Month: April 2017

This article serves as the introduction to a consideration of the $200,000 ads from the self-described “godless organization”: the American Humanist Association (and you thought that Humanism was not about atheism, come now) that were mentioned in the post Where we “Created by God to Be Good”?

The American Humanist Association lists 10 ads to be run during the holiday season. In keeping with their nature and self-description; while people of faith look forward to the holidays, Humanist atheists look forward to wasting tremendous amounts of money besmirching those with whom they disagree. Of the 10 ads 8 are anti Judeo-Christian and 2 are anti-Islam (2 out of 10 is actually a major and surprising improvement over the typical atheist tactic yet, it is still indicative of Humanism/atheism as primarily an anti-Christian support group).

Here is part of the American Humanist Association press release:

A national multimedia ad campaign – the largest, most extensive ever by a godless organization – launches today…that directly challenge biblical morality and fundamentalist Christianity…demonstrating that secular humanist values are consistent with mainstream America and that fundamentalist religion has no right to claim the moral high ground.[1]

Oh, the ads outside are frightful, but the substance is less than delightful. Actually, what the ads accomplish is that they leave “biblical morality and fundamentalist Christianity” unscathed and only succeed in discrediting Humanist atheism (as for the two aimed at Islam, I will let Muslims respond with those, if they so please).

This effort is being funded by two organizations, thus far, that are atheistic by any other name:

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation was the primary sponsor of the Consider Humanism campaign with a $150,000 donation. Another $50,000 was raised from supporters of the American Humanist Association for the launch of this campaign, bringing the total ad buy to $200,000 so far.

Here are further statements from the press release:

“Humanist values are mainstream American values, and this campaign will help many people realize that they are already humanists and just did not know the term,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “Humanists believe in and value love, equality, peace, freedom and reason – values that are comparable to those of moderate and liberal religious people…

We want to reach people in every corner of the U.S., from all walks of life, to raise the flag for humanists and show others that they have more in common with us than with biblical literalists…

It’s important that people recognize that a literal reading of religious texts is completely out of touch with mainstream America…

Although religious texts can teach good lessons, they also advocate fear, intolerance, hate and ignorance. It’s time for all moderate people to stand up against conservative religion’s claim on a moral monopoly.”

All quotes from religious texts were checked by scripture scholars to ensure accuracy, context and proper translation…

Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.

Consider their definition of “Humanism” as “the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.” In that case, all Christians are Humanists. This is a point that is confused due to it being a ubiquitously promulgated well-within-the-box-atheist-groupthink-talking-point-de-jour. It actually came up during a debate between a Christian and an atheist on the issue of morality.

The short answer is that to “be good” is a communicable attribute of YHVH and so by the very nature of being made in His image we can “be good” without, here is the key, “belief in God.” This is tantamount to stating the fact that you can fall off of a building and plummet to your squishy death “without a belief in gravity.” It affects you whether or not you believe in it.

Now, note how dogmatic (dogmatheistic) the American Humanist Association is, “Humanist values…Humanists believe” and from the first quote above, “secular humanist values.” This is reiterated within the ads which claim to elucidate that which Humanists believe (via besmirching the Bible and Qur’an since in, sadly, typical atheist form the American Humanist Association cannot simply make a positive affirmation but must function based on the negative).

Does this mean that you cannot be a Humanist, or an American Humanist Associationist, unless you pledge allegiance to their creed, their catechism? Moreover, how do they enforce their creedal catechism? Do they ever excommunicate? Further still, if someone breaks their creedal catechistic values what happens? The bottom line answer is, “Nothing” (see Are there atheist ethics? for details on this point).

Lastly, note the pseudo-evangelistic concept that underlies the ads—conversion, “We want to reach people…to raise the flag for humanists” and, again based on the negative, “and show others that they have more in common with us than with biblical literalists.”

As we consider their ads keep in mind that while they claim “that a literal reading of religious texts is completely out of touch with mainstream America” and that “All quotes from religious texts were checked by scripture scholars to ensure accuracy, context and proper translation” we will find that even if that much is granted, they are not tackling the issue with integrity.

Meanwhile, make a list of things, concepts, philosophies, etc. that “advocate fear, intolerance, hate and ignorance.” Make sure to include the American Humanist Association since they are asserting themselves via a they are wrong, we are right; leave them and join us based campaign.

The first ad listed on this AHA page is “On Women” so apparently this is the beginning and end of what the Bible and Humanism believes “On Women”:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2)

“The rights of men and women should be equal and sacred—marriage should be a perfect partnership.” (Robert G. Ingersoll, In A Letter Dated April 13, 1878 AD).

Clearly, the issue is not women in general but marriage in particular—expressed via touching upon rights, equality and the secular-sacred (whatever that is). For a detailed consideration see Is the Bible misogynistic? which makes some bullet points and links to further info.

Begin with the fact that the Bible instantly elevates women to being ontologically (in their very nature and essence) equal to men by affirming that YHVH created both males and females in His image (Genesis 5). Then move to the fact that men and women have different roles, such as that women carry babies in their wombs and men do not. This is actually where the confusion seems to occur; the distinction between essential equality yet, differences in roles.

Note that while American Humanist Association claimed that “All quotes from religious texts were checked by scripture scholars to ensure accuracy, context and proper translation” it was noted in part 1 that even granting this; we will find that even if that much is granted, they are not tackling the issue with integrity.

In this ad, they juxtapose what we would term being a “head pastor” and marriage. This is a category mistake. The New Testament states that women should be teachers but the 1 Timothy text is referring to the role of head pastor. The fact that women are to learn is already a tremendous improvement over the ways of the world at that time. One must also factor in historical and cultural context.

Now, what of Robert G. Ingersoll’s letter? Who is he that Humanists must adhere to a statement in one of his letters? This is just to remind us of the point made in part 1 about authority and dogmatheism.

Timeline:

In 1878 AD, Ingersollian Humanism affirmed that, “marriage should be a perfect partnership.”

Millennia previously, Genesis 2 stated “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” but why come together as one flesh? Because “When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them” (Genesis 5:1-2) because it was not good for man to be alone and so, from his very flesh, woman was made. This set up the model for marriage. That “marriage should be a perfect partnership” is clear from the fact that it was not good for man to be alone, that the woman could help him and that they were to dwell together as one.

Also, millennia previously, the New Testament stated:

Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them (Colossians 3:19).
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her (Ephesians 5:25).

Ok, but the Ephesians 5 text states this in verses 22-24,

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Indeed, husbands and wives are both told to do that which is naturally difficult for them: he must love, she must submit.

Yet, Ephesians 5:21, the very previous verse, states, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

You see, it is not as simple as scare-pull-quote-talking-points. There is an interaction of concepts here. Essential equality, different roles, submitting to each other as a body of believers, husbands and wives doing that which is difficult for them, etc. thus, “marriage should be a perfect partnership” (see Muhammad and Jesus for an interesting juxtaposition).

Perhaps the ad at this link would be more befitting a nationwide $200,000 campaign. The American Humanist Association are Charles Darwin fans so here is the text of the revised ad:

“When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them”

GENESIS 5:1-2

“Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius.”
CHARLES DARWIN, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex

It presents another well-within-the-box-atheist-groupthink-talking-point-de-jour via a scare-pull-quote:

“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the SLAVE dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the SLAVE gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

EXODUS 21:20-21 (NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION)

“We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of FREEDOM consonant with responsibility.”

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS

One wonders whether the word translated as “slave” is bold and capitalized in the Hebrew text.

Having written various times on this issue, I will simply direct the interested read to two essays:

Does God Command You to Beat Your Slaves?

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery?

They are committing many errors such as that slavery is not slavery always slavery; not the same thing in every instance. For example, indentured servitude, working to pay off a debt, is sometimes referred to as “slavery.”

The Exodus text comes from a section dealing with judicial issues and distinguished between what we call premeditated murder and manslaughter.

Also, see Rodney Stark from “The Victory of Reason” on the church’s opposition to slavery

Since of the $200,000 raised for the ad campaign thus far, $150,000 was donated by the Stiefel Freethought Foundation it may relevant to remake the ad with the words of a freethinker, Dan Barker, with regards to “each person…having inherent worth and dignity.” And, by the way, one can only wonder how “each person” has “inherent worth and dignity” in a God-free universe; inherent from what, the Humanist’s say so?

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”

EXODUS 22:21

“Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt”
EXODUS 23:9

YHVH “administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”

DEUTERONOMY 10:18-19

“abortion is a blessing…a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?” (state by Dan Barker, during a debate with Dinesh D’souza).

The next American Humanist Association ad with which we will deal is with “On Intelligence” and reads:

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.”

PROVERBS 3:5 (NEW LIVING TRANSLATION 2007)

“There’s all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic, and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority or revelation.”

RICHARD DAWKINS, AUTHOR AND 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR (HUMANIT JAN/FEB 1997)

This is another ubiquitously promulgated talking point that the essay Dan Barker and Bertrand Russell: The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion deconstructs.

The fact is that we are all metaphysician and so at the very base, bottom, premise of our worldviews—any and all of them—there are axioms that are not proven or evidenced but assumed or intuited.

Judeo-Christians are told to recognize YHVH as the ultimate premise and atheist Humanist are told to quote evidence, without evidence, and to rely on logic, without justification. In short Richard Dawkins’ statements are “supported by nothing more than tradition” and his “authority.” 

The ad at this link may be more telling as it reads:

“‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD”

ISAIAH 1:18

“Put your trust in the scientific method, put your faith in the scientific method.”

RICHARD DAWKINS, WAKING UP IN THE UNIVERSE

“I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my, on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.”

RICHARD DAWKINS, interview with Jonathan Miller

A longer ad could have also included that in the New Testament the Bereans are considered more noble (or more “fair minded”) for double checking everything that Paul told them (Acts 17:11), Thomas asked for the evidence which the others had seen and had merely retold to him (John 20:24-30), Jesus stated, “Love the Lord your God with all your…mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:36-38).

We are clearly called to discern, test, and judge, prophets, spirits and all things:
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1st Corinthians 14:29). One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is “discerning of spirits” (1st Corinthians 12:10). “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1). “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1st Thessalonians 5:19-22).

“you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly” (Deuteronomy 13:14).

Etc., etc., etc.

For more dissections of fallacious atheist ads see: Atheist bus ads and billboards

“On Women”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Slavery”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Intelligence”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Homosexuality”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Fear”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Hate / Hatred”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Punishment”

Original ad:

Remix:

“On Genocide”

Original ad:

Remix:

——————–

Notes: [1] AHA, Humanists Launch Largest National Advertising Campaign Critical of Religious Scripture, Posted: 13:44PM on November 09 2010 AD, Washington, D.C., November 9, 2010 AD

…Genesis 4:1. “And Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain.” Notice that what is not said is more significant that what is said, the Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain…there are

literal children of Satan surviving in the world today…

—Bertrand L. Comparet

With this series I will consider Bertrand L. Comparet, A.B., J.D.’s The Cain/Satanic Seed Line. You can find the series on Comparet here.
I cannot tell who plagiarized whom but the Bertrand L. Comparet writing under consideration is virtually word for word just like Willie Martin’s The Cain Satanic Seedline.

We can instantly discern a vicious circle in Comparet’s teachings we he (mis)uses the Bible to justify his (unjustifiable) racism and uses his racism to justify his (mis)interpretations on the Bible. Straight away, he notes that “The battle lines are drawn by Yahweh in Genesis 3:15, where He states he is going to put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.” Thus, he justifies his racism by claiming that God created enmity between races (biblically there is only one race as we all come from Adam and Eve).

He claims that “one of the central themes of the Bible, the fight for supremacy between the children of Yahweh and the children of Lucifer” and therefore, “there are literal children of Satan surviving in the world today.”

Bertrand L. Comparet then makes a true point and a false one. It is true that “Satan wasn’t a serpent…wasn’t a scaly thing wriggling along on the ground.” Yet, it is false that Satan is “A fallen angel” since as per Ezekiel 28:14 Satan is a Cherub and Angels and Cherubim are different categories of being: they have different titles, different jobs, look different, etc.

Comparet states that he will consider Genesis 3:3 in the “King James translation and I will correct it as I go.” Of course, he will have to “correct” because the plain reading of the text (in any version actually) knows nothing about Eve having sex with Satan. His so called correction is to note that “Fruit is the Hebrew word pirchach, meaning progeny, brood, children or descendants. Do you talk about the children of a walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don’t!” Firstly, our modern day common parlance is irrelevant. Secondly, the Hebrew word in the text is not pirchach (Strong’s H6526) which only appears in Job 30:12 wherein it is translated as “youth.” Rather, pĕriy aka ū·mip·pə·rî (Strong’s H6529) which the KJV translates as fruit (113x), fruitful (2x), boughs (1x), firstfruits (with H7225) (1x), reward (1x), fruit thereof (1x). It is a word that comes from H6509 “fruit (literally or figuratively):—bough, (first-)fruit(-ful), reward.” Here are the specific definitions, “I. fruit A. fruit, produce (of the ground) B. fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb) C. fruit (of actions) (fig.).”

Yet, in any case indeed, as with any word in any language: this word has more than one meaning and more than one application. This is simply irrelevant as it is context and not etymology or picking and choosing definitions which determines meaning.

Bertrand L. Comparet’s point is that it is “Of the pirchach” who are “of the descendants of the tree” about which “Yahweh has said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it.’” We get another Hebrew less as he claims that naga (Strong’s H5060), “is a more polite expression meaning, to have sexual intercourse with. Do you need to be warned not to have sexual intercourse with an apple? Of course not, it isn’t that kind of a tree.”
Firstly, the Bible never refers to the fruit as an “apple.” Secondly, I have already posted on the words tree, eat, touch, fruit, etc. so the interested reader can see Disambiguating the serpent seedline of Satan theory in Genesis 3, part 1.
Yet, I will comment on this sort of word play only this one last time with regards to Comparet.

The KJV translates the term as: touch (92x), came (18x), reach (11x), bring (4x), near (4x), smite (4x), nigh (3x), plagued (3x), happeneth (2x), strike (2x), beaten (1x), cast (1x), reach up (1x), brought down (1x), join (1x), laid (1x), get up.
Nothing to see here.

Yet, is the Biblical Usage: “I. to touch, reach, strike A. (Qal) i. to touch ii. to strike iii. to reach, extend to iv. to be stricken a. stricken (participle) B. (Niphal) to be stricken, be defeated C. (Piel) to strike D. (Pual) to be stricken (by disease) E. (Hiphil) to cause to touch, reach, approach, arrive i. to cause to touch, apply ii. to reach, extend, attain, arrive, come iii. to approach (of time) iv. to befall (of fate).”
Nothing to see here.

Ah, but, but, but here is the definition: “a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.):—beat, (× be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.”
At last!!! From the translations and usages there is one and only one reference to that is can be a euphemism for to lie with a woman and serpent seedline of Satan theorists such as Comparet will jump on this one statement and, as did he, pretend that it is the only meaning.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #BertrandComparet, #Seedlines, #Racism
Facebook: #BertrandComparet, #Seedlines, #Racism

“…nowhere in the Bible does it say that

either Cain nor Abel were Adam’s son…

Those who have blood of this Serpent (and, possibly, other fallen angels) would go on to form ‘mixed’ multitudes of people…”

—Brett T. Mystery Babylon site

Herein I am considering the claims of Brett T. who runs “Mystery Babylon the Great, the Definitive Website.” At issue are some of his claims about the serpent seedline of Satan theory which holds that Cain is the son of Eve and Satan and thus he and his descendants carry on Satanic genetics. You can find this series here.

Herein I am considering the claims of Brett T. who runs “Mystery Babylon the Great, the Definitive Website.” At issue are some of his claims about the serpent seedline of Satan theory which holds that Cain is the son of Eve and Satan and thus he and his descendants carry on Satanic genetics. You can find this series here.
I will review the sections of the site titled What really happened in the garden? and Who begat the first murderer Cain?

I could not help but note that the Bible so clearly does not promulgate the serpent seedline of Satan theory that Brett has to rely very heavily on apocrypha. For example, within the two pages/chapters I am reviewing, he refers to “a great deal of ancient written evidence…According to ancient accounts…One ancient source…Other ancient written evidence…a variety of ancient sources…a good number of ancient sources…A good number of ancient written texts…one ancient source…according to many…ancient evidence…other sources…a variety of sources…many ancient written sources…According to some sources…A number of ancient texts.”

There is nothing wrong with consulting apocrypha but they cannot be allowed to contradict the Bible nor be used as an interpretive template into which we place the Bible. Now, three of these “ancient” (whatever that means) sources are cited by name (the footnotes contain citations to modern books which presumably reference other “ancient” texts). Rabbinic Judaism’s main mystical text The Zohar which dates to the 13th century AD (no, not BC).
The Apocalypse of Moses aka Revelation of Moses aka The Books Of Adam And Eve or Vita Adae et Evae which have a range of dating from circa the 1st to the 5th century AD (for details, see The Books, or Life, of Adam and Eve: why is it not in the Bible?
He also refers to the Book of Adam which, as far as I can tell, is a succinct aka of the text noted above.

One of Brett’s premises is the “Gap Theory of Creation” which is based on a wild guess that Satan must have fallen centuries or millennia or millions of years before the creation of Adam and Eve. This gap is said to fit between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, “1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The argument goes that the reason that “the earth was without form, and void” is because of the Revelation 12 war whereby the Earth was decimated.

Now, I may be too simple a thinker but it seems to me that the text is simply stating that God created the earth, as in solid matter, this earth was without form and void and then God molds this matter into the planet we call Earth.
Yet, there is more to correcting the gap theory than having both sides guess about what is meant by without form and void. The fact is that gap theorists have to guess at and invent a pre Adamic fall of Satan, etc. Yet, Genesis 3 is pinpointing exactly when Satan fell. That is the first instance we have of Satan controverting God and also of God curing Satan. Thus, Satan did not fall in some undetermined pre Adamic past but during an intra Adamic time.

Beginning with that which within some small circles is a most popular story assumed by gap theorists, Brett write the following with regards to Genesis 3, “In probably one of the most popular stories in our history, we are again led by what most of us have always assumed.” From this he asserts, “The people who translated this section of Genesis were probably taught the same story as we see above; and they probably used corresponding English words which would have best fit their assumptions.”

He then introduces, “the possibility of other elements to this story” which includes that “the serpent speaks. Many, over the years, might have wondered why Eve wasn’t more surprised that an animal decided to go and talk to her!…It might not even have been an animal; but a humanoid-looking being…this Serpent was actually a serpentine, or serpent-like, angel; one who previously fell from grace.”

I agree that it might not even have been an animal but, as per Revelation 12 and 20, Satan who is referred to as a serpent (a dragon, etc.). However, Brett does not believe it was Satan as we shall see.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Seedline, #Babylon, #Cain
Facebook: #Seedline, #Babylon, #Cain

We continue, from part 1, considering arguments which a personage whom we will call the counter-arguer made in attempts to prove that Jesus was violent.

He is attempting to prove that Jesus was violent and so offers some references:

Well, JC said he did not come to bring peace – Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Now whether this be a spiritual sword or physical sword, we can be sure it is not a peaceful sword.

Of course, making an enormous point, such as that Jesus was violent and urged violence based on one verse should raise equally enormous red flags.

Matthew chap. 10 begins with Jesus sending his Apostles out on missionary journeys. How is this for His violent ways?

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff…

If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet…

So, at this point, the lack of peace that Jesus preached pertained to those who would not receive the Apostles, would not receive Jesus’ message. When this happens, the Apostles were simply to leave them alone and go on their way.

Jesus added:

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles..

They would not only deal with rejection but persecution, including arrest, trials and scourging. But what would be the result of their preaching?

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name…

The persecution would reach such a point that relatives will turn each other in to the authorities. So, it was a matter of self-defense and they were right to pull their swords out and lop off some heads…right? Jesus instructed them further:

But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next…

So again, leave them in peace and move on. But why not fight back?

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul…

And then Jesus pulls out His sword:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

Thus, at this point we can inform the counter-arguer that the sword is, most certainly, not a physical sword. Rather, it is a parabolic, symbolic, metaphoric sword and no, it is not a peaceful sword. But what is the parabolic, symbolic, metaphoric meaning? Just what the text states: when Jesus’ message is proclaimed some will accept it and some will deny it. Those who deny it will react against it in violent, betraying manners.

This division is envisioned as a sword that cuts, separates, distinguished believers from unbelievers. All that we have seen is that the message will cause division but that the lack of peaceful actions are one sided: unbelievers will persecute believers but believers are to leave them alone, in peace, and the Apostles were to move on.

Some of us Jews who have come to accept Jesus as the Messiah know this very, very, very well and have personally experienced it within our families as they besmirch us for our beliefs. This is why Jesus went on to say:

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me….

We love our fathers but not more than Jesus, our love for our fathers cannot cause us to reject the Messiah: we must love Jesus even more, even if this causes our fathers to divide form us.

You see, the text is clear that the Apostles would be violently persecuted. Yet, the counter-arguer cares not about that. He is not interested in condemning violence but only in condemning Jesus, His Apostles and 2,000 years of Christian history.

Consider the elucidating text of Luke 12:51 wherein Jesus makes the Matthew chap. 10 point for us:

Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.

There it is in plain language, “division.”

Or, consider another sword in Hebrews 4:12,

For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…

But how is it like a sword?

…piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Because it divides.

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, proving quotations and citations on Angels from the Babylonian Talmud aka Talmud Bavli. The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon.

Deleted Atheist priest scene in “The Awakening” movie.

The 2011 AD movie “The Awakening” was directed by Nick Murphy and stars Rebecca Hall as Florence Cathcart, Dominic West as Robert Mallory, Imelda Staunton as Maud Hill, Isaac Hempstead-Wright as Tom Hill, Shaun Dooley as Malcolm McNair, et al.

The movie is basically about a presumed ghost, etc. which is not important to my context.
At one point a typical neo-Atheism logical fallacy of making category mistakes is made as the skeptical ghost busting debunker correlates Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy with God. In short, a philosophically necessary being, which God is, has no conceptual relation to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

In the bonus features the film maker explaining a deleted scene.

The context is the “problem of evil” (which is a problem for everyone including Atheists).

The deleted part is that a priest also denies the supernatural. He believes that God is mythical. At a key point he asks the skeptic if she believes in an afterlife and when she said “No” he says, “Neither do I. Terrible isn’t it?” But with a little editing the movie was released with this bit of dialogue going thusly, she said “No” he says, “Terrible isn’t it?” Also, of course, his statement about seeing his role as a priest to keep the God myth alive was cut.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Atheism, #Movies, #Videos
Facebook: #Atheism, #Movies, #Videos

…the doctrine of the Serpent Seed
(or the doctrine of the Original Sin) is neither an allegory, a myth, a legend,

nor a fable, but is based on literal historical facts…

—Richard Gan

Herein we continue considering Rev. Richard Gan’s article The Doctrine of the Serpent Seed and The Doctrine of the Original Sin… which derives from his 1998 AD book, “The Serpent Seed THE ORIGINAL SIN.” You can find the whole series here.

Richard Gan then specifies:

Eve committed spiritual fornication: i) when she omitted a portion of God’s Word regarding the forbidden fruit of “the tree” — “of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”; ii) when she added to the Word of God — “neither shall ye touch it”; iii) when she changed a portion of what God had said — “Thou shalt surely die” to “lest ye die”, making the definite commandment of God a conditional one.

Points i and ii are good points yet, he seems to be reading into the text so as to make point iii.

Richard Gan then offers a technical note in terms of a qualifying term, “The Woman was deceived not into fornication per se but the partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which she then gave it to the Man…He partook of the same that Eve partook — perverted knowledge.” He seems to be seeking to abscond from the logical (or, theological) conclusion which is that since Adam and Eve ate the same fruit from the same tree and fruit/eating is sex and tree is serpent then Adam also had sex with the serpent. Thus far in my research, Bob Schlenker has been the most explicit on this point as he elucidated his, and I quote, “sex orgy” version of Genesis 3 which, of course, he claims to have received in a private person revelation from God—see here.

Richard Gan then writes extensively about Adam and Eve’s nakedness in the manner of a typical serpent seed of Satan theorist gotcha question:

…their eyes were opened to their guilt, and they realized that they were naked, so they tried to cover their sexual parts! They were ashamed of it! (If eating apples or pears or any particular fruit had caused the first couple to realize that they were naked, then these fruits ought to be passed among those half-naked females in the streets and beaches today.)…
Adam was covering up a guilty act committed by his sexual organ. (Read Matthew 5:29-30.)

So apparently, if we read Matthew 5:29-30 we will see that it tells us that which Gan just elucidated. Well, that texts states:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Well, the only thing I could think of is that he may be implying that Adam castrated himself (and Eve also mutilated herself). But then again, he later fathered many children so perhaps Gan will someday tell us what the Matthew text has to do with it.

Gan’s gotcha statements continue as he notes that “If it was the mouth, Adam would have covered it” yet, he covered his nether regions. Gan notes that “The word “naked” used in Genesis 2:25 is different from that found in Genesis 3:7-11. The latter is translated from the Hebrew word “eyrom”, which comes from the root word “aram”, used only in a derogatory sense.” When one does not double check such claims they can sound very impressive and convincing. Yet, I cannot discern Gan’s point as the fact is (and Gan does not point out this factoid) that both words for naked derive from the very same root. This seems like a case of the difference between that which we may term “nude” versus “naked” which are different words with the same essential meaning.

Image from Richard Gan’s article/book

Richard Gan gets close to that which appears to be the text’s actual point in writing, “It is true that Adam and Eve lost their righteousness and became spiritually naked in the sight of God. However, it was their physical nakedness that caused them to be ashamed of their sin and to cover their sexual reproductive organs with fig leaves, and to hide from God.”

Gan writes:

Genesis 3:15, God prophesied, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed“…conclusively proved that the Serpent would have his seed as the woman would have hers.

An issue that causes confusion betwixt promulgators of and opposers of the serpent seedline of Satan theory is that there indeed are two “seedlines” as per the Bible. However, these are not based on genetics as per the theorists but based on actions as per the Bible. I have detailed this assertion most succinctly here: Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics journal.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Serpentseed, #RichardGan, #Seedlines
Facebook: #Serpentseed, #RichardGan, #Seedlines

Herein we prove quotations and citations on Demons from Flavius Josephus (37 AD-100 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Demons in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, Against Apion aka Contra Apion and The Wars of the Jews

Antiquities of the Jews Book VI

8:2 But as for Saul, some strange and demoniacal disorders came upon him… these demons came upon him and disturbed him, and to take care that such a person might stand over him, and play upon the harp, and recite hymns to him…So Jesse sent his son, and gave him presents to carry to Saul. And when he was come, Saul was pleased with him, and made him his armor-bearer, and had him in very great esteem; for he charmed his passion, and was the only physician against the trouble he had from the demons, whensoever it was that it came upon him, and this by reciting of hymns, and playing upon the harp, and bringing Saul to his right mind again.

11:2-3 Consider these things, and change your mind to a more merciful temper, and do no mischief to a man, who, in the first place, hath done us the greatest kindness of preserving thee; for when an evil spirit and demons had seized upon thee, he cast them out, and procured rest to thy soul from their incursions: and, in the second place, hath avenged us of our enemies; for it is a base thing to forget such benefits…when the demoniacal spirit came upon him, and put him into disorder, and disturbed him, he called for David into his bed-chamber wherein he lay, and having a spear in his hand, he ordered him to charm him with playing on his harp, and with singing hymns.

Book VIII 2:5 God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed.

And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly: for which reason it is, that all men may know the vastness of Solomon’s abilities, and how he was beloved of God, and that the extraordinary virtues of every kind with which this king was endowed may not be unknown to any people under the sun for this reason, I say, it is that we have proceeded to speak so largely of these matters.

A footnotes after the words “expels demons” states, “Some pretended fragments of these books of conjuration of Solomon are still extant…though I entirely differ from Josephus in this his supposal, that such books and arts of Solomon were parts of that wisdom which was imparted to him by God in his younger days; they must rather have belonged to such profane but curious arts…and had been derived from the idolatry and superstition of his heathen wives and concubines in his old age, when he had forsaken God, and God had forsaken him, and given him up to demoniacal delusions.”

Book XIII
16:2 …if some fatal demon hath a constant spite against Alexander’s house, they would be willing to bear their part, and to live in a private station there.

Against Apion Book II

38 For certainly he neither betrayed their city to its enemies, nor was he guilty of any sacrilege with regard to any of their temples; but it was on this account, that he swore certain new oaths and that he affirmed either in earnest, or, as some say, only in jest, that a certain demon used to make signs to him [what he should not do].

The Wars of the Jews or the History of the Destruction of Jerusalem Book VI

1:5 For what man of virtue is there who does not know, that those souls which are severed from their fleshly bodies in battles by the sword are received by the ether, that purest of elements, and joined to that company which are placed among the stars; that they become good demons, and propitious heroes, and show themselves as such to their posterity afterwards?

Book VII
6:3 Yet, after all this pains in getting, it is only valuable on account of one virtue it hath, that if it be only brought to sick persons, it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.

9:1 NOW as Eleazar was proceeding on in this exhortation, they all cut him off short, and made haste to do the work, as full of an unconquerable ardor of mind, and moved with a demoniacal fury.

In the next segment, we will consider paranormal Entities in the Babylonian Talmud aka Talmud Bavli.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Herein we continue, from part 1, considering Angels in the Targumim. The Targumim, plural of Targum (Strong’s H8638 meaning interpret as in Ezra 4:7), are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament that began to be produced beginning at the time of the Second Temple period (530 BC and 70 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Angels in Targum Of Onkelos.

From the Genesis portion. V This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that the Lord God created man, in the resemblance of Elohim.

A footnote at the end of the verse reads “Sam. Ver. ‘of Angels.’”

V Hanok were three hundred and sixty and five years. And Hanok walked in the fear of the Lord; and he was not; for the Lord had not made him to die.
A footnote at the end of the verse reads “Peshito, ‘Aloha took him.’ Sam. Vers. ‘the Angel took him.’”

XVI And the Angel of the Lord found her at the fountain of water in the wilderness, at the fountain in the way of Hagra…And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Return to thy mistress and be subject under her hand. And the Angel of the Lord said to her: Multiplying I will multiply thy sons, and they shall not be numbered for multitude. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, thou hast conceived, and shalt give birth to a son, and thou shalt call his name Yishmael…The well at which appeared the Angel of the Covenant.

XVII And when He had ended to speak with him, the Glory of the Lord ascended up from Abraham.
A footnote after the word “Lord” reads “Sam. Vers. ‘the Angel of the Lord.’”

XIX And two Angels entered into Sedom in the evening; and Lot sat in the gate of Sedom…And it was as the morning rose that the Angels were urgent upon Lot.

XXI And the voice of the youth was heard before the Lord; and the Angel of the Lord called to Hagar from the heavens, and said to her, What to thee, Hagar?

XXII And the Angel of the Lord called to him from the heavens, and said, Abraham, Abraham!…And the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham the second time from the heavens.

XXIV I will give thee this land, will send His Angel before thee, and thou wilt take a wife for my son from thence…And he said to me, The Lord before whom I worship will send His Angel with thee, and will prosper thy way, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from my kindred and from my father’s house…And Izhak ascended in coming from the well over which the Angel of Life (malak qayama, “the Eternal Angel”) had appeared.

XXV And it was after the death of Abraham that the Lord blessed Izhak his son, and Izhak dwelt at the well over which the Eternal Angel had appeared.

XXVIII …behold, a ladder was planted in the Earth, and the head of it reached unto the height of heaven; and, behold, the Angels of the Lord ascended and descended upon it.

XXXI And the Angel of the Lord said to me in a dream…And Jakob went on his way, and the Angels of the Lord met him. And when Jakob saw them, he said, This is a host from before the Lord; and he called the name of the place Mahanaim.

XLVIII The Lord, before whom my fathers Abraham and Izhak did serve; the Lord, who fed me from my coming unto this day; the Angel who redeemed me from all evil.

In the next segment, we will consider Angels in the Psalms Targum.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

We continue, from part 1 and part 2, considering arguments which a personage whom we will call the counter-arguer made in attempts to prove that Jesus was violent.

Ultimately, what the counter-arguer succeeded in doing was that he found reference to a sword—period. He then baselessly and uncontextually claimed that it was a physical sword. Yet, he provided no place where this physical sword of Jesus was used. Thus, you can see that he is desperate: he finds a words, he pour his preferred meaning into it and still he fails to prove his point.

On the other hand, the apologist can find that word in that text, read the text for context and conclusively conclude that the sword is symbolic of division.

Note that in Luke 12:49 Jesus stated, “I came to send fire on the earth.” Thus, you see how we can now blame the past 2,000 of fires on Jesus. Indeed, it may have been a symbolic fire but it is also a physical fire—why not?

Considering that the counter-arguer’s focus is so heavily on Jesus’ sword, the he followed up by stating:

In some places JC is commanding peace, in others he is violent and commands all his followers to have swords,…What I am attempting to show you is that the NT is deceitful [ellipses in original]

Here is one of his examples as to the New Testament being deceitful: 

Should we carry swords or not? –

Matthew 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Luke 22:36 He said to them “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

The context is clear, this is no parable. Look it up yourself. This is what his followers did for 2000 years.

You focus on the peaceful parts, I focus on the whole.

You are taking a part here and a part there, I look at the WHOLE NT and understand it – the books were chosen out of over 200 “Gospels” by the Catholic Church and the books have MANY inconsistencies – here are 2 more of hundreds-

There is much to note here such as 1) his inability to draw his arguments to his intended conclusion and 2) his constant side tracking.

Note that his purpose was to demonstrate the New Testament’s deceit. Now, how is the example exemplary of deceit? It may be a contradiction but it is not deceit. But is it a contradiction?

Matthew 26:52 pertains to when Jesus was being arrested and Peter sought to interfere. What the counter-arguer does not bother quoting is the context which is that Jesus specifically stated (including verses 53 and 54):

Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?

Thus, if Jesus wanted to be violent, He could have and would have either allowed Peter to continue hacking away or could have had God the Father send twelve legions of angels. Therefore, the context is that those who take up swords in order to interfere with God’s plans will die by the sword. The Romans and Temple guard would have surely made quick work of Peter had Jesus not interfered by bringing peace to a violent situation.

Thus, there is no contradiction with Luke 22:36 wherein Jesus tells them to by swords.

Furthermore, and more importantly, his purpose was to show that Jesus and His followers were violent. However, what the counter-arguer is missing is an instance—either within the New Testament or any historical document—of the Apostles taking up swords. Simply stated, we have no such info whatsoever. He desperately wants to read violence into the statement to by swords but he cannot specify any instant in which they used swords violently—with the exception above, when Jesus told Peter to cease. This is why he has to fall back on a statement that is generic enough to be utterly meaningless, “This is what his followers did for 2000 years.”

Now, to point 2) about “the books were chosen out of over 200 ‘Gospels’ by the Catholic Church and the books have MANY inconsistencies – here are 2 more of hundreds.” Apparently, he has been reading too much Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman and other modern day myth makers. We will not get side tracked by his very many attempts at side tracking. If you are interested in exploring this issue see: Canonization Controversy

Sadly, within this particular exchange the counter-arguer trailed off again and only succeeded in demonstrating his anachronistic manner of misunderstanding the Bible’s contents, concepts and context. This is an interesting yet, saddening view into his modis operandi. For example, he demonstrated his inability (or, is it unwillingness) to discern that Jesus could, at one time and pertaining to certain information, state that no one was to be told but, at a different time and pertaining to different information, Jesus could seek to reveal (or, Jesus could be referring to the same issue but at one time keep it untold but later told).

He is likewise confused about the John the Baptist / Elijah correlation. Malachi 4:5 affirms that Elijah will come, “before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.” Matthew 11:13 has Jesus saying that “John…is Elijah.” But since neither the Bible as a whole nor Jesus hold to reincarnation, what does it mean that John “is” Elijah? Well, Luke 1:13 explains is perfectly well, in stating, that “John…will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Thus, John is in Elijah’s prophetic office but, as he himself admitted in John 1:19-21, he is not Elijah. Jesus stated of John,

This is [he] of whom it is written: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You” (Luke) 7:27).

Thus, John is identified as fulfilling the function of Elijah.

It is all very clear to those who actually seek truth and not trouble only. In fact, Jesus said it all in Matthew 11:13-15:

For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.

And then He added:

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Which was a typical way for Him to say, understand this if you have understanding.

Simply stated the issue of John and Elijah is tantamount to that of Elisha and Elijah:

Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (2 Kings 2:9).

You see, this is about office, station it is about spirit, in the spirit of, in the likeness of. And this is precisely that which the New Testament affirms about the Elijah, John correlation as it relates that John “will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).

Overall this demonstrates the results of attempting to make nothing into something. One only ends up discrediting oneself by openly exhibiting lack of knowledge of literary genre as well as historical, grammatical and cultural context.

But you see how easy it is for the elephant hurlers to side track us. While claiming to focus on Jesus’ violence the counter-arguer brings up very many issues and if you allow yourself to get side tracked then you respond to them all, he counter argues to them all, you counter argue ad infinitum.

So, back to the issue, once again in the next segment.