Gulungan-gulungan tersebut mengandung berbagai “edisi” kitab biblis utuh yang berbeda dari teks tradisionalnya.
Sebagai misal, ada dua kitab Yeremia yang ditemukan di gua-gua Qumran, satu sesuai dengan yang biasanya dicetak dan diterjemahkan di dalam Alkitab modern, sementara yang lain sekitar 15 persen lebih singkat dam memiliki isi yang urutannya berbeda.
Beberapa versi kitab Mazmur mempunyai sifat serupa. Versi-versi ini sangat berbeda satu sama lain, secara khusus dari Mazmur 90 dan seterusnya. Mazmur 90-150 disusun dalam tata urutan yang berbeda, dan, selain itu, beberapa manuskrip menyertakan mazmur-mazmur tambahan yang sebelumnya tidak diketahui.
Isi dan bentuk kitab Mazmur terus-menerus berubah di dalam kurun waktu ketika gulungan-gulungan tersebut ditulis.
(Untuk membaca beberapa Mazmur tambahan semacam ini, yang diyakini telah ditulis oleh Daud, silahkan lihat Mazmur-mazmur Apokrip, teks 17, dan Mazmur-mazmur Apokrip Daud, teks 151.)

Dengan cara yang sama, penemuan gulungan-gulungan tersebut menunjukkan bahwa pada periode ini terdapat antologi  kutipan biblis, “Alkitab salinan”, serta sumber-sumber yang mungkin dipakai oleh para penulis kitab biblis yang hilang.
Dua yang disebut pertama didalam kategori ini jelas-jelas merupakan metode penafsiran Alkitab; di keduanya, materi ditambahkan ke dalam teks-teks biblis yang dikutip.
Penambahan tersebut dimaksudkan untuk memberikan kesan tertentu kepada bagian biblis yang ditafsirkan.
Apakah orang memahami tipe-tipe teks semacam ini lebih tidak otoritatif daripada Alkitab itu sendiri adalah persoalan yang wajar, mengingat kontur akhir Alkitab belum tetap.
Penyembahan Raja Nabonidus (teks 47) adalah sebuah contoh dari manuskrip gulungan yang mengandung sumber yang kiranya telah mengilhami seorang penulis Alkitab, dalam hal ini Daniel. Teks Penyembahan ini merupakan versi yang lebih primitif dari kisah mengenai raja Babilonia, Nebukadnezzar, yang familiar bagi pembaca Daniel bab 4 modern.

Singkatnya, gulungan-gulungan tersebut membuktikan bahwa orang-orang Yahudi pada masa Yesus telah mengetahui dan menggunakan lebih dari satu bentuk kitab biblis yang jumlahnya banyak, dan hal itu tampaknya tidak mengganggu mereka atau mendorong mereka untuk menyelesaikan berbagai perbedaan tersebut.
Lagi pula, pada waktu itu belum ada kanon Alkitab yang disepakati bersama. Kitab-kitab mana saja yang akan dimasukkan ke dalam himpunan Alkitab dan dalam bentuk atau edisi apa belum diputuskan.
Tidak diragukan lagi, orang-orang Yahudi dan berbagai kelompok mereka akan memilih kitab otoritatif yang berlainan. Banyak dari antara teks yang termasuk di dalam Gulungan Laut Mati, walaupun bukan merupakan bagian dari Alkitab dewasa ini, bisa dipastikan dipandang sebagai kitab suci yang otoritatif oleh setidak-tidaknya kelompok orang Yahudi pascapembuangan tertentu. Baru pada waktu kemudian, tepatnya setelah tahun 100 Masehi, suatu versi standar Alkitab muncul.

Teks-teks bukan biblis, secara sederhana, adalah berbagai salinan teks religius yang tidak ditemukan di dalam Alkitab.
Didasarkan pada ketidaktahuan kami, teks-teks ini lebih jauh dibagi kedalam dua kategori lagi. Beberapa teks bukan biblis telah diketahui keberadaannya sebelum penemuan Gulungan Laut Mati, sementara yang lain sama sekali tidak diketahui sampai gulungan-gulungan tersebut dibaca.

Teks-teks bukan biblis yang telah diketahui sebelumnya adalah berbagai karya religius seperti Yubileum, 1 Henokh, dan Kesaksian Dua Belas Bapa Bangsa.
Meskipun orang-orang Yahudi menulis teks-teks tersebut (atau bentuk-bentuk lebih awal darinya) dalam bagasa Aram dan Ibrani pada masa kuno, berbagai tulisan ini tidak bertahandi kalangan orang Yahudi.
Mereka justru bertahan diantara orang-orang Kristen saja, yang mengadaptasinya dan menerbitkannya ulang sebagai literatur penyempurna, bahkan kadang-kadang menganggap mereka sebagai bagian dari Teks Suci.
Baik kitab Yubileum maupun 1 Henokh bertahan dan diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Ethiopia kuno, sebagai komponen atau bagian dari Perjanjian Lama yag diakui oleh Gereja Ethiopia.
Kitab Kesaksian hanya ada di dalam bahasa Yunani.
Contoh lain adalah kitab Tobit. Diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Yunani pada masa kuno, kitab ini menjadi bagian di dalam kanon Perjanjian Lama Gereja Katolik Roma.
Namun, sampai penemuan Qumran, tidak diketahui bahasa aslinya. Salinan-salinannya, baik dalam bahasa Ibrani maupun Aram, telah berhasil ditemukan. Penemuan manuskrip ini sendiri sudah layak disebut sebagai Penemuan Terbesar Abad ini.

…

Jika kamu sudah sering baca postingan di blog ini, tentunya akan mengerti dengan maksud saya menebalkan beberapa kalimat di atas kan?

Tulisan tersebut, sekali lagi mendukung persepsi saya tentang Alkitab: Saya tidak bisa bilang bahwa saya tidak bisa percaya Alkitab 100%, tapi saya juga tidak bisa bilang bahwa saya bisa percaya Alkitab 100%.

Saya juga sependapat dengan Ehrman bahwa kalau memang Tuhan benar-benar ingin menjaga kesucian kitab sucinya maka Tuhan pasti akan mewujudkannya dalam bentuk/cara/mekanisme yang dapat membuat kita lebih bisa yakin tentang keakuratan Alkitab. Tanpa harus berlindung dibalik pemahaman keimanan bahwa semua penulis dan penyalin Alkitab sudah diilhami oleh Roh Kudus..

Baca juga postingan lain yang terkait:

1. Daftar isi

Postingan saya

1. Tambahan nas / ayat pada Injil Markus tentang penampakkan diri Yesus
2. (Sambungan ke-1) Tambahan nas / ayat pada Injil Markus tentang penampakkan diri Yesus
3. Memahami kemungkinan terjadinya distorsi pada isi Perjanjian Baru..
4. Memahami silsilah penyusunan Alkitab dan “Kritik Naskah”

Postingan kutipan berasal dari Misquoting Jesus oleh Bart D. Ehrman

1. Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis
2. (Sambungan ke-1) Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis – Antiadopsionis
3. (Sambungan ke-2) Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis – Antiadosetik
4. (Sambungan ke-3) Bart D. Ehrman: Pengubahan yang Dimotivasi Kepercayaan Teologis – Antiseparasionis

Mengenal Bart D. Ehrman:

1. Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
2. (Sambungan ke-1) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
3. (Sambungan ke-2) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
4. (Sambungan ke-3) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
5. (Sambungan ke-4) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
6. (Sambungan ke-5) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”
7. (Sambungan ke-6) Siapakah Bart D. Ehrman yang menulis buku “Misquoting Yesus”

Video terkait:

1. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 1/10
2. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 2/10
3. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 3/10
4. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 4/10
5. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 5/10
6. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 6/10
7. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 7/10
8. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 8/10
9. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 9/10
10. Video Kuliah Bart D. Ehrman, pengarang “Misquoting Jesus”, di Stanford University, How Bible Tainted 10/10

Tulisan yang bagus untuk menyempurnakan keimanan kita kepada Tuhan yang sebenar-benarnya Tuhan.. Tuhan Maha Pencipta.. Tuhan yang bukan manusia tentunya..

———-
Tahun, Semesta, dan Kehidupan
IPTEK – Ninok Leksono
Kompas, Rabu 31 Desember 2008

“Mungkin Tuhan menciptakan Alam Semesta bagi kemaslahatan kita” (Fisikawan, Andrei Linde, Discover, 12/08)

Dalam beberapa jam lagi, Matahari terakhir tahun 2008 akan tenggelam di ufuk barat, dan warga dunia pun berpesta menyambut datangnya tahun baru. Inilah peristiwa yang mengulangi apa yang terjadi, setahun silam, dua tahun silam, sepuluh tahun silam, se abad silam, satu milenium silam, dan sejuta tahun silam… bahkan semiliar tahun sekalipun.
Seperti kita petik dari ilmu astronomi, sistem Matahari-Bumi yang melahirkan konsep tahun – yaitu periode atau kurun waktu sekali Bumi mengelilingi Matahari- sudah lahir sekitar 4,5 milyar tahun silam.

Seperti itulah “rutin” yang akan dijalani penduduk Bumi selama sekitar empat miliar tahun lagi, yakni sebelum Matahari mengembang menjadi bintang raksasa merah yang akan memanggang bumi.

Menjadi pertanyaan menarik, masihkah kehidupan ada di Bumi saat itu? Atau manusia sudah bertransformasi menjadi makhluk pengelana antariksa? Pertanyaan itu masuk akal karena bahkan sekarang pun kondisi lingkungan di Bumi mulai tampak menurun akibat aktivitas manusia.

Tahun dan “tahun”

Dengan jarak rerata dari bintang induk Matahari 150 juta kilometer, Bumi perlu 365 hari untuk sekali mengelilingi Matahari. Itulah satu tahun kita.
Bagi planet Merkurius yang berjarak 57,5 juta kilometer dari Matahari, satu tahun di sana tidak 365 hari, tetapi 87,9 hari Bumi.
Lalu satu tahun untuk Venus hanya 224,7 hari Bumi.
Sementara itu, satu tahun untuk planet luar, yang jaraknya dari Matahari lebih besar dari Bumi, yakni Mars 686,9 hari Bumi, Jupiter 11,9 tahun Bumi, Saturnus 29,5 tahun Bumi, Uranus 84 tahun Bumi, Neptunus 164,8 tahun Bumi, dan Pluto 247,9 tahun Bumi.
Ibaratnya, untuk merayakan tahun baru di Pluto-seandainya manusia bisa hidup di planet yang jauhnya 40 kali jarak Matahari-Bumi ini- diperlukan tempo 247,9 tahun!

Di Bumi, jangka waktu selama itu telah diisi oleh berbagai kemajuan teknologi dan peradaban yang luar biasa.
Kalau saat ini di Pluto ada perayaan menyambut tahun baru, maka perayaan tahun baru sebelumnya terjadi tahun 1760 Bumi, satu dekade sejak awal Revolusi Industri di Inggris.
Kita sudah menyaksikan betapa hebatnya perkembangan zaman sejak Revolusi Industri hingga hari ini.

Ya, ketika berbicara tentang tahun, yang berarti juga tentang waktu, manusia Bumi pun mau tidak mau harus berbicara tentang jarak. Jaraklah yang sebenarnya membuat manusia seperti tidak berdaya -karena kecilnya- di hadapan kosmos yang mahaluas.

Dalam ketidak berdayaan menghadapi jarak, manusia telah memperlihatkan keteguhannya untuk tidak mau menyerah. Melalui wahana antariksa seperti Pioneer 10 (diluncurkan tahun 1972) dan Pioneer 11 (1973), mata manusia telah dibawa ke jarak lebih jauh dari planet Mars, sehingga citra planet raksasa Jupiter secara close-up pun bisa dibuat.

Wahana Voyager bahkan melangkah lebih jauh. Setelah diluncurkan tahun 1977, Voyager 2 menjadi wahana buatan manusia pertama yang mendekati planet Uranus dan Neptunus, sementara Voyager 1 yang menempuh arah berlainan kini telah memasuki ruang antar bintang.

Namun, harus diakui, meski ciptaannya telah berhasil menjangkau ruang antarbintang, jarak sekitar 10 miliar kilometer tersebut masih sangat-sangat kecil untuk ukuran kosmos.

Sekadar perbandingan, bintang terdekat dari Bumi, Alpha Centauri, sudah berjarak 4,5 tahun cahaya -yakni jarak yang ditempuh cahaya dalam satu tahun- adalah sekitar 9,5 triliun kilometer. Bisa kita hitung berapa triliun kilometer jarak Alpha Centauri ke Bumi.

Bisa juga kita hitung berapa jarak dalam kilometer dari Matahari kita yang ada di salah satu lengan Galaksi Bima Sakti (Milky Way) ke pusat Galaksi yang jauhnya 30.000 tahun cahaya. Juga bisa kita hitung jarak galaksi terdekat, yakni Andromeda, yang jauhnya 2 juta tahun cahaya.

Bak Debu

Di hadapan kosmos, Bumi dan manusia ibarat debu yang dimensinya demikian kecil.
Namun, Sang Maha Pencipta rupanya memberikan kelebihan yang sungguh besar kepada manusia.
Ini diwujudkan dengan munculnya temuan ilmiah terakhir yang memperlihatkan bahwa alam semesta tercipta untuk kehidupan. Jadi, bukan kehidupan menyesuaikan diri dengan alam semesta, tetapi justru alam semestalah yang menyesuaikan diri untuk kehidupan.

Pemahaman baru ini muncul setahap demi setahap di kalangan astronom yang mempelajari kosmos. Astronom yang bekerja di kegelapan malam di observatorium Cile yang amat gelap dan tinggi merasakan dirinya bukan warga Bumi, tetapi warga Galaksi. (The sensation of being on Earth faded away, she recalled. “I was a citizen of the Galaxy.” Dari “Space -The Once and Future Frontier”/NG)

Adanya kedekatan, meskipun terpisahkan oleh jarak mahajauh, seperti menyiratkan bahwa kehidupan merupakan “anak kandung” alam semesta.
Dalam penjelasannya kepada Tim Folger (Discover, Desember 2008), fisikawan visioner Andrei Linde dari Universitas Stanford di Palo Alto, California menyebutkan, sifat-sifat dasar alam semesta secara ajaib pas untuk kehidupan.
Kalau hukum fisika yang berlaku diubah sedikit saja -di alam semesta ini- maka kehidupan yang kita kenal ini tidak akan pernah ada.

Ambil dua contoh.
Atom terdiri dari proton, neutron, dan elektron. Kalau proton 0,2 persen lebih berat, ia akan tidak stabil dan akan meluruh jadi partikel lebih simpel. Atom lalu tidak akan eksis, demikian pula kita.
Kalau gravitasi sedikit saja lebih kuat, bintang-bintang akan mengerut lebih kuat, membuatnya lebih kecil, panas, dan padat. Bintang tidak akan bertahan miliaran tahun, tetapi akan terbakar habis bahan bakarnya dalam jutaan tahun, lalu padam jauh sebelum kehidupan punya peluang untuk berevolusi.

Ada banyak contoh yang memperlihatkan bahwa alam semesta punya sifat ramah terhadap kehidupan sehingga para fisikawan sulit menganggapnya hanya sebagai kebetulan.

Kita hidup dalam satu waktu dan tempat khusus di alam semesta di mana kehidupan mungkin terjadi. (Ini dikenal sebagai Prinsip Antropik Lemah).
Sementara Prinsip Antropik Kuat menegaskan bahwa hukum-hukum fisika memang bias (amat pro) terhadap kehidupan.
Freeman Dyson, fisikawan di Institute for Advanced Study di Princeton, lebih gamblang lagi mengatakan bahwa Prinsip Antropik Kuat menyiratkan. “alam semesta tahu kita akan datang”.

Kalau memang ini soalnya, tampaknya ada titah khusus yang diamanatkan kepada kehidupan, dan khususnya kepada manusia dari alam semesta, atau dari Penciptanya.
Menjadi kewajiban kitalah untuk secara cerdas menangkap amanat tersebut. Ini tentu lebih serius daripada sekadar mengulang ritual setiap tahun tatkala Matahari di hari akhir bulan Desember tenggelam di ufuk barat.
———-

Komentar saya: Luar biasa!!!

Saya jadi terfikir, kalau umur rata2 manusia maksimal adalah 60 tahun, maka:

• Umur manusia dalam hitungan tahun Merkurius (planet terdekat) adalah (60 x 365) / 87,9 = 249,15 tahun.
• Umur manusia dalam hitungan tahun Pluto (planet terjauh) adalah 60/247,9 = 0,24 tahun atau tidak lebih dari 3 bulan saja.

Betapa relatif nya umur manusia! Betapa relatifnya pemahaman 1 tahun itu..

Lalu, dengan umur maksimal 60 tahun, kira2 paling jauh kita bisa sampai kemana ya di alam semesta ini?

Mungkin suatu saat nanti teknologi transportasi tidak menggunakan pesawat lagi, tetapi dengan merubah fisik manusia menjadi cahaya untuk kemudian ditembakkan ke tujuan yang diinginkan.

Dan ternyata itu pun masih belum cukup untuk pergi menuju tujuan terjauh! Misal ke jarak galaksi terdekat, yakni Andromeda, yang jauhnya 2 juta tahun cahaya. Perlu temuan luar biasa untuk menjadi pengelana alam semesta.

Betapa luarbiasanya Tuhan Pencipta Alam Semesta ini! Siapapun nama Engkau, Tuhan!

Akhirnya, gak ada lagi yang bisa saya sampaikan kecuali mengimani perkataan Yesus:

Mat. 22:37 Jawab Yesus kepadanya: “Kasihilah Tuhan, Allahmu, dengan segenap hatimu dan dengan segenap jiwamu dan dengan segenap akal budimu.
Mrk. 12:30 Kasihilah Tuhan, Allahmu, dengan segenap hatimu dan dengan segenap jiwamu dan dengan segenap akal budimu dan dengan segenap

Yesus tidak pernah menyatakan dirinya Tuhan.. Sebagian dari kita lah yang menganggapnya Tuhan.. Yesus hanya seorang manusia.
Betapa konyolnya nya kita, menuhankan seorang manusia sementara manusia hanyalah sebutir debu di tengah-tengah alam semesta ini..
Begitu juga, betapa konyolnya ide pemahaman bahwa Tuhan menjelma menjadi seorang manusia sementara manusia hanyalah sebutir debu ditengah-tengah alam semesta ini.

Resolusi saya di tahun 2009 adalah berusaha selalu setia pada Tuhan yang sebenar-benarnya Tuhan,

yaitu Tuhan Maha Pencipta yang menciptakan alam semesta, Malaikat, “tuhan”-“tuhan” yang lain, Roh, Iblis, Jin, manusia, binatang, tanaman dan segala yang pernah kita lihat dan rasakan..

yaitu Tuhan yang bukan malaikat, Roh, iblis, Jin, Manusia, binatang, tanaman atau apapun yang pernah kita lihat dan rasakan. Tuhan yang tidak akan pernah sama dengan ciptaanNya karena itu tidak masuk akal..

yaitu Tuhan yang bentuknya tidak akan pernah sama dengan apa yang pernah kita lihat dan rasakan.
Mencoba memahami bentuk dan jenis Tuhan adalah “melampaui akal”, tetapi memahami keberadaannya adalah dapat didekati oleh akal (masuk akal). Dan, mencoba memahami manusia sebagai Tuhan adalah tidak dapat didekati oleh akal (tidak masuk akal) bukannya “melampaui akal”

yaitu Tuhan yang Maha Mengetahui tetapi tidak berarti Tuhan harus memiliki mata, telinga, dan hidung.
Mencoba memahami bentuk dan jenis Tuhan adalah “melampaui akal”, tetapi memahami keberadaannya adalah dapat didekati oleh akal (masuk akal).

yaitu Tuhan yang tidak pernah digoda oleh / berkelahi dengan Iblis, Syetan, atau Kuasa Kegelapan karena Iblis, Setan, dan Kuasa Kegelapan adalah ciptaan Tuhan..

yaitu Tuhan yang tidak perlu mengalahkan kematian karena kematian hanya ada pada ciptaanNya bukan pada Tuhan yang menciptakan

yaitu Tuhan yang memiliki keajaiban, dimana kejadian keajaibannya tidak membutuhkan orang untuk mempercayai/mengimaninya agar keajaiban itu dapat sempurna terjadi.

yaitu Tuhan yang memberikan kebebasan sebesar-besarnya kepada manusia untuk mengimani atau tidak mengimaniNya.
Eksistensi Tuhan tidak membutuhkan keimanan manusia. Iblis, Setan dan kuasa gelap lainnya tidak menunjukkan bahwa Tuhan tidak Kuasa.

yaitu Tuhan yang meletakkan kita pada suatu proses seleksi untuk mengetahui manusia mana yang benar-benar mengimani dan menyayangiNya.

yaitu Tuhan yang memiliki mekanisme pertanggungjawaban terhadap apa-apa yang pernah dikerjakan oleh Iblis, Setan, Kuasa Gelap, dan Manusia

yaitu Tuhan Maha Pencipta yang memiliki nama yang beragam mulai dari Tuhan Bapa, Yahweh, Allah SWT, Sang Hyang Widhi atau tidak bernama tetapi diyakini sebagai Tuhan yang Maha Pencipta oleh orang-orang yang tidak beragama.

yaitu Tuhan Maha Pencipta yang menjadi benang merah penghubung semua agama dan keyakinan terhadap adanya Tuhan tapi tidak beragama

yaitu Tuhan Maha Pencipta yang merupakan irisan (intersection) dari pemahaman ketuhanan semua agama dan keyakinan terhadap adanya Tuhan tapi tidak beragama

Saya akan berusaha mengasihi Engkau Tuhanku (yang pastinya bukan manusia) dengan segenap hatiku dan dengan segenap jiwaku dan dengan segenap akal budiku.

Saya akan berusaha setia pada Engkau Tuhan (yang pastinya bukan manusia) dalam damai..

Baca juga:

1. Darimanakah datangnya ‘percaya’ ?
2. Adakah bukti yang menunjukkan Yesus itu Tuhan?
3. Sebab & akibat, baik & tidak baik, pahala & dosa, reward & punishment
4. Daftar isi

Selamat Natal

Semoga Tuhan Selalu Memberkati!

Jawab Yesus kepadanya: “Kasihilah Tuhan, Allahmu, dengan segenap hatimu dan dengan segenap jiwamu dan dengan segenap akal budimu. (Mat. 22:37)