Zen Garcia on the serpent seed of Satan Bible codes

I realize that there are both, many opinions about Bible codes and also many forms of Bible codes. The conclusion I draw from Zen’s continuous wandering away from the Bible’s plain text and continuous appeals to revelations brought about via apocryphal texts, paraphrases, reading into parables and now Bible codes leads me to believe that he is in search of anything whatsoever that will help him make his case no matter where that search takes him (that is, no matter how far away from the Bible’s clear statements) and no matter how many linguistic, numerological or logical gymnastic he has to perform along the way.

I will provide one example of Zen’s statement in this regard and leave off on the Bible codes portion of it. He used a Bible code program into which he typed “goat, Esau, Cain, devil, son, seed, fruit, tree, tare.” He notes that when you do this, “you will find that not only is there a matrix associated to these keywords, there are in fact seven matrixes aligned to this search and they are encoded over and embedded beginning with Genesis chapter 3; which in my mind absolutely verifies that the information has been sourced by the Most High into the text multiple times to emphasize this information.” Well, of course, Genesis 3 would come up as of all of his key words he typed: Cain, son, seed, fruit and tree appear therein. Those equipped to deal with Bible code issues—both pro and con—can feel free to reply to Zen on his statements in that regards; I am not such as person. However, I will note that Zen refers to “that the Most High knew this information would be vital to those alive at the end of days” having known just how “important it is for deciphering other aspects of the hidden gospel which are also dependent upon this discernment for full revelation.” Well, I have no idea what a “hidden gospel” is but the term is, essentially, a contradiction in terms. The gospel is to be preached to all creation and is thus, in no ways hidden. But note Zen’s point is that by concocting the serpent seed of Satan theory he is discerning a “full revelation” which, by the way, as Jude 1:3 puts it is “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” That is to say that the full revelation has already been revealed.

Of course, he may be referring to 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 which states, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Hopefully, he is not implying that Christians who deny the serpent seed of Satan theory are actually lost.

By now the question of why enmity between seed is mentioned in Genesis 3 and who or what the seed are is simple, clear and answered. Genesis 3:14-15 states:

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The serpent’s seed, the children of the devil, they who are of the wicked one are so if and when they “doeth not righteousness” just as Cain “Because his own works were evil.”
In fact, recall the aforementioned quotation of Genesis 4, “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him…
What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” All of this pertains to Cain’s actions.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider Steve Quayle on elite bloodlines.

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

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Zen Garcia on who are children of the wicked one?

Before we get much further it seems helpful to note a text that helps us go about identifying who are the “children of the wicked one” and just how “The enemy…sowed them.” We need to do this now because Zen begins to pull many strings so as to weave his serpent seed of Satan theory, or “revelation” as he put it, and we can easily get lost, impressed, confused, dragged in, etc. without noting that 1st John 3:9-12 states:

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

In this case, we do have a specific reference to both children and Cain and it is very clear that the “children of the devil” are those who “doeth not righteousness.” Thus, Satan does not have children by engaging in physical sex as these very clear words of the Bible specify that it has nothing to do with genetics but with sin, with not being righteous. To emphasize the point; being born of God references to John 3:3 wherein Jesus states, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” which has nothing to do with physical birth, physical seed, etc.

How then do we distinguish between “the children of God” and “the children of the devil”—how are they manifest? It is not genetics but actions, “whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” and also “neither he that loveth not his brother.” How is this specifically relevant to Cain? Because “this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” love is in reference to an action and not genetics. Thus, from the beginning we were not to be “as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother” and note how very specific the Bible is in that it even provides a Q&A on this very topic, “And wherefore slew he him?” because he was the genetically physical serpent seed of Satan who had sex with Eve? No, rather, “Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”

According to the very clearly stated word of God; Cain was of that wicked one, of the children of the devil “Because his own works,” that which he did and not whom he was genetically, “were evil.”

With the Bible’s own elucidation of its own statements (the fact that the Bible interpreted itself) in mind let us get to the many strings Zen pulls to weave his serpent seed of Satan theory as he writes:

I’ll share 2 last things on this topic for those interested in this topic. The first has to do with the Bible Codes, the 2nd with what the elites believe themselves about the seed of the serpent. Both have to do with something mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11: [2] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. [3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted

from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider the serpent seed of Satan Bible codes.

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

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

On the Queen James Bible, part 3

The Queen James Bible has been edited to make Homophobic interpretations impossible

—the QJV editor

qjv-4819918

For the whole series, see The Queen James Bible.

We now continue, from part 1 and part 2, considering a new version of the Bible is being published and in a way we Christians should take it as a compliment. The Bible is edited so as to conform to the authority of the homosexuality worldview-religion and is called the Queen James Bible.
If you just want to say, “The Queen James Bible is nonsense” or even “is a godsend” and leave it at that then; do not bother reading this series because we will actually detail the issues involved.

The next texts that they changed are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (KJV)
 
Leviticus 20:13
 
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV) But they had stated that “The Bible says nothing about homosexuality” but there it is so, what will they do with these texts? They begin with an ethically absolute statement:

Leviticus is outdated as a moral code, but we still picked it as our most important book to address in our edits, as most anti-LGBT religious activists cite Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as proof-positive that homosexuality is a sin, even worse, a sin punishable by death.

So, a homosexual activist doeth declare that “Leviticus is outdated as a moral code” but upon what absolute moral basis? Let us back up for a moment as you may have noticed that we employed the term “ethically” but the editor refers to “moral.” Ethics and morality are terms that are used interchangeably but they are actually different concepts:

Ethics refers the ethos and prescribes that which people ought to do.

Morals refers the mores and describes that which people do.
Thus, this turns into semantics but important semantics. With the correct definition of morals in place perhaps we should ask, “Is Leviticus outdated as a moral code?” The answer is a twofold, “Yes.” But twofold, how so? Firstly, since morals merely refers to whatever people have taken upon themselves to do then yes, it is outdated as society de jour has decided that homosexuality is normal, natural, good, moral, etc. This, by the way, is the very worst argument in favor of homosexuality because it leaves things at the whims of society. If within a few years society decides that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, bad, immoral, etc. then what?

Note also that the editor claims:
You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.
1) “You can’t choose your sexuality”: what is meant by “sexuality”? You see there is a difference between an impulse and an action. You may not be able to choose your impulse (as you were “born this way” which is another way of affirming the doctrine of original sin) but you can choose whether or not to carry out an impulse into an action. Thus, homosexuality, as in performing the sexual act, is a choice (for more see Is homosexuality a choice?).
2) “…but you can choose Jesus”: what does “choose” mean? That you can make an informed, adult decision to carry out a homosexual lifestyle and claim to be a Christian or otherwise follower of Jesus? What if someone claims to be a Christian idolater or Christian polytheist? Well, alright, there actually are entire religions who claim to be Christian but as idolaters and polytheist—see Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. But the question is; can those directly violating the Bible truly be Christians?
3) “Now you can choose a Bible, too”: indeed, if the Bible says something you do not like, something which is inconvenient to, if not condemnatory of, your chosen lifestyle then you can just publish your own version—oi vey!

Secondly, it is outdated, in a manner of speaking, for both Christians and Jews. This is because while both faith’s understand and follow the ethical concept of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Christians do not follow it to its litigious end, capital punishment, because that is an Old Testament prescription and Christians are under the New Testament. Jews do not follow through because they understand the context: the historical, cultural, grammatical, theological, chronological, etc. context. And that context is that the laws in Leviticus were not simply given to the generic “Jews” but to those who lived in YHVH’s theocratic (monarchy administered) kingdom, at a certain time and in a certain place. That kingdom no longer exists (no Temple, no priesthood, etc.) and so they are not subject to carrying out those laws to their litigious end.

The QJV attempts to delve into Hebrew:
Translation of the Word Abomination
To address Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we need to look at the path of translation. The Hebrew word “to’evah” from which abomination is translated simply means something that is “ritually unclean,” or a “taboo.”
Given the definition of the Hebrew word “to’evah” and the other “to’evah”s in Leviticus, we suggest that by today’s standards, a biblical abomination would be understood to be “scandalous.” (Keep in mind, a biblical “abomination,” by Levitical standards, would be scandalous, for a Jewish priest. Leviticus a holiness code for Jewish priests; In Hebrew it is known as Torat Kohanim – “Instructions for the priests”.)
Just out of curiosity; if Leviticus is outdated as a moral code why bother retranslating it? So as to make it relevant for today’s morality, yes but why not just footnote it as “This text is outdated as a moral code” or some such thing? Seems like more pseudo-scholastic and pseudo-academia but we will consider the argument, to be fair:
To address Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we need to look at the path of translation. The Hebrew word “to’evah” from which abomination is translated simply means something that is “ritually unclean,” or a “taboo.”
Given the definition of the Hebrew word “to’evah” and the other “to’evah”s in Leviticus, we suggest that by today’s standards, a biblical abomination would be understood to be “scandalous.” (Keep in mind, a biblical “abomination,” by Levitical standards, would be scandalous, for a Jewish priest. Leviticus a holiness code for Jewish priests; In Hebrew it is known as Torat Kohanim – “Instructions for the priests”.)
So the proposed reading will go from “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination” to “…it is ritually unclean” or “…it is taboo.” So for a man to “lie with mankind, as with womankind” is a ritually unclean, scandalous taboo.

In the next segment we will conclude the consideration of this text.

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

For more info see:

Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality (White is a pro-homosexuality activist who makes the same exact arguments as the QJV editor).

Much more relevant info at True Freethinker’s section on homosexuality.

Books of interest:
The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible

When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They’re Gay

Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity

The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality: A Biblical and Compassionate Response to Same-Sex Attraction

A Strong Delusion: Confronting the Gay Christian Movement (Explaining the Christian Attitude Towards Homosexuality)

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

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #queenjamesbible, #LGBT, #homosexuality
Facebook: #queenjamesbible, LGBT, #homosexuality

On the Queen James Bible, part 4

The Queen James Bible has been edited to make Homophobic interpretations impossible

—the QJV editor

qjv-6160823

For the whole series, see The Queen James Bible.

We now continue, from part 1, part  2 and part 3, considering a new version of the Bible is being published and in a way we Christians should take it as a compliment. The Bible is edited so as to conform to the authority of the homosexuality worldview-religion and is called the Queen James Bible.
If you just want to say, “The Queen James Bible is nonsense” or even “is a godsend” and leave it at that then; do not bother reading this series because we will actually detail the issues involved.

We now pick up where we left off in the previous segment, with a consideration of Leviticus 18:22 and 20: 13.

But the editor continues:
Next on the path of translation, we see that the pre-KJV Greek versions of Leviticus could have used the Hebrew word “zimah” or Greek “anomia” – words that mean “actual violation of law or a sin,” but notably did not use those words. Anomia was used in pre-KJV Greek translations in the case of child sacrifice, a popular pagan ritual.
So this time the argument is about what word the “pre-KJV Greek versions of Leviticus could have used” with clear reference to the Septuagint aka LXX.

Furthermore:
To simply replace “abomination” with “taboo” would only address 18:22, and not the death penalty proposed in 20:13. Furthermore, we don’t believe homosexual relations to be taboo, so that solution would have been unsatisfactory. Since abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death like this one leads us to believe there was translative error at some point: If having sex with a man is punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination.
Keep in mind that they are shall we say feigning scholarship by delving into Hebrew but again their honesty shines through. Thus, we learn that the reason for re-writing the text is because, “we don’t believe homosexual relations to be taboo.” Well, yes, that is the very reason for retranslating in the first place. Next, note that in order to claim mistranslation one would delve into etymology (and again, historical context, grammatical context, cultural context, etc.) yet, the editor’s reason for making the claim is simply that “abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death.” True, but the logical conclusion is that abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death and not that since abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death there must be a mistranslation. The illogic continues as a non sequitur is propose, “If having sex with a man is punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination.” But why not, because “abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death.” But the logical conclusion is that abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death and not that since abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death this must not have been one of them.

Think of it this way; murder is illegal in the USA and there are states in the USA wherein different degrees of murder carry different punishments so that a third degree murder will carry a prison sentence whilst a first degree may result in capital punishment and yet, they are both “murder.”

So, what is the end result? Did they change “it is an abomination” to “is a ritually unclean, scandalous taboo” or some such thing? No:
Therefore, we left the word abomination as is, and found a much more elegant and logically clear solution to this interpretive ambiguity… Let us consider the elegant logic:

Context Within Leviticus

Leviticus is a very strict holy code designed to prevent acts associated with pre-Jewish idol worship. Many of the rules concern sexual acts, as most pagan rituals were sexual in nature. One notable and highly condemnable act was having sex with male pagan temple prostitutes. Both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are often referenced by themselves, but to understand the meaning behind the most famous anti-LGBT Bible verses, we looked at their context within Leviticus.
This is true and a good point: most pagan rituals still are sexual in nature and context must be considered:
Leviticus 18 includes a long list of forbidden sexual offenses in the form of incest, from verse 6 (“near of kin” relatives) to verse 18 (your wife’s sister). At verse 19, the sexual offenses are no longer incestuous, simply forbidding sex with a menstruating woman (verse 19) and your neighbor’s wife (verse 20). True, homosexuality is included in a long list of abominable sexual practices:

Leviticus 18:20 switches to the important topic of pagan idolatry: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.”

Again we must leverage the historical context in which Leviticus was written: Molech is an ancient pagan god, often referred to as “the [the] false god.” Leviticus mentions Molech in several places. Archetypal pagan rituals for worship of Molech included child sacrifice (literally referenced here in verse 20, and which we know was a “zimah,” punishable by death), as well as sex with male temple prostitutes.
In fact, having sex with these male prostitutes in a pagan temple was the most popular form of Molech worship and therefore of “abominable” pagan idolatry. Good points:

We assert that Leviticus 18:21 refers to “lying” with these pagan male prostitutes as a form of pagan idolatry. This fits in with the story order of Leviticus, and with the other offenses punishments punishable by death within Leviticus. We therefore change Levticus 18:21 and 20:13 to read as follows:

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination. (QJV) (Page 75)
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (QJV) (Page 76) So, apparently, homosexuality is acceptable yet, not with a temple prostitute. You can see how their argument plays out, and they may have a point: this particular form of homosexuality is an abominable act capital punishment deserving sin because it goes beyond homosexuality and is tied into idolatrous human sacrificing temple prostitution.

However, what is missed is that the biblical concept of sex is tied in to the biblical concept of marriage and it all goes back to the original marriage in the Garden of Eden between one man and one woman. We can know that their marriage was meant as a model because with regards to, within the context of their marriage, they who had no parents, it is stated, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” So there you have it: one man, one woman, not living together until marriage and only then sexually united. Thus, idolatrous human sacrificing temple prostitution or not: homosexuality is a violation of the model of and purpose for sex: reproduction and pleasure within the context of the model marriage or the marriage model.

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

For more info see:

Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality (White is a pro-homosexuality activist who makes the same exact arguments as the QJV editor).

Much more relevant info at True Freethinker’s section on homosexuality.

Books of interest:
The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible

When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They’re Gay

Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity

The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality: A Biblical and Compassionate Response to Same-Sex Attraction

A Strong Delusion: Confronting the Gay Christian Movement (Explaining the Christian Attitude Towards Homosexuality)

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

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #queenjamesbible, #LGBT, #homosexuality
Facebook: #queenjamesbible, LGBT, #homosexuality

Was “the Problem of Evil” Solved Before it was Ever Proposed?, part 2 of 2

Is it by chance that the oldest book of the Bible deals with the problem of evil and proposes precisely this solution?
The book of Job is thought to have been written 4,000 years ago. Thus, for at least 4,000 years this solution has been available and thus, the more popular the problem of evil becomes the more those proposing it discredit themselves—a 4,000 years history of refutation is certainly devastating to one’s objections.

Simply stated, the book of Job proposes that evil occurs and that God has a reason(s) for allowing it. Anyone who has thought this issue through is logically lead to conclude that this solution is viable. For example, I recall thinking of the problem of evil whilst watching a nurse stab my newborn baby with a syringe. As she plunged the needle into his ever so tender newborn foot his face turned red, he grimaced, yelled and cried in pain.
I recognized that I, for all intents and purposes, his omnipotent father could have prevented the nurse from causing him pain. Yet, I know better than he; I knew that there was a higher purpose, a deeper meaning and that his momentary pain was for the better as she was checking his blood sugar level. At that time I was so beyond his level of understanding that there was no way for me to explain, justify, why I did nothing in the face of someone causing him pain. I also suspect that by the time he is old enough to fully understand the functions of the human body as it pertains to blood sugar levels and medical procedures it will all seem simply irrelevant to him. I imagine that his reaction may be something to the likes of “What pain? How long ago? I certainly do not even remember! Whatever!”

Atheists have besmirched the book of Job for supposedly turning humans into play things, for treating humans as pawns in a wager between God and satan. However, the fact of the matter is that any and all atheist objections are simply irrelevant because the book of Job has been a source of comfort to the suffering for 4,000 years (I elucidated this in the essay The Book of Job Dismissed but Essential).

In the book of Job, Job receives some very bad advice from his friends; some of whom state that Job must be being punished for his sin. This was simply not the case. There comes a point at which Job confronts God Himself and from God’s very first statement we get the point, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” (Job 38:4).
While, this is only the beginning of God’s statement the point is clear; there is an entire universe occurring out there, the natural and the supernatural, and sorry but it does not revolve around us, it is not all about us.

Moreover, what if you took some medicine, it turned out to be from a bad batch and you suffered and died? What if this meant that this medicine would be investigated, pulled from the open market and thereby thousands of lives would be saved? Your suffering and death would mean that thousands would not suffer and die. Certainly, such suffering and death would seem worthwhile in the light of its effects. In such a case we would not emotionally like the idea of suffering and death but we would accept the logical / theological conclusion that it was justified since it had a reason(s).

Forms of the problem of evil:

1. If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist 2. Gratuitous evil does exist

3. God does not exist

1. If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist 2. God exists

3. Therefore gratuitous evil does not exist (the appearance of gratuitous evil is not really gratuitous)

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world.

3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.

8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

1. If God is perfectly loving, He must wish to abolish evil 2. If He is all powerful, He must be able to abolish evil 3. But evil exists

4. Therefore, an all powerful, loving God does not exist.

1. God is the author of everything. 2. Evil is something.

3. Therefore God is the author of evil.

1. God made everything perfect. 2. Imperfection cannot come from perfection. 3. Therefore perfectly created beings cannot be the origin of evil.

4. Therefore God must be the origin.

1. If God is all good, He would destroy evil. 2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil. 3. But evil is not destroyed.

4. Hence, there is no such God.

AVATAR – the Movie

Just saw the movie yesterday. Here are some quick notes:

The end is awesome, as it turns out; the butler did it :o)

Actually judging by the name I know what to expect. Surely, many youngsters think that “Avatar” is a computer term, as it has become just that, but it derives from Hindu theology.

avatarmoviepaganismapologetics-8504396

Thus, the movie is saturated with new-age/pantheism/Hinduism. Also, plays off of African and Native American spiritualism/tribalism. Big on Gaia/Mother Earth neo-Paganism.

It is also anti-military and anti-capitalism.

Interesting reference to second birth.

It was very, very well done and quite emotive. For what it was, it was well played.

avatarmoviepaganismapologetics-3530085

Made me think that God created the Earth and gave it to us to care for.

No Mother Earth without Father God for me but I was reminded that our home is God’s creation and we should appreciated it and care for it as such.

Bahai Faith / Baha'i Faith : Physical Resurrection, Part 2 of 2

General Redefinition of Resurrection in Baha’i Literature Redefinition of Jesus’ Resurrection

The Empty Tomb

General Redefinition of Resurrection in Baha’i Literature:

“According to the Baha’i teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms never be recomposed into the same body.”1

“The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world-cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.”2

“An important part of the Bab’s teaching is His explanation of the terms Resurrection, Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell_He definitely declared that these terms have no real meaning apart from this; and that the prevalent ideas regarding the resurrection of the material body, a material heaven and hell, and the like, are mere figments of the imagination.”3

“the Day of Resurrection is also the Day of Judgement.”4

“a day of Resurrection in which the spiritually dead are raised to new life, in which the Reality of the Divine Religions in renewed and re-established, in which appear ‘new heavens and new earth.'”5

“Behold how the generality o mankind hath been endued with the capacity to hearken unto God’s most exalted word the Word upon which must depend the gathering together and spiritual resurrection of all men.”6

Redefinition of Jesus’ Resurrection:
Baha’i author George Townshend believes that Christians have so utterly misunderstood the Bible that he wrote,

“Even His resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely.”7

`Abdu’l-Baha redefines the Christ’s resurrection,

“we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest.No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolve to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible.

In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it. Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols.”8

“As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signified the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore. By the ‘three days’ of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they became firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body-which signifies the divine word-arose.Likewise the address of the angels to the people of Galilee, ‘That this Christ will return in the same way and that He will descend from heaven,’ is a spiritual address. For when Christ appeared, He came from heaven, although He was outwardly born from the womb of Mary. For He said: ‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven.’ He said: ‘I came down from heaven and likewise will go to heaven.’ By ‘heaven’ is not meant this infinite phenomenal space, but ‘heaven’ signifies the world of the divine kingdom which is the supreme station and seat of the Sun of Truth.

To be brief: The mysteries of the Holy Books are many and require explanation and elucidation. I hope thine insight will be so opened that the divine mysteries may become manifest and clear.”9

“We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.”10

Who raised Jesus from the dead? The New Testament explains that it was the Father, Jesus Himself, and the Holy Spirit who resurrected Him. The Baha’i redefinition of the resurrection does not answer to this fact nor does it take it into account (see John 2:19-21, 10:17-18; Acts 2:24, 17:31; Romans 1:4, 4:24, 8:11; 1st Thessalonians 1:9-11; 1st Peter 3:18). Note that to say that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit resurrected Jesus is not a contradiction but rather, proof for the doctrine of God’s triune nature.

The Baha’i redefinition is absolutely unacceptable because it was the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ that caused the disciples to pay with their very lives in order to spread the gospel. Let us remove this historical record from dusty black and white pages and view it for what it is-a real life occurrence.

To say that “the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ” is to say the least. These people, the twelve apostles in particular, had forsaken absolutely everything for Jesus. From the moment that Jesus called them to follow Him until He was crucified they went through a long process until they came to accept Him as the long awaited Messiah and to be God in the flesh. Although they had a concept of the Messiah that was biased by the natural Jewish desire of freedom from Gentile oppressors, they too hoped for a Messiah who was a conquering king and not a suffering servant.

We sometimes find them bidding for a high position in the Messianic Kingdom,

“Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we want you to do for us whatever we ask.’ ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ he asked. They replied, ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory'” (Mark 10:35-37).

“Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons. She bowed down in front of him to ask him for a favor. He asked her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to him, ‘Promise that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right and one at your left, in your kingdom” (Matthew 20:21).

At least two Messianic concepts were prevalent in Judaism, the suffering servant and the conquering king.

Talmud-Sanhedrin 98a,

“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven; [Dan. VII, 13] whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee_] lowly, and riding upon an ass! [Zech. IX, 7]-If they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.”

Another outcome of such speculations is the two Messiah theory (in which there is some variations). Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver tells of this concept,

“the cruel king Armilius (Antichrist) will then arise_will wage war upon the Messiah ben Joseph_and Israel will be driven into the wilderness for forty-five days, where the Messiah ben Joseph will die. The Messiah ben David will then appear. The Jews will at first refuse to accept him, saying that the true Messiah had already appeared and been slain, but God will show them that he is in truth the Messiah. He will then slay Armilius.”11

The disciples never seemed to understand it when Jesus spoke of His own death, they hoped for high positions in the Messiah’s earthly kingdom. It is practically impossible to imagine how they felt when Jesus died. In the last days of Jesus’ time on Earth Judas had betrayed Him, Peter had denied Him, and all except John had deserted Him. On the road to Emmaus two of them said, “we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:21). Peter and some others went back to fishing (see John 21:3). They were trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.

These men were Jewish, God’s own chosen people, the apple of His eye. If Jesus was not the Messiah then these men had purposefully corrupted the covenant that God had made with them, they had corrupted the one true religion as specified to them, they had forsaken the only one and true God. This was no small matter by any means.

These men had absolutely no reason to continue preaching the gospel. If they had done so they would have been knowingly preaching a lie, as Paul stated,

“if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ_if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (1st Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Paul summarizes the gospel message,

“By this gospel you are saved_Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1st Corinthians 15:2-3).

“Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2nd Timothy 2:8-10).

Note that Paul was a “Pharisee,” as opposed to a “Sadducee.” One of the differences between these two sects is that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection while the Pharisees did believe in the physical resurrection. While Paul was being questioned before Ananias the High Priest he stated,

“Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged! And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection-and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both” (Acts 23:6-8).

Thus, when we find Paul preaching resurrection we can know from the historical context coupled with Paul’s own autobiography that he is preaching the sort of resurrection which is denied by the Baha’i-a physical resurrection. Jesus sided with the Pharisees in this regard as seen in Matthew 22:32; Luke 20:38; Mark 12:27.The Sadducees also had an encounter with Jesus, He responded by stating,

“But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken” (Mark 12:26-27).

If Jesus was not resurrected and these men did preach the gospel, then this was the most elaborate and most malicious hoax ever perpetrated on the face of the Earth and in all of known history. If they did preach the gospel then they devoted their lives to something that they all knew to be a lie. In fact, with the exception of Judas who committed suicide and John who died of old age the other apostles and countless disciples would have been giving their very lives for a lie. Moreover, they would be responsible the blood of countless martyrs through the ages. They would have lived and died for a deception and they would have known that they could expect nothing but the harshest judgment and damnation after death. Surely at least one of them would have uncovered the conspiracy. Many people have died for something they believed in but they always believed that they died for the truth.Here is how the Apostles died,

“Peter-crucified; Andrew-crucified; Matthew-the sword; John-natural [although according to tradition he survived being boiled in oil first]; James, son of Alphaeus-crucified; Philip-crucified; Simon-crucified; Thaddaeus-killed by arrows; James, brother of Jesus-stoned; Thomas-spear thrust; Bartholomew-crucified; James, son of Zebedee-the sword.”12

The fact is that nothing but the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ could have caused these men to pay with their very lives in order to spread the gospel. Without the fact of the physical resurrection there is absolutely no way to substantiate the idea that “after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ.” Otherwise what is it that they became “assured and steadfast” of?

It is also interesting to note that “cloud” is redefined as well, `Abdu’l-Baha wrote,

“The cloud mentioned in the Holy Scripture is the human body, because it is a veil for them, like a cloud, which prevents them from seeing the Sun of Truth which is shining in the horizon of Christ.”13

The Bible states,

“We believe that Jesus died and rose again_we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words”” (1st Thessalonians 4:14, 17-18).

Regarding the two witnesses,

“the beast that comes up from the Abyss_and kill them…But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here.’ And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on” (Revelation 11:7, 11-12).

It seems that the Baha’i Faith have painted themselves into a corner again. First we point out that according to Baha’i interpretation “clouds” are not clouds, “the Lord” is not Jesus, “rising from the dead” is not rising from the dead. Now if we apply the Baha’i interpretation of “clouds” then the verse says that we will be caught up and meet the Lord in our bodies, this contradicts the Baha’i doctrine that states that there is no physical resurrection. If we apply the natural, contextual, plain interpretation, we learn that we will be caught up and meet the Lord while He and we are on/in clouds i.e., in the air.

We also note that the text defines who the Lord in the clouds is as Jesus; the same Jesus who walked the earth some 2,000 years ago. The gospel is literally built upon the physical resurrection, without it all of Jesus’ disciples would have repented of having followed a false Messiah and Jesus would be but a footnote in history, something to the likes of, “Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, there lived Yeshua, a Nazarene, a false Messiah who was executed for blasphemy.” Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing but the physical resurrection could account for it.

The concept of a spiritual resurrection is utterly foreign to Jewish belief and Scripture, which understands resurrection to be physical. The Apostles never thought that Jesus had resurrected spiritually, they might have gone as far as thinking that Jesus might be a ghost or spirit, but resurrected in a non-physical manner, never!

“Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, ‘Peace to you.’ But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:36-39).

Rather, in hearing of Jesus resurrection Thomas demonstrates the historical context, which is the belief in physical resurrection, by refusing to believe it unless he could physically handle Jesus’ physically resurrected body.

“He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord_Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach your finger here, and look at my hands; and reach you hand here, and put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing. And Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!'” (John 20:20, 28).

The Empty Tomb:
One thing that the Baha’i do not seem to attempt to do is explain the empty tomb. As we consider this issue notice the differentiation made between David and Jesus; one died and stayed dead while one died and rose again.Of David it was said,

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day” (Acts 2:29).

Of Jesus is was said,

“And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption” (Acts 13:34).

tomb-9438502The Romans:
Roman soldiers were ordered to guard the tomb. If the Romans had changed their minds and went from guarding the tomb to stealing Jesus’ body then when His disciples were turning the Roman world upside-down the Romans could have produced the corpse.

The Jews:
If the Jews stole His body they would have had to fight off Roman soldiers to get to it and they wound have had to break the Roman seal on the grave-both are crimes punishable by death. They would have had to find a way to move the huge stone that sealed the tomb. If they would have succeeded, they also could have dragged Jesus’ body through the streets in order to prove that Jesus was dead and dead for good.

The Women:
The first disciples at the empty tomb, the first to report the fact that it was empty, were women (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). In those days a woman’s testimony was viewed as so utterly useless that it was not admissible as evidence in a court of law. If the resurrection were a myth or a fabricated lie, the writers of the gospels would have known better than to claim that women were the first witnesses.

The Wrong Tomb:
If the women went to the wrong tomb, if the men who came afterwards also went to the wrong tomb and if the Romans were guarding the wrong tomb, they could have asked Joseph of Arimathea who owned the tomb.

The Disciples:For the reasons related above, if the disciples had stolen the body they also would have had to fight off the Roman soldiers, broken the Roman seal, and moved the huge stone. They would have willingly died for a lie and would be responsible for dragging millions of Christian martyrs throughout history to the grave with them. In fact, charging that they stole the body, while it does not prove that they did so, does prove that the tomb was empty.That the disciples stole and buried the body is precisely what the Baha’i speculate,

“Concerning the location of the burial site of Jesus’ sacred remains, a letter dated 22 March 1982 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer states: Pilgrims have recorded in their notes oral statements made by `Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi to the effect that the disciples hid the body of Christ by burying it under the wall of Jerusalem, and that it is now under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The House of Justice knows of nothing in the Writings of the Faith, however, explicitly confirming these statements.”14

We aught to point out that simply stating that “the disciples hid the body” is far to generalized a statement and it actually creates more questions than it answers.For instance, the New Testament states that Mary Magdalene, Peter and John actually looked into the tomb and found it empty and yet, they are the ones who claim that they found the tomb empty and not that they had hidden or buried the body. In the 20th chapter of the Gospel of John we learn that Mary wept at the tomb and explained that she did so because “they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him” (v. 2) thus far she only knew that the body was not there. She saw Jesus but did not know that it was Him, perhaps because she was at the tomb “while it was still dark” (v. 1). “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?’ She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, ‘Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away'” (v. 13-14).

Thereafter she realizes that it is Jesus. Obviously, she could not have hidden the dead body of the very person who stood before her and spoke to her. However, this may all be unnecessary since it appears that the above quoted statement is indicating that the Baha’i do not “officially” teach that “the disciples hid the body.”

Hallucination:
By definition, hallucinations are not real, they are mental experiences, and people do not share the same hallucination.

He Swooned:If He never really died then He fooled the expert Roman executioners; four of which had to sign a death certificate. They did not break His legs to kill Him because He was already dead (John 19:33). His heart was impaled and blood mixed with water came out (John 19:34), Jesus died of a broken heart. A doctor of 2,000 years ago simply could not mend a lacerated heart. There is no medical reason for believing that lying in a cool, damp cave resuscitated Him.

Even if He did resuscitated by natural means, He would have had to maneuver around 100 pounds of herbs and spices in order to unwrap Himself from His shroud. He would have had to walk on pierced feet, moved a massive stone with pierced hands, and fought off Roman soldiers.

He Was Not Buried:
John Dominic Crossan, co-founder and former co-chair of “The Jesus Seminar,” stated that crucifixion was feared because it “was not simply that it made you suffer a lot. It meant that you didn’t get buried. That’s what made it one of the supreme Roman penalties-lack of burial.”15 The problem with this statement is lack of evidence and the fact that the evidence we do have on this subject proves him wrong and proves the Bible right. In 1968 the remains of a crucified man named Yhohnn Yehohanan were found in an ossuary (bone box) at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem. This find proved many details of the biblical account including a large nail imbedded through the heel bone and still embedded into a piece the wood, broken shin bones and burial in a family grave.

In conclusion, the bottom line to all these options is that no competing burial story exists. Alternative options date from thousands of years later and are not backed by historical evidence of any sort but only by skeptical mythology. The Baha’i teaching on this issue is not only an attempt to discredit Christianity (however purposeful or unwittingly) but it is an ill fated attempt which leaves much to be desired, does not deal with various issues and is proved wrong by the Bible as well as historical evidence.

‹ Bahai Faith / Baha’i Faith : Physical Resurrection, Part 1 of 2 up

How (not) to argue Protestant vs. Catholic issues

How (not) to argue Catholic vs. Protestant issues

Our article Did Pope Francis fulfill prophecy? was based on an article by Timothy George titled Our Francis, Too – Why we can enthusiastically join arms with the Catholic leader.
Within the comments section of that article, which was from Christianity Today, came forth a great example as to how (not) to argue Catholic vs. Protestant issues.

A commentator wrote:

I am Catholic and it breaks my heart to read such hateful, ignorant comments posted about the Catholic Church. You know nothing of which you speak of. I suggest you read a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or visit Catholic(dot)com to educate yourselves regarding the truth about the Catholic Church. Christians should be working together instead of against each other.

Such hateful and ignorant comments create a dichotomy of which Satan loves.

Let us start here: those who are perceived as being hateful and ignorant are, well, hateful and ignorant and doing that which satan loves. Instead, the beloved of satan should be working together which, let us face it, means agreeing with Catholicism.

maryolatry-4734412

Well, we can agree on this much Catholic and non-Catholic Christians should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, catholic.com is a Catholic apologetics site administered by personages such as Tim Staple who has stated that the only people who are truly in danger of hellfire are ex-Catholics and that YHVH, yes Him (you know; God), had to “asks her [Mary’s] permission to save the world” (stated during episodes of the Bible Answer Man that aired July 6-7 and August 14, 2000 AD).
Also, the founder of that org is Karl Keating who has made enlightening statements such as:

…where is the proof [of the Assumption] from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
—Karl Keating, Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 273

Well, there you have it—guaranteed!

Now, the commentator asked beloved by satan hateful and ignoramuses to educate themselves on the Catholic Church. But first we should ask; which Catholic Church? The one according to which there are various bishops who exercise equal authority over their regions? The one according to which the Roman bishop decides that he is the one and only supreme, apostolic succession having, pontifical vicar of Christ? The one according to which there is no salvation outside of the (Catholic) church? The one according to which Crusades are divinely inspired? The one according to which Protestants are eternally condemned to hell? The one according to which the Inquisition is divinely inspired? The one according to which burning Protestants to death is divinely inspired? The one according to which Muslims are saved even whilst adhering to another god, anther scripture and another Jesus? The one according which—change of God’s mind alert—Protestants are mere “separated brethren”?

The one who’s Pope kisses the Qur’an—a document that specifically condemns Trinitarians such as the Pope—see here?

Much, much more could be said but let us leave off with one lesson of the good it can do to consult the Catechism. How about; the one according to which translating the Bible and placing it into the common people’s hands is a crime deserving of capital punishment-the death penalty? Well, that was way back when YHVH thought that was a good idea. Nowadays, Catholicism claims that capital punishment-the death penalty is to be condemned.
In fact, the way that Deacon Juan Barajas (Director of Evangelization and Hispanic Ministry at the Archdiocese of Santa Fe’s Catholic Center, Alb., NM.) put it (in a column that is mailed out to the Parishes of the Archdiocese to be included in church bulletins), “We cannot be disciples of Jesus and believe in the death penalty.” Wow, now that is some serious stuff; you cannot be saved if you support the death penalty.

Now, let us consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2266:

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in case of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

Thus, according to the Catechism, in cases of extreme gravity the death penalty is not excluded.

Figure that one out.

Well, overall; the lesson is that you beloved of satan hateful ignoramuses really should study up on the Catholic church and the Catechism but first, figure out which Catholic church is being referenced.

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 2 of 5

Considering the Polemic: In a translation and interpretation of the Old Testament—the Tanakh—that Rev. Dr. A. Cohen edited, the following interpretations are offered:

Commenting of Genesis 18:1, “The LORD here means the three angels.”

Genesis 18:2, “three men. One to bring the tidings that Sarah would give birth to a son, the second to overthrow Sodom, and the third to heal Abraham; the last also went on from there to save Lot.”

Genesis 18:3, “my lord. He addressed the chief of them; consequently the word does not signify God. Another interpretation: He spoke to God, praying Him to wait until he had attended to his guests. He recognized that they were angels, and therefore called them by their Master’s, Lord.”

Genesis 18:20, “and the LORD said. To Abraham. The angel of the Lord said to Abraham.”

Genesis 18:22, “but Abraham stood yet before the LORD…Abraham still stood before the angel.”

ball20star-5052948

These sorts of runarounds, if you will, appear to come from a need on the part of the Jewish theologian to deny that God could appear and be seen even when the text of the Bible labors to make this very claim. In fact, when I brought this text up to a Jewish man with whom I was dialoguing he said that we had to see what Rashi had to say about it. Rashi is a well-known and respected 12th century commentator; but is he the infallible interpreter of the Old Testament? The point being that it was hard for the gentleman to accept what the text said—not because the text is difficult to understand but because it would go against the beliefs of Rabbinic Judaism to hold to what the text clearly says and because this is a point of contention with Christianity.

Moreover, Rashi applies Isaiah 53 to national Israel while the Talmud and various Rabbinic writings apply it to the Messiah and so I, for one, am not willing to place him in the position of supreme authority.

Note also the following statement made by The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia,

LOGOS (Greek for ‘word’), a theological concept found in the Judaism of the period of the Second Temple and in Christianity…
In the Targums the word Memra is introduced in every instance in the Bible in which God is represented as talking to man, thus explaining away all the anthropomorphisms found in the text.”

For more on the Logos and the concept of the Memra see the essay Does Christianity Corrupt the Old Testament? And: On the Memra.

Due to polemics and dogma we are told that The LORD, which is the name of the one and only God, now means three angels. The interpretation applies three tasks to the three men yet, the text says no such thing.
The LORD said is bluntly changed to the angel of the Lord said. And just as bluntly Abraham stood yet before the LORD is changed to Abraham still stood before the angel. We might point out, as a side note, that if Christian theologians did such things as these they would immediately be charged with corruption, mistranslation, misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture.

Here are a few other commentaries on the Genesis 18:

Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (aka Maimonides or the Rambam),

“The prophet sees a man that speaks to him in a prophetic vision; e.g., Abraham in the plain of Mamre ([Gen.] xviii, I), and Joshua in Jerico (Josh. V. 13).” [emphasis added]

Jewish Scholars Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore and Herbert Martin James Loewe,

“If man should be humble, there is a sense in which God is strangely humble too: If a pupil is ill, and the teacher goes to visit him, the other pupils go before to announce the coming of the teacher. But when God went to visit Abraham in his illness, He went first, before the angels (Gen. XVIII, 1, 2). Is there anyone more humble than He? (Tanh., Wayera, 2, f. 31b.)” [emphasis added]