Month: July 2017

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

In this segment we find further misreading and misapplication; it goes to show that someone coming to the text with preconceived notions continues attempting to validate their own preconceived notions rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Also, we now go beyond discussing the resurrection body and get into some issues related to the Baha’i Faith itself; what it is and how it functions—including their belief that their fonder, Baha’u’llah, is the return of Christ, that the second coming has already occurred.

I was again not happy with my use of the word attack. What I was trying to say is that Bahais do not intentionally draw attention to the differences in their beliefs with the beliefs of others. We simply state our beliefs and answer any questions that may arise. The point is that you wrote a blog that drew attention to something Abdul Baha said over 100 years ago to a Baha’i of Christian background who was asking Him to explain certain Christian beliefs from a Baha’i perspective.
There was no reason for you to do this. You have your beliefs and we have ours. People who are interested can decide for themselves. So when you created this post I was alerted to it by a Google alert on the key word baha which brings up any item relating to the Baha’i faith. Since you were saying that Abdul Baha was wrong I needed to respond to the best of my ability. So in as sense you were attacking since no Baha’i put out a post saying Christians were wrong in believing in a physical resurrection.

Having said that I would like to go back to a previous response of yours when I mentioned Christ’s saying that that which is born of flesh is flesh etc. There are many unresolved issues in our continuing correspondence so I would like to pick what is for me the most compelling argument as I see it right now. You say the Paul is a Pharisee and that Pharisees believe in the Resurrection of the dead. I said previously that Christ had not come to confirm Jewish preconceptions. A good example of this is Christ’s exchange with Nicodemus as follows:

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]” 4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.

So Nicodemus was also a Pharisee and he also had notions that seemed to mix flesh and spirit. It seems clear to me here that Christ is trying to lead Nicodemus away from this confusion and tells him clearly that he must distinguish between flesh and spirit. So it really doesn’t matter what the Jews believed. It only matters what Christ believed.

As to what Christ believed we have the following:

Matthew 22:30 (New International Version)

30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Now if, as you claim, the body is resurrected (I assume you also believe your body will be resurrected at the Day of Judgement?) what do you think Christ meant by this? Surely the angels were never believed to have bodies? Also if we never marry in heaven will our bodies (excuse this question but it is to the point) have sexual organs? One of my beliefs about heaven is that I will finally be relieved of that particular burden.

It isn’t hard to imagine what life would be like without a body. Just think of a particularily vivid dream. We have no bodies in dreams but we do have consciousness. The founder of the Baha’i Faith (Baha’u’llah) says that the world of dreams is another world we go to when we are released from our bodies. Dreams are only confusing because we are still so attached to our bodies that when we wake this attachment acts as a veil.

Thanks again for the continued discussion and for being considerate enough to even reconsider previous statements it is a testament to your character.

I am afraid that perhaps as an insider you are not considering certain things that are as clear as day to outsiders. For example, you may think that “Bahais do not intentionally draw attention to the differences in their beliefs with the beliefs of others.” But of course, the whole purpose of the Baha’i Faith is to let everyone know that they are not understanding their own religions and holy books correctly since only Baha’u’llah and subsequent Baha’i leadership truly understand them since they all point to Baha’u’llah. Thus, the Baha’i Faith is premised upon drawing attention to the differences in their beliefs with the beliefs of others and to proclaim certain religious practices heretical and that that those who do not accept Baha’u’llah/Baha’ism are not saved.

Regardless of when and why Abdul Baha openly sought to refute traditional, orthodox, biblical Christian doctrine—the fact is that the Bab, Baha’u’llah, Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi, the UHJ [Universal House of Justice; Baha’is infallible leaders] and individual Baha’i authors have all, with one voice, refuted this essential Christian doctrine consistently. Thus, you are right to state, “no Baha’i put out a post saying Christians were wrong in believing in a physical resurrection.” Although, I jest to a certain extent as I am not convinced that you know what every Baha’i has written and I am sure that it would take us mere search-engine-seconds to find such a post by a Baha’i. But, if I were to grant this statements I would say, “True enough, no miscellaneous, anonymous, random Baha’i guy who just happens to have a blog made such statements but the infallible leaders of the Baha’i Faith have made saying that Christians were wrong in believing in a physical resurrection part of the official dogmas of the Baha’i Faith.”

Now, note that my faith, my religion, my God, my holy book states that I should: accept no other gospel, to always be ready with an answer, to test all things, to point out false teachers by name, to refute arguments, etc. Thus, when you tell me that there was no reason for me to post a refutation I hear that I am being asked to not practice the dictates of my faith, my religion, my God, my holy book. Moreover, as aforementioned; the Baha’i Faith invites an independent investigation and I posted the results of my investigation of this and other issues.

I must take a moment to state that I do not believe that the Baha’i rejection of the physical resurrection has anything to do with a consideration of any text(s) but it is due to the fact that admitting a physical resurrection would cause problems to the claim that Baha’u’llah is the return of Christ.

Likewise, I believe that denying that Christ had came to confirm Jewish preconceptions is stated as to explain, or explain away by correlation, why Baha’u’llah did not fulfill Christians preconceptions or just conceptions.
I will grant you that if by “Jewish” we mean something that the Jews believed at the time that was not biblical you may have a point but there is hardly aspect of Jesus’ life that I could not find expected in authoritative Rabbinic writings when they speculate about the Messiah. This is true even of authoritative Rabbinic writings that were penned after the time of Jesus which is even more astonishing as they would have been careful not to liken their expectations to His life. [I provide evidence of this in my section on Judaism]

But fine, what about Christ’s exchange with Nicodemus? Let us primarily note that this has nothing to do with the resurrection.

Here I agree that Jesus tells him that “he must distinguish between flesh and spirit” but not because he “seemed to mix flesh and spirit.” He did not mix them since he actually only considering the flesh. This is why when Jesus tells Him about being born again; his question is strictly fleshly, “…enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” just like the first time. So he was being told that the birth of which Jesus spoke was a spiritual rebirth, “Spirit gives birth to spirit.” Again, nothing to do with the resurrection.

Now, to something that I attempted to warn you about previously: going too fast and seeking only the bits and pieces of texts in which you think that you can justify your notions.

“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”

You reason that since angels are not physical, we will not be physical. But there is simply no reason to speculate about what the text is referring to or about what the purpose of the correlation is—it has nothing to do with whether the resurrection is physical or spirit. The Sadducees where challenging Jesus about the resurrection by bringing up some tall tale about a woman who was widowed many times over and so they ask to whom she will be married in heaven—this is the context: not physicality or spirit per se but resurrection in general and marriage in particular. Thus, Jesus answer is not about physicality or spirit per se but resurrection in general and marriage in particular.

Since “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage” it is in this way and this way alone that “they will be like the angels in heaven.” Thus, their question about the widow is fallacious.

But again I point out that we could have fun with this one also (if we disregard context): angels are not physical but clearly do, on occasion and temporarily, take on physical form so in heaven we will be spirit and occasionally and temporarily take on physical form.

As to sexual organs; I know of not text which is that, shall we say, specific.

I do not want to get into a discussion about the dream state, of which I have virtually no opinion, but I can relate that I had at least one dream in which I was pinched and felt it.

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.

Interestingly enough, having recently posted Flesh and Blood or Spirit? On the Resurrection: the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body I noticed that the question of the week (for May 9-15) at William Lane Craig’s website Reasonable Faith was about this very subject.Following are the questions and William Lane Craig’s answer:

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

Question 99

Subject: Christ’s Resurrection Body

Question 1:Hi. I was wondering if you could clear up a small conundrum. In first Corinthians 15 Paul explains that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god. So how then, if jesus [sic] was resurrected in the flesh, did he go to be with the father in heaven after the resurrection? Thanks for your time.

Ron

Question 2:Dear Dr. Craig,I just have a simple question for you that i don’t know the answer to and maybe a question that not a lot of Christians have either thought about or found important enough to look up. However, i deem it important because of how we view the resurrection and post-resurrected bodies.After Jesus resurrection He ate meals with His disciples, and Thomas had the ability to finger his wounds. If Jesus entered back into God’s own existence how is His body still related to ours in the sense that we can embrace and still have the fleshy capacity to digest food? After all if we are supposed to partake in the Great Bangquet what is thestate of our bodies post-resurrection?Sincerely,

Kirk

Dr. Craig responds:
You’ve both raised an important issue that is likely to arise in my debate with Richard Carrier this month at Northwest Missouri State. Carrier adopts the line, long repeated in liberal Protestant theology, that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection body, but in a “spiritual body,” that is to say, an unextended, immaterial, intangible, massless “body.” On the presumption that Paul is our earliest witness to Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection, Paul is then played off against the Gospel narratives of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances of Christ. Paul’s view is taken to be the primitive belief and the Gospels represent the result of legendary corruption and theological re-shaping of the primitive tradition.

This attempt to play Paul off against the Gospels has been shown, however, to be misconceived. Everyone recognizes that Paul does not teach the immortality of the soul alone but the resurrection of the body. But it is extraordinarily difficult to conceive what the difference is between the immortality of the soul and the existence of an unextended, immaterial, intangible, massless “body.” In I Corinthians 15:42-44 Paul describes the differences between our present, earthly body and our future, resurrection body, which will be like Christ’s. He draws four essential contrasts between the earthly body and the resurrection body:

The earthly body is: But the resurrection body is:
mortal immortaldishonorable gloriousweak powerfulnatural spiritual

Now only the last contrast might make us think that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection body. But what does he mean by the words translated here as “natural/spiritual”? The word translated “natural” (psychikos) literally means “soul-ish.” Now obviously, Paul does not mean that our present body is made out of soul. Rather by this word he means “dominated by or pertaining to human nature.” Similarly, when he says the resurrection body will be “spiritual” (pneumatikos), he does not mean “made out of spirit.” Rather, he means “dominated by or oriented toward the Spirit.” It is similar to the sense of the word “spiritual” as when we say, for example, that Billy Graham is a spiritual person. In fact, look at the way Paul uses those same words in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15:

The natural man (anthropos psychikos) does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man (pneumatikos) judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one.

Natural man does not mean “physical man,” but “man oriented toward human nature.” And spiritual man does not mean “intangible, immaterial man” but “man oriented toward the Spirit.” The contrast is the same in 1 Corinthians 15. The present, earthly body will be freed from its slavery to sinful human nature and become instead fully empowered and directed by God’s Spirit.

The vast majority of contemporary Pauline scholars therefore conclude that Paul believed in a physical resurrection body (and therefore by implication the empty tomb). In his recent doctoral dissertation “The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus” (2008) Michael Licona lists Ackerman, Barnett, Barrett, Bostock, Brodeur, Collins, Conzelman, Fee, Gundry, Harris, Hayes, HH&#a9;ring, Hurtado, Johnson, Kistemaker, Lockwood, Martin, Segal, Snyder, Thiselton, Witherington, and Wright.

But what about I Corinthians 15.50: “Flesh and blood is (n.b. the singular verb) not able to inherit the Kingdom of God”? Doesn’t that indicate that the resurrection body must be immaterial? Not at all! Virtually all commentators recognize that the expression “flesh and blood” is a typical Semitic idiom indicating our frail human nature. Elsewhere Paul uses the expression to mean “mortal creatures” (Ephesians 6.12) or even just “people” (Galatians 1.16). Thus, the second half of the verse parallels the first: “neither is the corruptible able to inherit incorruption.” The present body must be freed of its corruptibility, not its materiality, in order for it to be fit for God’s eternal dominion.

Carrier acknowledges that the expression is an idiom; but he insists that the idiom would not be suitable if the resurrection body were still fleshly. But so to think is just to fail to understand how idioms and metaphors work. Their meaning cannot be collapsed to the meanings of their constituent words. Compare “it’s raining cats and dogs!” It would be a complete misunderstanding to take such an idiom as implying that there must be animals on the pavement. Similarly, Paul is not talking about anatomical flesh and blood but about our mortal human nature.
So how should we conceive of Christ’s resurrection body today? Christ in his exalted state still has a human nature; he did not “enter back into God’s own existence.” But Christ has exited this four-dimensional space-time continuum. Therefore, perhaps we might say that his human nature does not now manifest itself corporeally. Compare a tuning fork which is plucked and begins to hum. If the vibrating fork is placed in a vacuum jar, though it continues to vibrate, it does not manifest itself by a humming noise because there is no medium to carry its vibrations. Similarly, Christ’s human nature, no longer immersed in spacetime, does not manifest itself as a body. But someday Christ will return and re-enter our four-dimensional space-time continuum, and then his body will become manifest. In the new heavens and the new earth Christ will be corporeally present to his people. Christ, then, has a human nature which is manifested as his physical resurrection body when he exists in a spatio-temporal universe.

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

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.

Wesley A. Swift pertains to that which was chronicled in the article Serpent seed of Satan in British-Israelism, Anglo-Israelism and Christian Identity.

Wesley A. Swift (1913-1970 AD) was a preacher, Ku Klux Klan recruiter who became the “best known advocate” of Christian Identity and founded the Church of Jesus Christ Christian.

The Attorney General of California released a report on paramilitary organizations in 1965 AD and referred to Swift as a “prolific organizer…instrumental in launching” various far-right orgs such as the Anglo-Saxon Congregation of Los Angeles, the California League Against Communism, the Christian Defense League and the California Rangers which was labeled a paramilitary organization for white supremacists.

He concocted that which has been termed the “most distinctive doctrine associated with Christian Identity” which is “the belief that Jews are the direct biological offspring of the Devil”[1]—the serpent seed of Satan theory itself.
He attended Kingdom Bible College which is an Anglo-Israelite Bible school associated with Philip E. J. Monson’s Covenant Evangelistic Association.

He concocted a sci-fi version of the first chapters of Genesis that is still promulgated by many people; some without any, at least outward, obvious or known Christian Identity ties (some apply it within the context of “aliens” as demons or returning Nephilim, etc.). He appealed to an un-, non-, and anti-biblical pre-Adamic race, “each race had a distinct and different origin upon the face of the earth, as to time and as to the experiences by which they…came into existence, all of them apart of Divine creation.”

On this view, God created the “first creation of man” from “substances round about” and they became city builders. However, a “race of warriors, dark and curly headed” left the Earth in a “great fleet of space ships” due to a “war in heaven” which left Satan abandoned on Earth Thus, he and his “axmen and swordsmen” beguiled the first race created and “started to mutate species and mix races.”
This was a “Luciferian upheaval” that caused “the catastrophe that wiped out” most of the “first creation.” Due to the ruination, God created another man who, nevertheless, “succumbed to the Luciferian fallen archangel’s dominion.” God “observed that there was no “Adamite” to “till the ground” but only the other races that were nomads and so God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden. The “beginning of the Adamic race” established God’s “household [upon] the earth.”

Of course, this leads to the serpent seed of Satan theory as he claims that Satan and Eve engaged in “sexual intercourse” and that thus, Cain is “the progeny of the wicked one.”

This results in two basic views of the origin of the Jews. They are of the serpent seed of Satan due to “the violation of Divine law by Lucifer and his intermingling of nefarious forces with the [pre-Adamic] races” which resulted in “black Jews, yellow Jews, red Jews, brown Jews” with Cain, himself, being “the first white Jew!”

Not surprisingly, this leads to conclusions such as that “there are no more crooked, evil, vicious people on the face of the earth” than the Jews because they are the literal “offspring of Lucifer” and thus, “a devil…species.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Michael Barkun, Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1994 AD)

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

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, #racism, #serpentseed
Facebook: #seedline, #racism, #serpentseed

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

As mentioned in part 1, in keeping with my recent musings about the physical resurrection I am providing another aspect of the issue.

The following in a reproduction of Dr. Steven Tsoukalas’ article on the physical resurrection in which he answers various objections which, in this case, are made by Jehovah’s Witnesses1

In the last edition of The Sounding Board I briefly outlined the Christian position of the bodily resurrection of Jesus (He was raised in the same body that died on the cross) and began to answer Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (JWs) counter-arguments, beginning with 1 Corinthians 15:50. In this issue I continue to answer counter-arguments.
JWs Counter-Arguments Answered

1 Peter 3:18. This verse reads that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” The JWs translation (New World Translation, a perverted translation that robs Christ of His deity) and the New American Standard Bible (a legitimate translation) read virtually the same here. The JWs argue from this verse that Jesus’ body was put to death (and then forever disposed of by Jehovah) but then His spirit was resurrected (“made alive in the spirit,” i.e., His spirit only was raised). I shall focus on answering this latter point.

There are two ways to answer this misinterpretation by JWs. First is simply to call attention to the New International Version. This respected translation states that Jesus was “made alive by the Spirit,” meaning that Jesus was resurrected by the Holy Spirit. Second is to interpret the phrases “in the flesh” and “in the spirit” as referring to the spheres or realms in which Jesus was put to death and made alive. He was put to death in the realm of the flesh (that is, the fleshly realm, where soldiers nailed him to the cross).

But He was made alive in the spiritual realm. It is here that verses 19-20 follow nicely, “In which [i.e., in the spiritual realm to which Peter just referred] He went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient . . . in the days of Noah.” So the flow here is that Jesus was put to death in the fleshly realm, but made alive to go into the spiritual realm were disobedient spirits existed.

Next I examine three passages wherein JWs make the claim, “They did not recognize Jesus.”

Luke 24:16. JWs assert that the two persons on the Emmaus road “did not recognize Him.” A closer reading of the verse, however, reveals that the two “were kept from recognizing him” (New World Translation). There is quite a difference here. JWs claim that the two did not recognize Jesus because he had another body made to look like the one with which He walked the earth. The fact is, though, that Jesus appeared to them in the same body (see John 2:19-21, cf. Luke 24:36-39), and that they were kept from recognizing Him.

John 20:14. Mary Magdalene “did not discern it was Jesus” (New World Translation), say JWs. But upon closer examination of the context, there is an answer to their argument. Beginning with verse 1 we find a number of phenomena that distracted Mary from discerning that it was Jesus who appeared to her. She came to the tomb, only to find the stone removed from the opening of the tomb.
She therefore thought someone had taken away the Lord’s body (v. 2). Further, just before Jesus’ appearance to her she was weeping (v. 11) and saw two angels (v. 12). Once Jesus appeared, Mary had her back to Him (v. 14) and then turned, but did not discern it was the Lord. She then turned her back to Jesus again (implied in v. 16) but then turned toward Him a second time after He called her name. She then discerned it was Jesus. [Ken Ammi’s addendum: it is also noteworthy that v.1 specifically mentions that Mary went to the tomb “while it was still dark”]

The main point I wish to make is that the fault lies with Mary that she did not discern it was Jesus, not that Jesus had a different body. Mary was preoccupied with the several phenomena previously noted, and therefore did not recognize Him at first. Let’s suppose you are window shopping at the local mall. With most of your attention given to various items in the windows of stores, you happen to look at your best friend 20-30 feet away.

You quickly turn back to your window gazing, not discerning that it was your friend. Then moments later your friend approaches you and you apologize, saying, “Sorry, I looked directly at you but did not recognize you. I was so into these displays.” Certainly your friend did not possess another body. The fault, rather, was yours due to your preoccupation.

John 21:4. The New World Translation of the JWs reads, “Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not, of course, discern that it was Jesus.” Again the assumption of JWs is that Jesus had another body, not His original body, for that body was forever gone. This is the reason the disciples did not discern it was Jesus. But, again, a closer look at the context reveals the JWs misinterpretation. First, it was just becoming morning (v. 4), so we assume here that the brightest part of the day had not yet occurred. Second, in verse 8 we read that the disciples were 300 feet away in a boat!

Conclusion

Though at first glance JWs arguments for their denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ might seem powerful, upon examination of the contexts of biblical passages cited by them we find that they have misinterpreted these passages. A knowledge of the correct understanding of these texts by Christians can lead to a very powerful witnessing opportunity with JWs. May the Lord give us His grace and the power of the Holy Spirit to engage them fruitfully when they come knocking at our doors.

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

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: #JehovahsWitnesses, #Christianity, #Cutls
Facebook: #JehovahsWitnesses, #Christianity, #Cutls

The concept of morphing, of shape shifting is very popular today and is generally applied to ghosts, aliens as well as angels and demons.
That old serpent called the Devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9 & 20:2) is not an angel nor a demon; is not a fallen angels but rather, a fallen Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) and Cherubim and Angels are different categories of beings.

For whether Satan approached Eve in the literal shape/body of a serpent see the article: On satan, divination and metal

In view within this article is what, appears to be, a very straight forward statement about Satan being a shape shifter. 2 Corinthians 11:14 states that Satan does that which has been variously translated as follows:

ASV fashioneth himself into an angel of light.

HNV masquerades as an angel of light.

NIV masquerades as an angel of light.

KJV is transformed into an angel of light.

NKJV transforms himself into an angel of light.

YLT doth transform himself into a messenger of light;

DBY transforms himself into an angel of light.

WEB is transformed into an angel of light.

NLT disguises himself as an angel of light.

ESV disguises himself as an angel of light.

HCSB disguises himself as an angel of light.

NASB disguises himself as an angel of light.

RSV disguises himself as an angel of light.

The word in question is metaschēmatizō (Strong’s G3345) which refers to “to change the figure of, to transform.”

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon notes that it means:

…to change the figure of, to transform…to transform one’s self into some one, to assume one’s appearance…so as to have the appearance of some one…to shape one’s discourse so as to transfer to one’s self what holds true of the whole class to which one belongs, i. e. so as to illustrate by what one says of himself what holds true of all…the spiritual body being developed from the natural, as the butterfly from the caterpillar.

The word is found 5 times in the New Testament with 3 of those being within the text of 2 Corinthians 11:

And these things, brethren, I have in a metaschēmatizō metaschēmatizō (in the KJV as “figure transferred) to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6).

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself (Philippians 3:20-21).

In 2 Corinthians 11 it appears in verses 13-15. Here is the relevant portion of the text so as to not take a text out context to make a pretext for a prooftext:

…But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him…
Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?…
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, metaschēmatizō themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is metaschēmatizō into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be metaschēmatizō as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Clearly, the context is not shape/form but ministry, preaching, apostleship. Thus, the text, within context, is stating that human men pretend to be preaching Christ and that Satan pretends to be an angel/a messenger (which is what the word Angles means) of light/of the truth.

It is not about shape but about message and Satan’s deception; his corruption of the true message, the good news; the gospel.

Thus, there is no indication that he changes his shape when appearing as an angel of light but rather, that he changes his tone when appearing as a messenger of light; he pretends to be delivering messages from Jesus but delivers a corruption instead.

An important lesson in this case is that there are many different kinds of definitions for any given word; there are etymological definitions, grammatical definitions, common usage definitions, philosophical definitions, theological definitions, scientific definitions, etc., etc., etc.
In this case we learned that what a word means—when by itself; that is, removed from its context—is irrelevant since the context ultimately determines meaning. This may be what we can term a hermeneutical definition; when we allow a context to speak for itself and thus, define terms within the context.

The text could have stated that Satan “sausage’s himself as an angel of light” and we would still understand, from the context, that he is pretending to be something which he is not. The term is not as important and how the context coaxes us to understand the term.

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

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.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Did Stan Deyo find the Garden of Eden? Well, if he did then it would amount to one of the greatest external evidences for the Bible’s reliability even found. It would also explain why you have not heard about it in any form of mainstream media which does not want to accredit the Bible.

Here is some background from his bio:

Stan Deyo has held Above Top Secret Security Clearance and worked undercover for the FBI…Stan’s diverse background encompasses: computer programmer of mainframes in 7 languages, PC and Macintosh, senior systems analyst, research physicist (both formally and self-educated), marine architect (self-educated), advanced propulsion engineer for marine, air and spacecraft, author of three books and six scientific papers…amateur archeologist in the Middle East…university lecturer in 3D computer animation and graphic art, Biblical student…

The DVD Lectures & Interviews of Stan Deyo Vol.1 (Eden and Solomon) takes us on space time journey as Stan makes scientific, historical, geographical and grammatical argument for the location of the Garden of Eden.

Found at Stan’s products site, the DVD is actually a package deal consisting of the video of his lecture, a segment on “King Solomon’s link to today’s ‘antichrist,’” a bonus CDROM that includes images from the Garden of Eden (3D glasses included), as well as many images, links, sound tracks and movies from the lectures:

Also on the CDROM (which has to be played on a computer) are special files to be used with Google Earth to view the various rivers and places Stan discovered while researching these lectures. The files are “KMZ files” which can be loaded into Google Earth. You will be able to view the Garden of Eden in 3D mode on Google Earth and to see many photos taken inside the Garden of Eden by the thousands of visitors who have already been there without knowing it was the original Garden of Eden.

The location of King Solomon’s richest gold source is revealed in the lecture. Also, startling new information on the name of the antichrist and the false prophet. More information on the mysterious Queen of Sheba. This set is a must see for Christians interested in having discussion nights on current events and prophecy in the news.

The Google Earth feature is amazing as you can literally fly your way to the Garden of Eden from the comfort of your own home.

Considering that the topic and elucidations are very involved and complex, Stan does a great job of going point by point and making the information very user friendly. He also juxtaposes traditionally claimed sites for the Garden of Eden with why they are faulty.

The long and short of it is pertains to the Earth’s size and angular rotation. Also, research into ancient languages is said to uncover previously unconsidered clues.

The result is that he claims to have found the Garden of Eden—sorry, no spoilers here—and it is a locale that has long been, at least locally, been thought of as just being just that.

Something about which I have wondered for some time is what was Eden? There was a garden but that it was of Eden. In other words, there was an Eden and Eden had a garden.

Let us consider texts in this regard gleaning from Genesis 2:8 to 3:23:

The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed…

Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads…

Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it…

therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.

Thus, there was a something called Eden. A garden was planted to the East of Eden. From Eden a river flowed that watered the garden. Adam was to tend and keep the garden. After the fall into sin Adam was sent out of Eden and out of the garden.

Also of interest is that Stan claims that the Cherubim that were stationed to guard the Garden’s entrance as well as their sword are still there to be seen.

There was Eden and to the East of it was its garden. The river flowed from Eden to the East so as to water the garden. When Adam was sent out Eden and the garden he was sent East:

So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

Later, when Cain murdered Abel he also was sent East:

Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. (Genesis 4:16)

Now, as per Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10, Cherubim are paranormal beings known as throne guardians in scholarly terminology who have four faces, four wings, etc. Yet, these are not seen within the Garden of Eden claimed by Stan and neither is a spinning sword. However, here Stan delves into the research of ancient languages and concludes that the Genesis  reference to Cherubim results in something other than the Ezekiel usage of Cherubim—or so it would have to be since Ezekiel gives us detailed descriptions of them.

As noted above, a river went out of Eden…from there it parted and became four riverhead but, pray tell, how do you track rivers that were utterly overcome by a later worldwide flood? This has been a point of frustration for Eden researchers for years. Well, Stan takes us underground, as it were, for the answer.

Whatever your interest may be with regards to the Bible; this DVD is an essential piece of a much larger puzzle and very worth viewing and contemplating

You can find Stan at his website’s home page, check out his interviews, etc.

You can find the DVD package on Amazon or on Stan’s products site.