Month: July 2017

E.W. Bullinger (1837-1913 AD) begins his “The Serpent of Genesis 3” teaching by stating, “In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasised by the use of certain Figures of speech.” With this in mind, he notes:

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake; no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (chapter 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the “old serpent” is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word “old” with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Genesis 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted “the second man”, “the last Adam”, would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of “the first man, Adam”.

Indeed, this is the case and such is the case in both Revelation chapters 12 and 20.

Bullinger also notes that “The Hebrew word rendered ‘serpent’ in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4” and reasons that since this is the case “why should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?”
The last part of the statement is related to his mentioning the Seraphim which are beings within YHVH’s administration, as it were, and share a root word with a term for poisonous (fiery) snakes (I should note that I do not believe that Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Ophanim, etc. are spirit-beings but are, for all practical purposes physical, in a manner of speaking—sorry to hit and run but elucidation of this is not our present context).

E.W. Bullinger continues thusly:

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as “an angel of light” in verse 14.

He is seeking to elucidate correspondence such as that between the Cherubim who are stationed to guard the way into the garden after Adam and Eve are kicked out and the being who beguiled Eve. He discerns a “similar spirit-being to correspond” by correlating Cherubim to a Seraph. However, Satan is not a Seraph but, as per Ezekiel 28:14, is a Cherub.
He does note that “in the description of Satan as ‘the king of Tyre’ it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called ‘a cherub’ (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses 11-19).” Indeed, Satan is implied therein as, or so I discern, as the spiritual power, as it were, behind the human ruler; the human is referred to as the “prince of Tyre” in verse 2 and Satan as the “king of Tyre” in verse 12 (or Tyrus)—for more details on this point see: Is lucifer a fallen angel? (contra Jim Brayshaw).
Indeed, as E.W. Bullinger rightly notes that “There is more about ‘the king of Tyre’ in Ezekiel 28:11-19 than was literally true of ‘the prince of Tyre’ (verses 1-10).”

Also, note that 2 Corinthians 11:14 does not refer to Satan as “an angel of light” but rather, states, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” One does not need to be “transformed into” (metaschematizo; Strong’s G3345) something which they already are. In short, it appears that Satan pretends to be an Angel (literally a messenger) or light (delivering a message from YHVH). For more on this specific point, see the article: Is Satan a shape shifter?

Bullinger notes that “it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference.” Well, it was not an Angel not a serpent (as in the reptilian animal) but is referred to as such due to his beguiling craftiness and the Hebrew wordplay noted above—for more on that issue, see: On satan, divination and metal.
Bullinger rightly notes that “Even if the word ‘beast’ be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a ‘beast’” as in the serpentine animal “but only that he was ‘more wise’ than any other living being.” In fact, he elucidates by noting:

When Satan is spoken of as a “serpent”, it is the figure Hypocatastasis or Implication; it no more means a snake than it does when Dan is so called in Genesis 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a “lion” (2Timothy 4:17), or when Herod is called a “fox” (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called “a lion’s whelp”.

As an FYI: Angels look like human males, do not have wings and do not have halos. Cherubim appear to have a basic humanoid body, have four wings and have four faces—man, ox/bull, eagle/vulture and lion. Seraphim appear to have a basic humanoid body and have six wings.

Ophanim are the wheels within wheels in which are spirits and have eyes all over them.

In closing, Bullinger makes an interesting point is made:

Satan’s sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime or immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart.

He ends with:

This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the “snake” and the “apple”, because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God’s truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.

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

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.

Dan Gayman aka Charles Lee Mange pertains to that which was chronicled in the article Serpent seed of Satan in British-Israelism, Anglo-Israelism & Christian Identity.

Dan Gayman was a high school principal who now heads the Church of Israel. He had previously founded the Church of Our Christian Heritage which was affiliated with the National Emancipation of Our White Seed group that is headed by Buddy Tucker. Gayman and Tucker teamed up to produce “The Battle Axe News” which is an anti-Jewish publication. Gayman also publishes “The Vision” and “The Watchman,” he also established “a new outreach ministry” called Hunter Ministry that is meant to recruit “the lost sheep of the House of Israel,” he also authored various books such as “The Holy Book, the Book of Adam’s Race,” “Racial Purity in the Living Church,” “Sodomy, the Curse of a Wicked Generation” and “Tracing Our Ancestors.”

In 1977 AD he wrote a book titled “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15” he wrote that Jews “think differently, look differently, and act differently than [Adam’s seed] because they are from a different father…none other than Satan….They are eternally flawed, being the physical offspring of Satan in his fallen state.”

In 1994 AD Dan Gayman stated, “Satan is the father of the serpent seed in Genesis 3:15…The hatred of Genesis3:15 is locked into the very genes of they cannot be changed….This offspring of Satan does what they do because their very nature, being evil, can only produce evil.”

Gayman also warns that “Failure to rightly divide Scripture and look into the Two Seeds of Genesis3:15 has had profound consequences upon the religious development of this generation” as “Satan will employ all the powers of spiritual darkness to keep this truth [of the serpent seed of Satan theory] from being told” and “Those who deny the literal and physical offspring of Satan will pay a high price for such evasion of truth.”

Stated quite plainly, “The Serpent Seed is the public enemy.”

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

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: #racism, #DanGayman, #ChristianIdentity
Facebook: #racism, #DanGayman, #ChristianIdentity

Having provided copious evidences from the Bible that the resurrection is physical (see here and here) I have been lead to elucidate a particular aspect: the natural verses the spiritual-body.

Note that the Bible makes reference to: spirit, body and spiritual body.

Note that, as it where, at one extreme there is spirit (pneuma).
At the other there is the body; aka natural body (soma).
And in between there is the spiritual body (pneumatikos soma).

Please do not fail to note that one is spirit (ethereal).The other is a body in the normal sense (physical flesh and blood).And in between there is something else…

Let us consider a relevant text before continuing this train of thought.

Note that 1st Corinthians 15:40-58 draws various parallels:
“celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies“-both physical things, yet different-“but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”

“There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars“-all physical things, yet different-“for one star differs from another star in glory.”
Now to the connection with the resurrection: “So also is the resurrection of the dead.”
Thus again, both physical things, yet different. Let us see how.

“The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory.

It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power

.”No distinction between physical and non-physical.

Let us proceed.

“It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
Note a key point: they are both bodies.

“And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.

And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.”

Having noted that the first metaphors were to physical things, yet different and that there was no distinction between physical and non-physical we note that the metaphors where to transformation: “became…became…afterward…“

But is it a transformation from flesh and blood to ethereal? No.

Not according to the fact that the metaphors were to physical things, yet physical things that transform. Some would be tempted to conclude that the physical things transform into non-physical things-even thought this would be a non-sequitur from the metaphors. Then why would they come to such conclusions? Perhaps there is good reason; let us continue with the text,

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”
Thus, this would lead one to believe that the physical must become ethereal-but this conclusion would force us to deny the immediate, the greater and the historical context by relying on a selective statement: actually, a half of a verse.

The whole verse, the thought, is this,
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.”
Firstly, there was no distinction between physical and non-physical and so when Paul previously mentioned corruption and incorruption, as noted above, he was not making any such distinction. In fact, he notes that it is the body that is “sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.”
Thus, when he now states “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” he is not changing the tune of that which he has been describing all along since “nor does corruption inherit incorruption” was in reference to the body.
But is not the “flesh and blood” that “cannot inherit the kingdom of God” the body?

Take a moment to note how slowly, diligently and carefully we must be in reading, considering, musing on the text. We must do this in order to not conclude that there are contradictions where there are none, in order to not come to, or jump to, conclusions based on partial, sometimes conveniently self-serving, readings of segments, in order to understand a text for what it is telling to us rather than attempting to read something into it, etc.

The text continues,
“Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.”
Recall that we went from physical / physical metaphors to metaphors of the transformation of the physical.

“in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption…“
Again, corruption and incorruption were in reference to the body. But what then is the transformation?

“…and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?’The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”

Thus, this was about mortal versus immortal or the mortal transforming into the immortal and not about the physical versus, or transforming into, the non-physical.

But what does Paul state specifically about the resurrection of Jesus? How did he understand it? Paul’s epistles represent some of the earliest accounts of Jesus and the statement he makes in 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 is perhaps the earliest record and alludes to an even earlier account which was told to him.

“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received:that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

“He was buried, and that He rose again…He was seen“

What was buried?

A physical body not a spirit.

What rose again?

A physical body not a spirit.

What was seen?

As I have provided numerous texts as evidence: it was a physical body not a spirit (see here and here).

Yet, note that Paul correlates Jesus’ appearance to the apostles (when He was “seen”) to Jesus’ appearance to himself (when He was “seen”). What was Jesus’ appearance to Paul like? We do not really know. Or do we? “No and yes,” appears to be the answer.

The relevant aspects of the texts in which the event is described are as follows:

“there shined round about him a light from heaven…and heard a voice saying” (Acts 9:3-4).

“there shone from heaven a great light round about me…and heard a voice” (Acts 22:6-7).

“a light from heaven…I heard a voice” (Acts 26:6-7).

We are not made privy to what it was that Paul saw which may be due to the fact that he “could not see for the glory of that light” (Acts 22:11) so that, afterwards, when “Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one” (Acts 9:8).
Paul stated that Jesus “was seen by me” and Jesus stated that He appeared to Paul (“I have appeared to you” Acts 26:16). Yet, we have no actual description of the vision except for the mention of light. Perhaps Paul initially saw Jesus and was subsequently blinded by the light.

It seems reasonable to correlate this appearance to the event known as the transfiguration when Jesus “was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light” (see Matthew 17; Mark 9 and Luke 9). Yet, Jesus was physically present and the transfiguration which appears to have been a foretaste of the eventual transformation.

Since we have no clear indication of what Paul saw we must hearken back to his statement about Jesus having been “seen by Cephas, then by the twelve…by over five hundred…by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also.” Since we know that those who saw Jesus previously saw the physically resurrected Jesus, as I have made abundantly clear see here, we can know that sans details; Paul saw the physically resurrected Jesus.

Recap:
We noted that there are biblical reference to the spirit, the body and the spiritual body.

We noted metaphorical correlations between things that were all physical things, yet different and that did not draw any distinction between physical and non-physical.

We noted that “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
If this had read as “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit. There is a natural body, and there is a spirit” we may draw alternate conclusions.
Yet, we noted the key point: they are both bodies.

Lastly, we noted that while we have no detailed description of what Paul saw on the Damascus road his likening his experience with that of the other who had seen Jesus after the resurrection logically and contextually leads us to the conclusion that Jesus resurrected physically, that this was Paul’s view and that this was the early Christian view.

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

“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 24:39

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

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

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.

Firstly, who cares what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has to say about Islam or anything else. I mean, he is the secretary so why listen to a guy who makes copies and coffee for the office?

Okay, alright, just a little humor (very little) to begin a difficult article; actually the word secretary derived from the fact that secretaries kept the secrets.

Jeh Jonson made the Sunday news show rounds on February 22, 2015 AD in order to act as an Islam apologist and to beg for money.

One reason I cannot stand poetry, a category in which I include song lyrics, is that everything is a double entendre. In this case, the lyrics seem to mix metaphors that range from Greek mythology to German folklore and includes much esoteric references. Yet, the key seems to be the video for the song.

Let us first consider the lyrics:

You consider me the young apprentice

Caught between the Scylla and Charybdis

Hypnotized by you if I should linger

Staring at the ring around your finger

Whoever “You” is considers him to be under his guidance, tutelage, etc.; apprenticeship.

Scylla and Charybdis are monstrous creatures from Greek mythology who inhabit either side of a narrow channel of water called the Straight of Messina . In order to maintain a safe distance from one creature one would come within the grasp of the other in a Catch 22 situation. Passing through was one of Odysseus’ challenges.

See what I mean about the poem/lyrics? “linger” how, why, when, where? Well, in any case, hypnotism is a form of mind control, implanting of suggestions, etc. “You” has the ability to hypnotize him via a device; in this case a ring.

I have only come here seeking knowledge

Things they would not teach me of in college

I can see that destiny you sold

Turned into a shining band of gold

The seeking of knowledge is a typical term for someone seeking initiation into a secret society / mystery school, etc. For example, in Freemasonic initiations the Senior Deacon of the Lodge refers to the initiate as he “who has long been in darkness, and now seeks the light.” Here light is, of course, metaphoric of enlightenment; the acquiring of hidden, that is, occult/esoteric, knowledge.

That he seeks “Things they would not teach me of in college” is either straight forward; he got an academic education and yet, seeks more—which is likely the case. Or, going off the deep end, again, he passed through the “Invisible College” but wants more. The Invisible College, proper, was a precursor group to the Royal Society of London. “The concept of ‘invisible college’ is mentioned in German Rosicrucian pamphlets in the early 17th century…In letters in 1646 and 1647, [Robert] Boyle refers to ‘our invisible college’ or ‘our philosophical college’…Lauren Kassell, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, notes that the group of natural philosophers meeting in London from 1645 was identified as the ‘invisible college’ by Thomas Birch, writing in the 18th century” (From Wikipedia).

“You” seems to have sold his soul for whatever power he/she/it enjoys as their destiny is sold for that which represent their power to, for example, hypnotize (control people) the aforementioned ring, the “shining band of gold.”

The chorus implies an inescapable bond; apprenticeship, servitude, etc.

I’ll be wrapped around your finger

I’ll be wrapped around your finger

The song goes on thusly:

Mephistopheles is not your name

I know what you’re up to just the same

I will listen hard to your tuition

You will see it come to its fruition

Mephistopheles refers to a demonic character within German folklore and is perhaps best known from the Faust mythos; for some interesting background on this character, see Mephistopheles UFO aliens and Yoda.

Well, the “You” seems to be a demonic being and even though his actual name is not Mephistopheles is not your name, the song’s protagonist knows what the being is “up to.” Foreseeing a usurpation, as we shall see, the protagonist will learn as much as he can “listen hard to your tuition” and warns, as it were, that “You will see it come to its fruition.”

After another chorus, we hear:

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me

Vanish in the air you’ll never find me

I will turn your flesh to alabaster

Then you’ll find your servant is your master

The “You” whose name is not actually Mephistopheles now appears to be identified as the Devil who is now “behind me” as he who was once the apprentice vanishes and turns on his former master in turn mastering the “You” Devil.

The chorus then changes from I’ll be wrapped around your finger to You’ll be wrapped around my finger.

Now to the video. Videos are interesting as they can elucidate a song’s lyrics or even change their meaning. For example, Micheal Jackson’s “Beat it” meant do not join a gang; beat it as in get out of here. Yet, in the video the beat it also means masturbation as this is just the motion being made by the dancers when the chorus is sung.

Well, the video for The Police’s “Wrapped Around Your Finger” features the lead singer, Sting, dress in all white, wearing reflective sun glasses and barefoot running around numerous candle sticks.

For reasons I will explain below, the song’s true meaning is made manifest; if, that is, my hypothesis is accurate. There is not exactly a one to one correspondence to every lyric yet, my hypothesis is that the song, and especially the video, is a reference to Satan and God; Satan is the “young apprentice” who sees himself being caught between Scylla and Charybdis or as we may term it; a rock and a hard place. You see, Biblically, as per Ezekiel 28:14, Satan is a fallen Cherub (not a fallen Angel) who was navigating, as it were, between God and man.

The “ring around” God’s “finger” refers to God’s authority against which Satan rebelled.

Satan’s seeking of knowledge seems to be implied in the statement in Ezekiel 28 which fluctuates, according to a template (for more on this see: Is lucifer a fallen angel? (contra Jim Brayshaw)) between referring to the prince and the king of Tyrus/Tyre, “Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty…Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness.”

Apparently, Satan sees God as having a destiny of maintaining His authority as He wears the ring, the band of gold. Thus, Satan will “be wrapped around your finger.”

Note that according to Gnosticism the Biblical story is turned inside out, upside down and backwards. Viewing the spirit as pure and the physical/flesh as corrupt, Gnostics reasoned that the creator of the physical realm, the God of the Bible, must have not been the true God but a deluded underling of sorts; an evil entity. This evil entity sought to keep humanity ignorant but then the serpent came and illuminated/enlightened humanity by encouraging Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (for details on this see Prometheus unhinged – on the varied mythology and Atheist’s satanic doctrine pwned by John Lennox).

Whatever the reference to Mephistopheles not being “your name” may mean here; the key is that Satan “will listen hard to” God’s “tuition” and, as noted above, envisages his own rebellion as he thinks or tells God, “You will see it come to its fruition.” You see, everything Satan does is a corruption of that which God does as he learned everything from God’s tuition.

Thus, the “Devil” turn out to be the Gnostic evil God and Satan vanishes “in the air” as Ephesians 2:2 refers to him as the prince of the power of the air; he thinks he can get away from God, “you’ll never find me.” Yet, he not only seeks to abscond from God’ authority but to turn on God and usurp Him, “you’ll find your servant is your master. You’ll be wrapped around my finger.” Isaiah 14:12b-14 states, “how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

Also, that the “Devil and the deep blue sea behind me” may refer to Revelation 13:1 which states that John “saw a beast rise up out of the sea.”

Recall the description of the video; Sting is dress in all white, wearing reflective sun glasses and barefoot running around numerous candle sticks.

Now, consider the text of Revelation 1 which has John stating:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

The correlation is hard to escape even if imperfect:

Jesus-the Alpha and Omega: amongst candlesticks.

Sting: amongst candlesticks.

Jesus-the Alpha and Omega: like unto the Son of man meaning a human form.

Sting: a human.

Jesus-the Alpha and Omega: clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow.

Sting: clothed with a garment down to the foot (not sure if he wore a gold belt or not) which is like a short robe-like jacket with white pants. Sting’s head and hairs are not exactly white but his head/face is place as he is a white guy and his hair is light blond; the white aspect is reflected in his outfit which is all white down to the feet.

Jesus-the Alpha and Omega: his eyes were as a flame of fire.

Sting: Sting wears reflective sun glasses so that the candles reflect the candle flames which literally make his eyes as a flame of fire.

Jesus-the Alpha and Omega: his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace.

Sting: Sting’s feet may not be like unto fine brass yet, he is barefoot in order to emphasize this correlation; his feet are visible.

Jesus-the Alpha and Omega: his voice as the sound of many waters.

Sting: this may not correlate at all although, due to the chorus singing of the other members of the band during the chorus; Sting’s voice is multiplied or otherwise augmented, in a manner of speaking.

Thus, within the video, Sting plays the part of Jesus-the Alpha and Omega but with a twist; as the video ends, he proceeds to knock down the candlesticks which as per Revelation 1:20 represent the church (seven specific churches). Thus, we see Sting/Satan being shown to have usurped the place of God/Jesus and overcoming the church as well.

Granted; I could be 100% wrong about all of this and granted, when dealing with double (or multiple) entendres, symbolism and metaphor things can get difficult to discern. Yet, the correlations seem very telling.

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

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, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Firstly, who cares what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has to say about Islam or anything else. I mean, he is the secretary so why listen to a guy who makes copies and coffee for the office?

Okay, alright, just a little humor (very little) to begin a difficult article; actually the word secretary derived from the fact that secretaries kept the secrets.

Jeh Jonson made the Sunday news show rounds on February 22, 2015 AD in order to act as an Islam apologist and to beg for money.

John Roberts sat in for Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday and noted that “the president’s executive action on immigration is holding up a bill in Congress that would keep the Department of Homeland Security funded past next Friday, the 27th.”

Johnson stated that some are extending “defunding our executive actions to my entire Homeland Security budget…But you should not tie that to the funding for the third largest department of our government…we need a fully funded Department of Homeland Security…there are some who want to defund our executive actions…let’s get on with funding the Department of Homeland Security.” Well, you get the picture.

So, how does he plan of heading the department which is in such desperate need of even more of our money?

The most disturbing thing he presented was a window into his mind. He is either a straight up deceiver who has, in turn, been straight up deceived himself or he is literally a very, very, very simple low laying fruit sort of “thinker.” What is all this about? He spoke for himself in stating the following within the context of, Barack Obama being “criticized from a number of different fronts, for not calling this a battle against Islamic extremism. Why won’t he acknowledge that we are fighting Islamic extremists?”

Here is some of the back and forth:

JOHNSON: Well, first of all, from my perspective, whether it’s referred to as Islamic extremism or violent extremism, what it comes down to is ISIL is a terrorist organization that represents a serious potential threat to our homeland which have to be addressed militarily and through a whole of government approach, which is why homeland security these days is so important, law enforcement here in this country, our countering violent extremism efforts in this country. We had a summit about that this week.

So, it is a dangerous terrorist organization that has to be dealt with —

ROBERTS: But is this —

JOHNSON: — from my perspective.

ROBERTS: — not a religious ideology —

(CROSSTALK)

Now, note the terms I will emphasis for emphasis:

JOHNSON: Well, let me say this. In our engagements around the country, I do a lot of these myself — in Muslim communities, Islamic cultural centers, in places like Minneapolis, Boston, L.A., Chicago, Columbus, Ohio, the thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is, “ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion. Our religion is about peace and brotherhood and ISIL is attempting to hijack that from us.” And they resent that.

Most victims of ISIL are, in fact, Muslims.

So it seems to me that to refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a — a battlefield that they would like us to be on. I think that to call them — to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves, frankly…that’s what I’m hearing from the Muslim community in this country…to call them Islamic, to call them any form of Islamic gives them too much dignity, in my view, and in the view of a lot of Muslims around the world.

Just for the sake of accuracy, here are similar talking points parroted by Jeh Johnson on Meet the Press:

I’ve done a number of these engagements myself in Minneapolis; Boston; L.A.; Columbus, Ohio; Chicago. When I meet with Muslim community leaders, they all pretty much tell me the same thing, which is that, “ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion. Islam is about peace. And ISIL is attempting to hijack our religion, what we’re about.”

And, so, to me, to call it Islamic extremism dignifies ISIL and gives them space in Islamic religion that they don’t deserve, and I don’t believe Muslim leaders think they deserve. And, so, ISIL is a very dangerous terrorist organization that represents a serious potential threat to our homeland. We’ve got to respond militarily. We’ve got to respond through law enforcement. Frankly, I’m more concerned about how we respond in our counterterrorism efforts than which two words we call it.

And, of course, Chuck Todd follows up with another line he has been told to say, “Your department runs out of funding at the end of the week, on the 27th of February…”

You get the picture? He takes comfortable tax payer funded working vacations around “the country…this country” a not the Middle East and goes to Muslim communities and Islamic cultural where he hears from leaders in the Muslim community. He does not go to university departments or other research based organization and does not hear from those with opposing views.

So, Westernized Muslims living in the safety, comfort and liberty of the USA tell him that Islam (as a whole and for the past one and a half millennia) “is about peace and brotherhood” and thus it is so—period. Forget that many Muslims came to the USA to escape militant Muslim regimes, forget that they are making such claims because they believe them to be true or, they are watering down facts on purpose or, they are hiding real intentions or, seeking to drive attention away from themselves or—whatever the case may be.

The real point is that he simply believes whatever Westernized Muslims tell him within the USA and, by golly, he believes it so it must be true.

Interestingly, Roberts was very specific in asking:

The president has, on occasion, Mr. Secretary, seemed to have drawn — seemed to draw a moral equivalence between what ISIS is doing in the 21st century and what Christians did 1,000 years ago when they were fighting Muslim armies. What’s the relevance of making that comparison?

Jeh Jonson simply disregarded the point and the question and stuck to preapproved prescribed talking points de jour:

Well, look, again, from my homeland security perspective, we’ve got to deal with this terrorist organization, which is the most prominent on the world stage right now, which is one of the reasons, frankly, why the Department of Homeland Security needs a budget by the end of this week. I hope you’re going to ask me about that.

Right, right, right, give us money and this will all go away.

And while we are talking about money, money money; John Roberts stated:

At the summit that you had at the White House…Marie Harf, State Department spokeswoman, was roundly criticized for saying at the beginning of the week, quote, “We can’t kill our way out of this war. We need to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups — lack of opportunity and jobs among them.”

Here’s what the Navy SEAL who shot Usama bin Laden had to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB O’NEILL, FORMER U.S. NAVY SEAL: They get paid to cut off heads, to crucify children, to sell slaves and to cut off heads. And I don’t think that, you know, a change in career path is what’s going to stop them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

How do they say it in common parlance? Oh yes, “BOOM!!!”

Lastly, the fact is that we are often encourages do have great societal conversations and yet, all we get is preaching from the White House down and the lap dog media following right along with universities and poop-culture following right along.

No one wants to have a very difficult conversation which is that this is not watered down Westernized Islam against hijacked militant Islam but what do the Qur’an or Koran (Islam’s scriptures), the Hadith (Islam’s traditions about Muhammad) and Islam’s history demonstrate?

Well, the bottom line is that Muhammad’s life and the Qur’an / Koran have two main divisions.

During the early Medina period, Muhammad did not have much wealth or many followers. He was persecuted, did not have the upper hand and thus, preached peace and brotherhood.

During the early Mecca period, Muhammad had much wealth (due to raiding) and many followers. He became a persecutor, got the upper hand and thus, preached conquering and oppression.

The Islamic dilemma is known as the doctrine of abrogation which means that, quite logically, the latter supposed revelations annul the previous supposed revelations.

Thus, watered down Western Muslims are appealing to the Median period when they claim that Islam is about peace and brotherhood (since they do not, in places such as the USA, have the upper hand) and ignore the Mecca period.

As far as Islam’s history of violence here is a respected and quick reference. The Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005 AD) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.

The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars and here is the key: half of those involved Islam.

Thus, within what is said to be a 10,000 year span, Islam (which is only 1,500 years old) has managed to rack up half of all religious wars (and this does not account for individual terrorist attacks).

The only way that you could make such factual statements anywhere within mainstream media would be with an introduction of “Now, here is a hateful bigot who thinks that all Muslims are terrorists—after the statement, we will give you their home address.”

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

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.

To forgive or not to forgive, that is the question.

Within the article Forgiveness: is it God’s or humanity’s job?, I noted:

The importance of forgiveness is generally affirmed by humanity from the most fundamentalist theist to the most fundamentalist atheist.

Wyatt Fisher, Psy.D. elucidates the following in his article, Unforgiveness: 5 Ways to Reverse It Today:

Without forgiveness, we can never achieve true intimacy…Apologies left unsaid and pain left unhealed can totally destroy the fellowship…Soon we find ourselves running away from one another instead of confiding…we need to learn to forgive…

Of course, even those who do not ever seem to apologize end up forgiving themselves lest they not be able to live with themselves. Of course, the only person we should never forgive is the person who has hurt us the most, lied to us the most, broke promises to us the most, let us down the most, stabbed us in the back the most, etc. and that person is ourselves. According to the world self-forgiveness is essential yet, according to the Judeo-Christian worldview theology self-forgiveness is deleterious and not forgiving ourselves is essential. This is because, “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2nd Corinthians 7:10). The godly sorrow of regrets about our wrongdoings is that which brings us to repentance. The world offers despair and depression and/or medication and emotional band-aids.

I also noted:

Some people argue that the Christian doctrine of forgiveness—that it is God who, ultimately, forgives us and does so through Jesus’ sacrifice—is illogical, if not immoral. They point out that, for example, if person A punches person B for no reason, person A cannot then go to person C and ask person C to forgive them for punching person B. Rather, person A must ask person B for forgiveness. On the surface; this is an airtight argument, it makes sense, it is perfectly logical and reasonable.

Yet, there is a flaw that is flawed enough to discredit it and also to guarantee that, even though we affirm the importance of forgiveness; will all remain un-forgiven—guaranteed.

You can read my article for the argument and conclusion. What I wanted to do herein is to glean some key points from Wyatt Fisher five points (please do read his whole article for a much fuller explanation):

1 – Understand Their Past
…think about the kind of life the other person has had…It’s difficult to grow up with one example of adulthood and try to develop a different one when we are of age…

2 – Understand Their Present
…When life gets crazy and we are tired (or even just “hungry”), many of us might just be an inch away from losing it altogether…What one person thinks is non-stressful could feel like trying to find a job in a recession for someone else…

This reminded me of how the boss mistreats us, so we get upset and cut someone off on the highway. So they get upset and kick the dog. So the dog gets upset and bites the mailman. So the mailman gets upset and…round and round it goes, one person to the next until—all of it ends up in the Middle East! Wyatt Fisher calls this the “butterfly effect.”

3 – Understand Your Part
It’s our nature to avoid blame…It’s simply easier to admit that someone else has worse faults than we do…This is not to say that someone else’s actions were your fault, but you may have contributed in some way…Leaving the blame solely with the other person is one of the easiest ways to destroy the relationship…

4 – Understand Your Past
…the regular responses we have for day-to-day occurrences might not be the best responses for each situation…It’s hard to reconcile things in our past with the present issue of being hurt by someone…Wounds in your past might be making you behave negatively, which can only make a hurtful situation worse…

5 – Remember Your Brokenness
…Maybe today someone close to you hurt you, but tomorrow those roles could be reversed. Instead of holding forgiveness back, think of our common brokenness and give forgiveness willingly…We are each responsible for our own actions, and sadly, none of us seem to be able to get through life without hurting at least a few people…Our human nature wants to dwell on how hurt we feel and demand recompense – forgiveness is rarely the first thing we think of after a fight…

Whichever way we look at it; the need for forgiveness, in both directions, appears to be built into humanity and is thus, an essential part of relationship.

For another aspect of this issue, see: Forgiveness: is it God’s or humanity’s job?

In keeping with my recent musings about the physical resurrection I ran across another interesting two part article.

I initially wrote on the physical resurrection as a response to The Baha’i Faith:

Physical Resurrection

Then I considered the question of whether Paul did not believe in the physical resurrection:
Flesh and Blood or Spirit? On the Resurrection: the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body

Finally, I reproduced a “question of the week” from William Lane Craig’s website “Reasonable Faith”:
William Lane Craig : Christ’s Resurrection Body

This time I will reproduce Dr. Steven Tsoukalas’ two articles on the physical resurrection in which he answers various objections which, in this case, are made by Jehovah’s Witnesses (which I wrote about here and here).

Following is part 1 of the article:1

Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. They believe that Jesus was crucified on an upright pole (“torture stake”), and that He died and was buried in a tomb. Sometime during the three days Jehovah God disposed of Jesus’ body. It was forever gone. Jesus was then raised as a spirit creature. To explain the bodily appearances of Jesus after his “resurrection,” JWs teach that Jehovah God fashioned different bodies for Jesus that were made to resemble His body when He walked the earth. Thus Jesus “materialized” different bodies. Finally, after appearing to His disciples as recorded in the Books of Acts, Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father as a spirit creature.

To substantiate the doctrine that Jesus’ original body was not raised, that He was raised as a spirit creature, and that He was given different bodies resembling the original, JWs appeal to (1) certain scripture verses they believe teach He was not raised bodily, and (2) the “they did not recognize Him” argument. Before we examine these two categories, let’s first state the Christian position.

The Christian Position

The Bible teaches that Jesus’ body, the one He possessed when He walked the earth as God the Son, was raised from the dead.
John 2:19-21. “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews therefore said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking of the temple of His body.” This last verse is quite important, as the apostle John himself interprets what Jesus meant by “temple.” John states that it was “the temple of His body.” Note the pronoun “His.” It was His body. Thus, His body was raised. But JWs deny that it was His body. Rather, they teach that Jehovah disposed of Jesus’ body. In other words, JWs state that it was not His body that was raised. When sharing with JWs, you can ask them to read this passage from their own translation. While they read, pray for them. Make it clear that what they have been taught is contrary to the Bible, and ask them to put faith in Christ’s true resurrection.

John 20:24-27. In this passage Thomas doubts that the other disciples saw Jesus after His resurrection. Jesus then appears to them and states to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side” (v. 27). This is further scriptural proof of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. It is very important to note here that the JWs interpret this passage to mean that Jesus received from Jehovah a different materialized body, that it was not Jesus’ original body. This is why it is important to start with John 2:19-21 and then move to this passage. This same method applies to our next passage proving Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Luke 24:36-39. Here Jesus appears in the midst of the disciples, but they were frightened, thinking they were seeing a spirit. Jesus then comforts them: “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (v. 39).

JWs Counter-Arguments Answered
We begin with the first of the two categories of counter-arguments of JWs mentioned earlier, and follow with a Christian answer to the arguments.

1 Corinthians 15:50. In this verse the apostle Paul states, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” This perhaps is the most popular verse that JWs use to substantiate their view that Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead. At first glance this seems to be an overwhelming refutation of the Christian position. But is it?

JWs usually leave out the remainder of the verse: “Nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” This provides the key to understanding the first part of this verse so often cited by JWs. Note that Paul, throughout the preceding verses, is contrasting two different states of existence in an “A-B” type of flow.
Let’s start with verse 42 and move through the passage. Verse 42: A-the perishable body, B-the imperishable body.
Verse 43: A-body sown in dishonor, B-raised in glory; A-sown in weakness, raised in power.
Move to verse 46: A-natural, B-spiritual.
Verses 47-49: A-earthly, B-heavenly.
Now, by the time we get to verse 50, we have A(1)-flesh and blood contrasted with B(1)-kingdom of God and A(2)-perishable contrasted with B(2) imperishable.

Thus, “flesh and blood” belongs in the A category. The JWs, then, assume that Christians place Jesus’ resurrected body in the A category, and then refute Christians with the “flesh and blood” citation. But Christians do not place Jesus’ resurrected body in the A category, which is the mortal, sinful, perishable category; rather, they place it in the B category, which is imperishable, perfect, and glorified. Finally, it is perfectly in harmony with scripture to affirm that Jesus’ resurrected body (John 2:19-22) is therefore imperishable, immortal and glorified, and therefore belongs in the B category of 1 Corinthians 15.

This segment is interesting in that I discover that Marty was, indeed, coming to the text with preconceived notions that he could not disregard without being excommunicated from this religion.

I have been researching the scholarship that has been done on this issue. There is a great deal of disagreement in the scholarly research that has been done since the 19th century about the reserrection and specifically relating to 1 Cor 15. It’s true that I just started looking into it after reading Paul and what I’ve read confirms that others have made the same points that I am making. I put great importance on Paul’s letters because the are the first record we have of Christian beliefs and he goes into a great deal of detail on various issues. I’m not happy with my previous post.
I think it was rushed and overlooked maybe the most important point (IMHO) This is that you will not find the Gospel resurrection accounts reflected in his letters. You may be right that those accounts do not repeat word for word what actually took place but I believe that for the most part the early Christian community did a good job of collecting what Jesus acutally said. So certainly if Jesus actually and physically appeared to the disciples and spoke the things that they report that he spoke, WHY doesn’t Paul mention ANYTHING that Jesus said after His resurrection?? WHY doesn’t Paul mention an empty tomb?? If the empty tomb was so important to the Christian story why doesn’t Paul even mention it??

I would also like to respond to your accusation of following my preconcieved notions. First, I’ve just been following the thread that is there for anyone to follow. I had no idea I would find Paul saying that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God. I just wanted to see if he affirms anywhere that the resurrection (which we both agree occurred) was a physical one.
I couldn’t find that anywhere (just saying Christ has risen does not imply that He rose physically any more than his saying that he was buried and then rose implies that there is an empty tomb – this was an argument made in the research I did.) But all my responses have not been my own thinking but stem from my beliefs as a Baha’i. My only reason for responding to your post was that you were attacking something Abdul Baha said and as a Baha’i I have a right to defend my beliefs. But Bahais do not go around attacking others beliefs. We state our beliefs and let others decide for themselves.

Finally I would like to make a counterargument to your assertion that Paul saw the physical body of Christ on the way to Damascus. In the account it says there was a light and he heard a voice. It further says that the men who were with him heard of voice but saw no man. Then Paul lost his sight. The way to distinguish a spiritual appearance is that different people will experience it in different ways depending on their spiritual development. It seems clear from this account that Paul and his companions had different experiences of this event which would indicate a spiritual vision.

He referenced Baha’is because the original dialogue ensued due to an essay about Baha’i views on the resurrection: Baha’i Faith : Physical Resurrection, part 1 of 2
What is the Baha’i view on the physical resurrection? That it is a false doctrine. Therefore, logically, they do go around attacking others beliefs as I mentioned to Marty.
Here is my section on Baha’ism in general.

Great to hear (or, read) from you again.

I must say that when I read the words “accusation” and worse yet, “attacking,” in your comment I hoped that I had not come across unduly harsh or dismissive. It is hard to gauge emotion via letters on a screen, for us both, but be assured that my intent is not to accuse or attack (in a derogatory sense). I was stating an “estimation” shall we say.
That I disagree does not mean that I am attacking. I, and the overwhelming majority of Christian all over the planet for the past 2,000 years, believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. You say that “Bahais do not go around attacking others beliefs” but by denying the physical resurrection Baha’is are doing just that by telling us that we are wrong and Baha’is are right—and yet, I do not consider this an “attack.”

The Baha’i Faith invites an independent investigation of their claims. I have conducted an independent investigation and find that, for example in this case, their claims are not correct. If I report that the results of my investigation are disagreement with Baha’ism and I am then said to be on the “attack” I would question the sincerity of the invitation to conduct an independent investigation.

Now, I must carefully point out that, as it turns out, I may have been right after all. I understand that you are studying the subject now but: since you are a Baha’i (which I did not know before) you have already been told that you must believe in the spirit/non-physical resurrection of Jesus. You cannot disagree with this and remain a faithful Baha’i. Thus, you did come to the texts with not only preconceived notions but with the force of authority of your faith telling you that there is one infallible interpretation and that you cannot disagree with it—“something Abdul Baha said.” The only way that you could come to a different conclusion is if you are willing to become a covenant breaker. In other words, even while you are reading and studying you know that you may be excommunicated if you come to an alternate conclusion.

Now, I wish to note something: the Bible is the word of God and while you may not think that I am understanding it correctly I assure you that I am not out to do fancy footwork in order to make something say what it is not saying—I take this very seriously and am honestly only attempting to help us both gain a better understanding.

It seems to me that you are now going about to solidify the Baha’i interpretation by asking questions like the ones I will review below and suggesting that the only answer is that the Baha’i interpretation is correct.

Now, to your points:
“WHY doesn’t Paul mention ANYTHING that Jesus said after His resurrection??” If Jesus resurrected as a spirit why doesn’t Paul mention anything that Jesus said? You will note that Paul is, almost exclusively, writing his epistles to answer questions from the various churches and was therefore, not providing a history of Jesus not collecting sayings but was dealing with the minutiae of church life and community. Moreover, Paul traveled with Luke and would know that Luke was writing the history and sayings. Overall, it is noteworthy that Paul did not know the pre-resurrection Jesus he did not spend three years in His company walking and talking with Him as the other apostles did.

Yet, we may note that Paul wrote,

“Concerning this thing [“a thorn in the flesh”] I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2nd Corinthians 12:8-9).

And,

“But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-21).

“WHY doesn’t Paul mention an empty tomb…why doesn’t Paul even mention it??…saying Christ has risen does not imply that He rose physically any more than his saying that he was buried and then rose implies that there is an empty tomb” As you continue your studies you will come to find that claiming that Paul was saying that He was buried and then rose does not imply an empty tomb is like saying that when a Baha’i states that Jesus rose a spirit they mean that He rose physically. This is where both textual/grammatical as well as historical/cultural context come into play. At the time there were two major divisions amongst the Jews: Pharisees and Sadducees. One of the main differences between the two is that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection and the Sadducees did not.

Paul was a Pharisee and so for him to say that Jesus was buried and then rose most certainly implies that he was very clearly professing a physical resurrection and therefore an empty tomb.

In fact, you will note that when Paul was brought before the chief priests and all his council,

“Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, ‘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).

“your assertion that Paul saw the physical body of Christ on the way to Damascus” While I did assert that Paul saw a physical body I also made it clear that the account was not detailed enough to come to a direct conclusion either way and so I alluded to the fact that he “could not see” (Acts 22:11) that “when his eyes were opened he saw no one” (Acts 9:8) and yet that Paul stated that Jesus “was seen by me” and Jesus stated that He appeared to Paul (“I have appeared to you” Acts 26:16). I also correlated this appearance to the transfiguration where Jesus was physically present (see Matthew 17; Mark 9 and Luke 9).

I would be perfectly willing to affirm that Paul saw a vision of some sort. Now, at this point you have stated that since Paul likens the apostles’ seeing Jesus after the resurrection to his own they all must have seen a mere vision or seen a spirit. However, this does not necessarily follow: there is no reason to logically conclude that Paul’s purpose was to make a one to one correlation between the apostles’ manner of seeing and his own and if there is then Paul saw Jesus physically as it is exceedingly clear that the apostles did so. You may say, “I saw generic actress on a California sidewalk” and I could say “I saw her too, in a movie.” Or I may say, “I saw my son’s soccer game the other day” and you may say, “I know that he is on a team, I saw a team photo.”

Also, and this is very, very important in considering the greater context and historical/cultural context; there were other resurrections recorded in the Bible and they are all physical. Paul himself raised a young man from the dead and there is no indication at all that he discerned a difference.

This is something with which the Baha’i never seem to deal: the fact of the other physical resurrections in the Bible.

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.

This used to be a beautiful post full of Amazon book images with links, etc. Yet, due to changes in Amazon I cannot seem to display their widgets anymore.

So, see here for Christian apologetics books.

See here for Christian theology books.

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

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, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.