April 2016 – Page 7 – TrueFreeThinker

A great difficulty with Baha’ism’s Manifestations of God is that the Manifestations contradict each other in doctrinal matters. These doctrines cannot be reconciled. This is not only true of minor issues, such as ritual, but these disagreements cut to the heart of every fundamental teaching.

Francis Beckwith has written,

“All roads lead to God,I’ve heard so many people sayBut when they get to Jonestown

They beg to look the other way.”1

English journalist, Steve Turner has sarcastically written,

“We believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.”2

The Baha’i respond to these sorts of arguments in two different ways.First, they the claim that God is unknowable and so each world religion only has a piece of the puzzle which only makes it seem as if they are in contradiction. Yet, if this where so, how could the Baha’i claim some concepts of God’s nature to be wrong?For instance, some religions claim that God is unknowable, such as Baha’ism and Islam, but they seem to know a great deal about God. They claim to know that God is not triune and that He does not take on human form, but how can this be known if God is unknowable?

According to Baha’ism what is known of God is what has been revealed through His Manifestations but these are the very same Manifestations who contradict each other regarding the nature of God.

Second, they claim that Baha’ism is currently the latest revelation from God and therefore it nullifies all previous revelations. Most religions claim to have an infallible interpreter of their own teaching, but Baha’ism claims to be the infallible interpreter of ALL the teachings of ALL of the world’s religions. Thus, Baha’ism views the world religions as being in error having either corrupted, mistranslated or misinterpreted scripture and corrupted teachers and teachings.

This is in part due to the fact that Baha’ism exaggerates the concept of sealed up prophecy.They claim,

“_many of the prophecies are admittedly ‘sealed’ sayings, and the True Educator himself is the only One who can break the seals and show the real meanings contained in the casket of words.”3

But we need to ask, “Who is this True Educator?”

“The Promised One of all the peoples of the world hath appeared. All peoples and communities have been expecting a Revelation, and He, Baha’u’llah, is the foremost teacher and educator of all mankind.”4

So, what does the Bible state in this regard? There is only one Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit) and He testifies of Jesus,

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26).

The Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, inspired the Biblical prophets,

“For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2nd Peter 1:16-20).

Christians have the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, dwelling within,

“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth” (1st John 2:18-21).

We can know who is of God and who is not,

“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked” (1st John 2:3-6).

A warning against not heeding scripture,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God:Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1st John 4:1-6).

There is a well-known concept held by the Mormons regarding the Bible, their 8th Article of Faith states in part, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” The question is how can they know what has or has not been translated correctly? Do they use hermeneutics to determine this? Do you examine the manuscript evidence to determine this? Are history and archaeology consulted in making such determinations?
No, the practical answer is that wherever the Bible contradicts Mormon doctrine the Bible must be in error. Likewise with Baha’ism-any Biblical texts, or in fact any of the texts from the world’s holy books, that seem to support Baha’ism are considered true, while any text that contradicts Baha’ism is considered corrupt, mistranslated, misinterpreted, or symbolic.

What all of this means is that the Baha’i have no functional system of hermeneutic or exegesis.5 However, even with allegorical and liberal handling of the texts it is still not possible for the Baha’ism to logicall and viably merge all of the world’s religions.Hinduism believes in reincarnation-the Baha’i Faith does not.Buddhism believes in the cycle of rebirth-the Baha’i Faith does not.Islam believes that Muhammad was the last prophet and that the Qur’an is the final revelation of God-the Baha’i Faith denies both doctrines.Zoroastrianism believes in two equal and opposite gods-the Baha’i Faith does not.Christianity believes that Jesus is the only Person who can offer salvation-the Baha’i Faith does not.

The list could go on, every religion has essential doctrine that the Baha’i Faith denies either in whole or in part.

In conclusion, Baha’ism claims to unify the world’s religious systems while in reality it is only the empty caricature of each world religion that can be unified. The claim that the Manifestations have come to give us an additional piece of the God’s pie is not reasonable because it is not constructive to claim that what God has wanted us to know about Him is that He is one, and many, and triune, and apart from the universe, and part of the universe, all at the same time.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.

If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.

Here is my donate/paypal page.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Did Jesus Say “I am God”?

A friend and I were asked, “Show me where Jesus said ‘I am God.'” We pointed the inquirer to John 8:58 where Jesus states “before Abraham was I AM.”

The response was “he did not say ‘I am God.'”

Of course, that is precisely what Jesus was saying and the text makes it clear that the Jews understood this fact so well that they attempted to stone Jesus to death for blasphemy, for claiming to be God. In saying “I AM” He was claiming for Himself the name of God given to Moses from the burning bush in order to identify Him as the one God (see Exodus 3:14). Jesus also sent His apostles to baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Note that He did not say names (plural) but name (singular). He makes His name the same as that of the God whom the Jews worship.

Here is the problem; we must first determine whether the question being posed based upon an appropriate premise. A premise is a proposition (a plan or scheme proposed) supporting or helping to support a conclusion. A faulty premise will not end in an appropriate conclusion.

For example, the various skeptics want to hear Jesus say what they want to hear in the North American English grammar de jour (or whichever language in which the skeptic finds herself dealing). In this case, the person wanted to see the words “I-am-God,” those three words and in that order. Is that an appropriate premise? No, why should Jesus have to say something in the way that you particularly want to hear it said? If a Jehovah’s Witness states that Jesus never claimed to be God and you show them that He did, they will say “Well, He did not claim to be Jehovah God or God Almighty.” You see they want to hear it just how they want to hear it and any other grammatical construct is unacceptable.
Maybe Jesus should have stood up one day and said, “Just to make everyone happy, I declare that I am God, the Almighty, Jehovah, YHWH, Yahweh, Adonai, HaShem, Shaddai, Elohim, LORD, Yod Hay Vav Hay, Emet, I AM, etc, etc.” And still I’m sure that someone could come up with other names for God.

An appropriate premise, for example, could be “Did Jesus claim to be God? And if He did, how did He do so?” Now we can get somewhere because He claimed to be God in many ways that may not seem very straightforward in our North American English grammar de jour. He not only claimed to be God, people called him God and He was called God by God.1 He was called the creator.2 He was called the forgiver of sins.3 He was called the judge.4 He was called the Alpha and Omega.5 He was referred to as omnipotent,6 omnipresent7 and omniscient.8 He also allows Himself to be worshipped.9 He claimed to be the only way to the Father, to salvation.10

In any case, we showed where Jesus said “I AM,” and when they did not accept this as close enough to “I am God,” we asked “What if someone refers to Jesus as God and Jesus does not stop the person from doing so?” We pointed out where Thomas says to Jesus “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). The response was that Thomas was just surprised or astonished and he was simply expressing that emotion, just as if we won a football game and I turned to my teammate and said “My God, we won!” Certainly we would not be referring to our teammate as God. This is another faulty premise, just because saying “My God” could be a statement of excitement does not mean that Thomas was not calling Jesus God. Just because it could mean the former does not mean that it could not mean the latter.

Interestingly enough in his anti-Christian book, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quoted John 16:14; 5:17; 5:22; 10:30; 14:9 and stated, “From these quotes, it seems obvious that Jesus himself claimed to be G-d.”11 He has no problem understanding that Jesus did claim to be God even if the verses he sites do not have Jesus saying, “I-am-God.”

It seems to be a good idea to clarify and define terms before arguing or attempting to answer an illogical question or opposition.

With specific regards to the Bible’s very many affirmations about the Trinity, please see the following (keep in mind that these merely scratch the surface and that a fuller study on the Trinity is available here):

Trinity: Are there Biblical Examples of the Trinity and of the Godhead Consisting of More than One Person?

Trinity: Are there Other Attributes Shared by the Members of the Trinity?

Trinity: Is Jesus Equal to God?

Trinity: Is Jesus Obedient to God?

Trinity: is Jesus Identified as God?

Trinity: is Jesus Identified as God?-the Doxologies

Richard Dawkins is a “Child Abuser”

Please note that my emotionally charged title is meant to mirror the charges of “child abuse” that Richard Dawkins has made against literally billions of people worldwide. In this case “child abuse” does not refer to pedophilia nor to physical beatings (although Richard Dawkins does refer to certain twisted perverts as “gentle pedophile“). My charge of “child abuse” against Richard Dawkins are made utilizing his own criteria.

One of the admitted goals of the New Atheists is to dictated child rearing. They are taking it upon themselves to determine and dictate how the entire planet’s parents will raise their children. But what if you do not agree with them? They have already taken the first step in retaliating against anyone who dares to act against this command of theirs: they have taken it upon themselves to refer to anyone who steps out of line as committing “child abuse.” Daniel Dennett refers to children who are raised in religious households as, “indoctrinated,” “brainwashed” and “psychologically abused.”1 Richard Dawkins thinks that everyone should agree with him, “Everybody’s consciousness should be raised to this level.”2 He also wonders if there may be place for “society stepping in.”3 He therefore calls for activism, “Please go out and work at raising people’s consciousness over the words they use to describe children.”4 Ultimately, he would like to see children grow up to be atheists, “I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.”5

Furthermore, Daniel Dennett has played a particular part in this by recommending a one way street of censorship. You should not be allowed to teach your children your religion without presenting various other options. But when it comes to “science,” Darwinian orthodoxy shall not be questioned nor challenged in the public classroom and no other options are to be tolerated.

Richard Dawkins stated:

“you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society’s impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We’d be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn’t it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?…Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder.”6

But what about an atheist child or a Darwinist child?
Considering that Richard Dawkins particularly referred to children choosing their own cosmology and that his main point is that parents abuse their children by teaching them a particular religion before the child has developed the cognitive abilities to weight evidence, make comparisons, and finally make an unbiased choice I will now prove that Richard Dawkins qualifies as a “child abuser” by his very own definition. I do not take this task on lightly and so in order to demonstrate that I am not merely making an assertion I will present evidence particularly from Richard Dawkins’ Royal Institute of Christmas Lectures 1991 (or as they are known on Richard Dawkins’ website “Growing Up in the Universe“). These lectures where made to an audience of children and make for a good example of Richard Dawkins abusing, indoctrinating and brainwashing children by pushing his own unproven beliefs, fallacious logic, faulty information and one sided biased information.

I plan on writing some reviews of these lectures sometime in the near future. For now you may watch them for yourselves and you will see that Richard Dawkins is behaving as a proselytizer.

It may be of interest to note that in 1991, while Richard Dawkins was presenting lectures to children and assuring them that life began in a primordial soup, John Horgan was enumerating some theories as to how life came to be to the readers of Scientific American (see the post here for a succinct version of Mr. Horgan’s article). You may be thinking that, after all, Richard Dawkins was lecturing to mere children while Scientific American is a well respected journal. Yes indeed, this is just the point. Richard Dawkins was, to whatever extent and with whatever, if any, amount of forethought, presenting one of many theories as if it alone were fact (he did present the concept of panspermia as a “fantasy”). He introduced the concept of the biotic soup by stating “Some people think_” fair enough, but then he offers no other options and so the children are not only being “brainwashed” but specifically “indoctrinated” by being offered limited information but they are just asked to believe. Richard Dawkins stated, “Nobody knows how it happened but somehow_And after that Darwinian evolution and life took off.”

For further examples, in the very first lecture he tells the children that science has a great deal to say about questions such as “where does life come from? What is it? Why are we here? What are we for? What is the meaning of life?” And what is the scientific pronouncement regarding life’s meaning? In lecture 4 he tells the children, “we are machines, built by DNA, whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA.” Elsewhere, he has added that this is “every living object’s sole reason for living.” Alright now children, now you know that you are machines whose purpose in life is to copulate. But remember, whatever you do: do not ever, never ever, behave as if you are machines whose sole purpose is to copulate.

richarddawkins-wakingupintheuniverse-9887492

He refers to the science field as “about the most worthwhile way in which you could possibly spend your short time in the spotlight.”

He shows them paintings of various ape to man progressions walking through pretty flowers and also paintings of an insectivore, “an early mammalian like reptile, an amphibian and “a fish, just coming out of the water; just leaving the water, and coming to the land” and tells the children “Those are all your ancestors.” Fanciful artwork plays a very important role in Darwinianism, when you do not have evidence you can hire an artist to invent some.

He also claims that if aliens were to ever come to earth, “They’ll probably find us pretty childish, but they will be quite kind about our science. They’ll pat us on the head and say, ‘Well, what you know about Universe is pretty much correct. You got at lot to learn yet, but you are doing fine. Keep it up.’ That’s what they would say if they were talking to our scientists. What if they were talking to our best lawyers or literary critics or theologians? I doubt if they’d be so impressed.”

He misleads the children by making false claims about creation myths as well as caricatures of what science is, “Put your trust in the scientific method, put your faith in scientific method,” he declares.

He finally implies that his worldview is smart and will lead them to give up on their ignorance:

“Growing up in the Universe partly means evolving from simple to complicated, inefficient to efficient, brainless to brainy. But it also means growing out from parochial and superstitious views of the Universe. Going up to a proper scientific understanding of the Universe, based upon evidence, public argument, rather than authority or tradition or private revelation.”

This seems quite enough to demonstrate that he is, by his very own definition, a “child abuser.” Yet, in the near future, I will endeavor to strengthen this point by demonstrating that his lectures for children are meant to convert children into the worldview of absolute materialism. And that he makes this apparent by appealing to authority, by presenting very narrow and convenient arguments and evidence, by caricaturizations, passing off mere speculation as fact, etc., etc., etc.

So there you have it children: science determines the meaning of life, is worthy of your trust and faith, and will make you smart enough to do away with your childish religious superstitions. All this at a Christmas lecture mind you, which I am sure is purely coincidental.

Charles Templeton and The Misanthropic Principle

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Condolences – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 3 of 6

While evilbible.com condemns what they perceived as the Bible’s approval of rape we must recall that they are merely presenting their opinions, personal preferences, assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, and building a tel of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.

Now, to the relevant portions of the next text in the evilbible.com arsenal, Numbers 31:7-18,

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men_Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder_they brought them all to Moses_[who said] the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

The erudite elucidation of evilbible.com’s author states only, “Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.”

Yet, again I ask, “Where was the rape?” And again I answer, “In the very, very troubled mind of the evilbible.com’s author.”

This time “Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins” and in part 2 it was “Obviously these women were repeatedly raped.” And yet, not one single rape has been mentioned nor even hinted; at least not if you know the contents of the Bible and do not let your own twisted fantasies interfere by clouding your reason.

The next text is Deuteronomy 20:10-14,

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

The commentary on this text reads, “What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?” The kind that you cannot absolutely condemn based upon your chosen atheistic worldview.

Let us consider “murder, rape, and slavery”:
Murder: this is war and peace is rejected.

Rape: only present in the troubled mind of evilbible.com’s author.

Slavery: at this point the translation quoted by evilbible.com (New Living Translation) appears to make employ an unnecessary inference into the translation of the Hebrew word `abad as it is translated “forced labor” yet, it means “to work, serve” (Strong’s # H5647).The inference may be that since they accepted a peace settlement and were now indentured to the Israelites they were now “forced labor.”

This strikes me as a hyperbolic inference since, and only since, when we read the Bible for context, that is; in order to actually ascertain what it states and not solely to make an anti-Judeo-Christian point, we consider that pseudo-skeptics have a great misunderstanding about “slavery” in the Bible.
For example, the concept in the text is one that envisions the offer and acceptance of peace and the peacefully conquered coming under tribute as servants-this is tantamount to paying taxes to the new governing body. Moreover, the sort of slavery which most have in mind, the sort practiced by the African Muslims who sold slaves to the USA and others, carried with it the sentence of capital punishment, “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

It is interesting that evilbible.com’s author quoted Deuteronomy 20:10-14; where they to have read even one chapter beyond until Deuteronomy 21:10-14 they would have seen that rape is only envisaged their very troubled minds and not in the text of the Bible. As evidenced in part 2 and along with Numbers 31:19-20 the Bible states:

whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. Purify every garment, everything made of leather, everything woven of goat’s hair, and everything made of wood (Numbers 31:19-20).

This ensures the health of soldier and war captives.The regulations pertaining to the women are as follows; the men were to:Provide them with housing.Allow them one month to mourn.Then they may get married.And if they later divorce, they were to go free and not be mistreated (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14).No rape at all anywhere. Rather, cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.

Yet, as we shall see, evilbible.com’s author has, in fact, read Deuteronomy 20:10-14 and still does not get it. But we shall come to that in subsequent portions of this parsed essay.

Jesus

The Book of Job – Dismissed but Essential

The death of the prophets

The Golden Rules—plural? On the Golden Rule vs. the Fools Gold Rule

The Messiah and YHVH’s Passover

The “Science Club of Long Island” claims that Jesus is a fraud

Troll FAIL on historical Jesus myth

Video and article: Jimmy Carter appeals to Jesus on gay rights

VIDEO: “Gods of Egypt” movie and Jesus Pagan mythicism

VIDEO: (Literal) Celebrity Worship

VIDEO: Atheist claims Mary was raped by an angel

VIDEO: Atheist Dan Barker hates the God he claims does not exist

VIDEO: Benny Hinn PWNS Joel Osteen & Oprah

VIDEO: EPIC EPOCH update – 1-18-2015 AD

VIDEO: EPIC EPOCH update 3-8-2015 AD

VIDEO: EPIC EPOCH update – 1-13-2015

VIDEO: EPIC EPOCH update – 1-24-2015 AD

VIDEO: EPIC EPOCH update – 12-20-2014 AD

VIDEO: EPIC EPOCH update – 2-14-2015 AD

VIDEO: Gary Habermas PWNS Atheist Tim Callahan: evidence vs. talking points

VIDEO: How Dr. Drew will usher in the anti-Christ

VIDEO: Is Barack Obama the anti-Christ? No, but…

VIDEO: Politics as religion – choir replaces Jesus with Hillary Clinton

VIDEO: Rabbinic Jewish Kabbalah vs. Biblical Trinitarian theology

VIDEO: Sarah Young “Jesus Calling” divine or demonic?

VIDEO: The Man Who Would Be King and the King Who Would Be Man

VIDEO: To Atheist who do not know Bible basics

VIDEO: What is the movie “Tron” really about?

VIDEO: Why is hell eternal and is eternal punishment for finite crime just?

VIDEO: Why “Give the Drummer Some!” podcaster Chris is an Atheist

VIDEO: Zeitgeist movie The Man From Earth

Christopher Hitchens – Jesus, the god of War?

During “A debate, dialogue, and discussion” that took place between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath which was entitled “Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World,” Mr. Hitchens made the following statement:

“I’m glad he [Alister McGrath] condemns religious violence_Does Jesus say or does he not say, I come to bring not peace, but a sword. He does say that. Should I take that literally or metaphorically?”

The answer is, literally. This may be substantiate quite easily.

Let us take a moment to make a general point since there is much misunderstanding about what it means to take something literally. It means that you take it as it is intended. If something is intended in a strict/stiff sense (what people generally refer to as literal) you take it that way. If it is a historical reference, we take it as a historical reference. If something is metaphorical, we take it metaphorically. Etc.

hitch-7764070
In the text mentioned by Mr. Hitchens it is meant symbolically and in a strict/stiff sense. The “sword” is symbolic and the action that the sword performs is strict/stiff.

Mr. Hitchens is fallaciously correlating religious violence with Jesus’ statement. Let us consider the text, which is Matthew at 10:34:

“Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.”

Well, there you have it. Jesus was calling for all out religious war.

Well, let us take a moment to read the very next verse, the verse that would have alerted Mr. Hitchens that he is mistaken in his correlation. Verse 35 states:

“For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.'”

Obviously, “sword” is employed as symbolizing what a sword does: it separates, it divides. For example, Hebrews 4:12 makes this very point,

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

Therefore, the setting against refers to a dispute about beliefs.

Thus, the text, within its context, is strictly/stiffly literally true. This is what I can prove since if you have been unfortunate enough to have been raised by for example, atheists or agnostics, and have come to believe in Jesus then it is quite possible, as has been my experience, that you have been mistreated simply for believing differently than an atheist or agnostic.

hitchii-9381792
I understand that you may say likewise the other way around and I am sorry to hear about any mistreatment of anyone by anyone. The point was the text and Mr. Hitchens taking the text out of context in order to make a pretext for a prooftext. He, and we, ought to be skeptical enough to at least read the very next verse rather than finding a verse or half of a verse that we quote without citation and use as a springboard for a fallacious assertion.

AskELM’s Ernest L. Martin on the Cherubim’s names

We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, considering Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.’s article titled, “Lingering Idolatry in the Temple of God,” AskELM (as in Ask Ernest L. Martin about whom I previously wrote Nightmare on AskElm Street – angelic “Sons of God”?), September 1, 2000 AD which contains some interesting point, some thought provoking speculations and some very serious errors.

In apparent contradiction to 2 Maccabees 2’s claim that the items will be revealed once again Jeremiah 3 notes the following as quoted and bracketed by Martin (which I quote in part):

they shall say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of YHWH: neither shall it [the ark] come to mind: neither shall they remember it [the ark]; neither shall they visit it [the ark]; neither shall that be done any more” [allowing images of Cherubs for an Ark of the Covenant].’

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of YHWH; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of YHWH, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.”

askelm2c20ernest20l-20martin-4906618

The Maccabees and Jeremiah text will come into play when we get to Martin’s eschatological views. But next, he claims “the two Cherubs that made up the one image in the Holy of Holies had personal names…That is right. Those names are revealed in the Holy Scriptures.” Relying on 2 Maccabees, he states that “the Tent (or Tabernacle) that housed the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies” which, he specifies, is a “separate ‘Tabernacle’ is mentioned in First Kings 1:39” and that the Tent was hidden.

We finally get to Amos 5:25-26 which Martin quotes and comment on thusly:

“Have you offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O House of Israel? But you have borne the Tabernacle [the special Tent] of your Moloch and Chiun your images [there were two images], the star of your Elohim [the Star — a single “star” of your “gods”], which you made to yourselves.”

Martin emphasizes that the two Cherubim were “soldered together as one image” and now notes that the Tent “contained two images that were indeed a single ‘Star’ (an image molded together into one image of two heavenly beings).” Keep this in mind as we continue by noting that he concludes that the two Cherubim were “named by the Israelites…Moloch (which is the Hebrew word for ‘King’ or ‘King Star’ which was the name given to the planet Jupiter). The other was Chiun (which was another name for the planet Saturn…” He then trails off about planetary conjunctions and writes that when “Jupiter (Moloch) and Saturn (Chiun) ‘face each other’” they “become like a ‘Single Star.’”

Of course, commentaries differ on the meaning of these term as exampled by the Benson Commentary which notes, “it is probable that by Moloch is meant the sun…Chiun, rendered by the LXX. Rephan or Remphan, according to Vossius, it signifies the moon; but Aben Ezra understands it of Saturn.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary notes, “‘Molech’ means ‘king’ answering to Mars [Bengel]; the Sun [Jablonski]; Saturn, the same as ‘Chiun’ [Maurer].” Matthew Poole’s Commentary notes, “Chiun: perhaps if we understand the whole apparatus or storehouse of their images…Others will have Chiun to be Saturn.” Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible notes, “perhaps by one was meant the sun, and by the other the moon,” etc.

That the Cherubim were “as one image” which results in “a single ‘Star’” is not only nonsensical but unexplained, it is merely asserted: what does it mean that two images soldered, as it were, atop the mercy seat result in a star? (although, surely anyone could photo-shop what they think a Cherub looks like and how the position of their bodies results in the form of a star—somehow). The point is that he is seeking to make the God inspired ark into the God condemned ark—as he sees it. For example, he generically asserts that Moloch means “King” which it does “or” or so he merely asserts, “King Star” which is certainly news. Moreover, supposedly, Moloch and Chiun represent the planets Jupiter and Saturn and yet, somehow two planets depicted facing each other (however it may be that one sphere can face another sphere) results in a star (meaning what exactly? Another sphere such as the star we call “Sun,” a pentagram, a hexagram; what exactly?).