Part 2:
The Book of Enoch:
The elect shall possess light, joy, and peace; and they shall inherit the earth. (6:9)
The words of Jesus:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)
From where I left off in the Book of Enoch in part 1, it goes on to describe the fallen angels when there really are no fallen angels in the Old Testament. In Genesis, before the flood, "the sons of God" represent the followers and/or descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" represent the descendants of Cain. The actual sin committed was marrying outside of the faith, which was still condemned under the law of Moses and even in the New Testament.
When some Christian read about the "giants in the earth" from this intermarriage they see actual giants and that Christian idea may, in fact, come from the book of Enoch, which describes the fallen ones as being 300 cubits tall.
The giants, however, are really just tyrants (the KJV mistranslates the word). The actual tyrants are known to historians as priest/kings - they were the men in ancient times who founded kingdoms and claimed territory. They filled both the offices of king and priest in order to claim territory as being given to them by their god - the same way Abraham's descendants claimed Canaan - God gave it to Abraham and his descendants. That's where the Israelites get the authority to claim it and commit genocide over it in the OT.
Angels are supposed to be spirit beings - they could not have sex with humans. Even Jesus says that angels are sexless when he said that they "neither marry nor are they given in marriage". So, where does this idea of fallen angels come from in the new testament writings, i.e., demons and such. And, if they are bound in chains in darkness, how is it they are running around tempting people to sin? See 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6 which comes straight out of the book of Enoch in the chapters following where I left off in part 1. So, we see that both 2 Peter and Jude quote things from 1Enoch as if it is sacred scripture.
Un-Writing the Bible: Enoch's Son of Man and Jesus
Part I of a planned series.
Found among the Dead Sea scrolls are 7 fragments of a pre-Christian era book known as the Book of Enoch. This book of Enoch is directly quoted in the New Testament:
Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him. (chapter 2.1)
Quoted by Jude, vss. 14, 15 - Proving the early Christian knowledge of the book of Enoch.
This book is also included in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which proves that some Christians have thought of the book of Enoch as sacred scripture.
My intention with this series is to go through the book of 1 Enoch and show, if not downright prove, where it was used to invent the New Testament and Jesus as "the Son of Man" written about in that book. Starting out, I don't know how successful I will be in proving that but you may follow along in the book of Enoch at this link: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html
Found among the Dead Sea scrolls are 7 fragments of a pre-Christian era book known as the Book of Enoch. This book of Enoch is directly quoted in the New Testament:
Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him. (chapter 2.1)
Quoted by Jude, vss. 14, 15 - Proving the early Christian knowledge of the book of Enoch.
This book is also included in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which proves that some Christians have thought of the book of Enoch as sacred scripture.
My intention with this series is to go through the book of 1 Enoch and show, if not downright prove, where it was used to invent the New Testament and Jesus as "the Son of Man" written about in that book. Starting out, I don't know how successful I will be in proving that but you may follow along in the book of Enoch at this link: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html
Why God Doesn't Heal Amputees
Both science and common sense long ago concluded that severed limbs don't regenerate in human beings. Science can account for this and may some day be able to overcome it.
However, if one believes in miracles, it's an absolute contradiction to rule out the regeneration of a severed limb. That would be no more a miracle than the cancer cures that are claimed all the time.
Praying for a limb to grow back is something a little more tangible; it's easier to pray for something that has a reasonable possibility of happening, by chance or by work, rather than something that the Christians know won't happen.
The fact that no one prays for a severed limb to regrow is proof that underneath all the posturing and pretense of faith, some rationality has survived. People don't even dare to pray for the regrowth of a severed limb because they know it's impossible.
However, if one believes in miracles, it's an absolute contradiction to rule out the regeneration of a severed limb. That would be no more a miracle than the cancer cures that are claimed all the time.
Praying for a limb to grow back is something a little more tangible; it's easier to pray for something that has a reasonable possibility of happening, by chance or by work, rather than something that the Christians know won't happen.
The fact that no one prays for a severed limb to regrow is proof that underneath all the posturing and pretense of faith, some rationality has survived. People don't even dare to pray for the regrowth of a severed limb because they know it's impossible.
Superstition
"What harm does superstition do? What harm in believing in fables, in legends?
To believe in signs and wonders, in amulets, charms and miracles, in gods and devils, in heavens and hells, makes the brain an insane ward, the world a madhouse, takes all certainty from the mind, makes experience a snare, destroys the kinship of effect and cause -- the unity of nature -- and makes man a trembling serf and slave. With this belief a knowledge of nature sheds no light upon the path to be pursued.
Nature becomes a puppet of the unseen powers. The fairy, called the supernatural, touches with her wand a fact, it disappears. Causes are barren of effects, and effects are independent of all natural causes. Caprice is king.
The foundation is gone. The great dome rests on air. There is no constancy in qualities, relations or results. Reason abdicates and superstition wears her crown. The heart hardens and the brain softens. The energies of man are wasted in a vain effort to secure the protection of the supernatural.
Credulity, ceremony, worship, sacrifice and prayer take the place of honest work, of investigation, of intellectual effort, of observation, of experience. Progress becomes impossible.
Superstition is, always has been, and forever will be, the enemy of liberty.
Superstition created all the gods and angels, all the devils and ghosts, all the witches, demons and goblins, gave us all the augurs, soothsayers and prophets, filled the heavens with signs and wonders, broke the chain of cause and effect, and wrote the history of man in miracles and lies.
Superstition made all the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests, all the monks and nuns, the begging friars and the filthy saints, all the preachers and exhorters, all the "called" and "set apart."
Superstition made men fall upon their knees before beasts and stones, caused them to worship snakes and trees and insane phantoms of the air, beguiled them of their gold and toil, and made them shed their children's blood and give their babes to flames.
Superstition built the cathedrals and temples, all the altars, mosques and churches, filled the world with amulets and charms, with images and idols, with sacred bones and holy hairs, with martyrs' blood and rags, with bits of wood that frighten devils from the breasts of men.
Superstition invented and used the instruments of torture, flayed men and women alive, loaded millions with chains and destroyed hundreds of thousands with fire.
Superstition mistook insanity for inspiration and the ravings of maniacs for prophesy, for the wisdom of God.
Superstition imprisoned the virtuous, tortured the thoughtful, killed the heroic, put chains on the body, manacles on the brain, and utterly destroyed the liberty of speech.
Superstition gave us all the prayers and ceremonies; taught all the kneelings, genuflections and prostrations; taught men to hate themselves, to despise pleasure, to scar their flesh, to grovel in the dust, to desert their wives and children, to shun their fellow-men, and to spend their lives in useless pain and prayer.
Superstition taught that human love is degrading, low and vile; taught that monks are purer than fathers, that nuns are holier than mothers, that faith is superior to fact, that credulity leads to heaven, that doubt is the road to hell, that belief is better than knowledge, and that to ask for evidence is to insult God.
Superstition is, always has been, and forever will be, the foe of progress, the enemy of education and the assassin of freedom. It sacrifices the known to the unknown, the present to the future, this actual world to the shadowy next. It has given us a selfish heaven, and a hell of infinite revenge; it has filled the world with hatred, war and crime, with the malice of meekness and the arrogance of humility.
Superstition is the only enemy of science in all the world."
Superstition, Robert Green Ingersoll, 1898.
To believe in signs and wonders, in amulets, charms and miracles, in gods and devils, in heavens and hells, makes the brain an insane ward, the world a madhouse, takes all certainty from the mind, makes experience a snare, destroys the kinship of effect and cause -- the unity of nature -- and makes man a trembling serf and slave. With this belief a knowledge of nature sheds no light upon the path to be pursued.
Nature becomes a puppet of the unseen powers. The fairy, called the supernatural, touches with her wand a fact, it disappears. Causes are barren of effects, and effects are independent of all natural causes. Caprice is king.
The foundation is gone. The great dome rests on air. There is no constancy in qualities, relations or results. Reason abdicates and superstition wears her crown. The heart hardens and the brain softens. The energies of man are wasted in a vain effort to secure the protection of the supernatural.
Credulity, ceremony, worship, sacrifice and prayer take the place of honest work, of investigation, of intellectual effort, of observation, of experience. Progress becomes impossible.
Superstition is, always has been, and forever will be, the enemy of liberty.
Superstition created all the gods and angels, all the devils and ghosts, all the witches, demons and goblins, gave us all the augurs, soothsayers and prophets, filled the heavens with signs and wonders, broke the chain of cause and effect, and wrote the history of man in miracles and lies.
Superstition made all the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests, all the monks and nuns, the begging friars and the filthy saints, all the preachers and exhorters, all the "called" and "set apart."
Superstition made men fall upon their knees before beasts and stones, caused them to worship snakes and trees and insane phantoms of the air, beguiled them of their gold and toil, and made them shed their children's blood and give their babes to flames.
Superstition built the cathedrals and temples, all the altars, mosques and churches, filled the world with amulets and charms, with images and idols, with sacred bones and holy hairs, with martyrs' blood and rags, with bits of wood that frighten devils from the breasts of men.
Superstition invented and used the instruments of torture, flayed men and women alive, loaded millions with chains and destroyed hundreds of thousands with fire.
Superstition mistook insanity for inspiration and the ravings of maniacs for prophesy, for the wisdom of God.
Superstition imprisoned the virtuous, tortured the thoughtful, killed the heroic, put chains on the body, manacles on the brain, and utterly destroyed the liberty of speech.
Superstition gave us all the prayers and ceremonies; taught all the kneelings, genuflections and prostrations; taught men to hate themselves, to despise pleasure, to scar their flesh, to grovel in the dust, to desert their wives and children, to shun their fellow-men, and to spend their lives in useless pain and prayer.
Superstition taught that human love is degrading, low and vile; taught that monks are purer than fathers, that nuns are holier than mothers, that faith is superior to fact, that credulity leads to heaven, that doubt is the road to hell, that belief is better than knowledge, and that to ask for evidence is to insult God.
Superstition is, always has been, and forever will be, the foe of progress, the enemy of education and the assassin of freedom. It sacrifices the known to the unknown, the present to the future, this actual world to the shadowy next. It has given us a selfish heaven, and a hell of infinite revenge; it has filled the world with hatred, war and crime, with the malice of meekness and the arrogance of humility.
Superstition is the only enemy of science in all the world."
Superstition, Robert Green Ingersoll, 1898.
The Non-Return of Christ
Many Christians expect the return of Christ at any time today and his return has been Imminent ever since the pre-millennialism movements circa 1830. William Miller of the Millerite movement had Jesus returning and the end of the present age date set as 1844. Since that time many dates have been set but, alas, no return and no thousand-year reign on the earth has begun.
The New Testament writers are clear about the "soon" return of Christ over 1,900 years ago. Read what they have to say:
When John the Baptist began to preach, he warned everybody to repent because the kingdom of heaven was near (Matt. 3:2). When the people and their leaders came out to see John, he emphatically told them that the Day of Judgment was not far away (Matt. 3:7-12; Luke 3:7-9, 16-17).
After John the Baptist had been imprisoned, Jesus continued to preach repentance. The reason was the same -- the time had come and the kingdom was near (Mark 1:14-15).
When Jesus sent out the Twelve to the people of Israel, they were instructed to preach that the kingdom was near. He warned them that they would be persecuted because of Him. However, Jesus assured them that they would not run out of cities to flee to before He returned (Matt. 10:5-7, 22-23).
When Jesus dined with the Pharisees, He told them that it would be their generation that would be held accountable for all the righteous blood that had been shed on the earth (Luke 11:37, 50-51).
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus told His disciples that if anyone from their adulterous and sinful generation were to deny Him, upon His coming in the Father's glory with the angels, He would reward each one of them for what they had done by also denying them. Then, He flatly stated that some of the disciples to whom He was speaking would not die before they saw Him coming in His kingdom (Matt. 16:27-28; Mark. 8:38-9:1).
When Jesus pronounced His seven woes upon the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, He again stated that their generation would be the one responsible for all the righteous blood that had been shed on the earth (Matt. 23:35-36).
In His Olivet Discourse, Jesus explained to His disciples that their generation would not pass away before it had witnessed the Apostasy, the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, the end of the age, the desolation of their temple, the overthrow of their nation, the coming of the Son of Man, and the Day of Judgment. He told them that they needed to watch and pray so that they could escape all the things that were about to transpire (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5-36).
At His trial, Jesus told the High Priest that he would see the day when the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of the Father and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).
Following His crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus spoke to the apostle Peter about his own death. When Peter asked how the apostle John would die, Jesus implied that John might not die until He returned. Afterward, John wrote that some of the brothers believed Jesus had said that he would never die, but John countered by indicating that Jesus had only said that he might live until the Second Coming (John 21:18-23).
On the day of Pentecost, Peter told the people that the fulfillment of the prophet Joel's words had come. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was an undeniable sign that they were in the last days and that the manifestation of the Day of the Lord was not far away. Peter begged the people to save themselves from their corrupt generation. Some understood the urgency of Peter's words and in response were baptized (Acts 2:1, 16-20, 40-41).
Years later when he wrote to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul indicated that some believers might still be alive to witness the Second Coming (1 Thess. 4:15ff).
Paul told the Corinthians that there was not much time left and that the world in its present form was currently passing away (1 Cor. 7:29, 31). He informed them that the fulfillment of the ages had arrived (1 Cor. 10:11). Later, he said that not all of them would die before the resurrection had occurred (1 Cor. 15:51ff).
When Paul wrote to the Romans, he advised them that the hour had come for them to realize that their salvation was much sooner than originally expected (Rom. 13:11). Then, he told them that it would not be long before God crushed Satan under their feet (Rom. 16:20).
James instructed the people to be patient until the coming of the Lord. Next, he stated that Jesus and the Judgment were coming soon (James 5:7-9).
Paul informed the Philippians that the Lord's coming was near (Php. 4:5).
The author of Hebrews wrote that the Old Covenant was in the process of passing away and that it would shortly be abolished (Heb. 8:13). The regulations of the covenant were only to be applicable until the new order had arrived (Heb. 9:10). The author further informed the Hebrews that when Jesus entered into heaven it had occurred at the end of the ages (Heb. 9:26). The Hebrews were encouraged to meet with each other more often as they saw the Day of the Lord getting nearer. They were then told that the time was very short and that the coming of the Lord would occur without delay (Heb. 10:25, 37).
The apostle Peter told the people that it was the last times and their salvation was ready to be revealed (1 Pet. 1:5). He also informed them that the Lord had been manifested in those same last times for their sake (1 Pet. 1:20). In addition, he said that the Lord was ready to judge the living and the dead and that the end of all things was near (1 Pet. 4:5, 7).
Paul suggested that Timothy might still be alive at the Second Coming when he charged him to remain faithful until that time came (1 Tim. 6:12-14).
Jude warned the people that godless men had slipped in among them. Then, he reminded them that they were in the last times and their situation was just as the Apostles had foretold would happen (Jude 4, 18).
The apostle John told the people that the darkness was passing and the true light was already shinning (1 John 2:8). Afterward, he stated that the world and its desires were currently passing away (1 John 2:17). He told them that many antichrists had come. He then said that their presence was a clear indication that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18).
In the book of Revelation, the apostle John wrote that the events, which were being disclosed, were going to happen soon. He then stated that those who heard, read and took the prophecy to heart would be blessed because the time was near (Rev. 1:1, 3).
When Jesus addressed the church in Ephesus, He warned them that if they did not repent He would come to them very soon and remove their church from its place (Rev. 2:5). He told the church in Pergamum that they also needed to repent. If they did not, He said that He would quickly come back and bring judgment upon them (Rev. 2:16). To the church in Thyatira, Jesus advised them to hold on to what they had until He returned (Rev. 2:25). Jesus exhorted the church in Sardis to wake up or He would come like a thief and they would not know when He was going to come to them (Rev. 3:3). The church in Philadelphia was commended for their endurance. As a consequence, Jesus told them that He would keep them from the hour of trial that was about to occur. He then declared that He was going to come back soon (Rev. 3:10-11). In his message to the church in Laodicia, Jesus stated that He was about to judge them for their lukewarmness and that they should be zealous and repent (Rev. 3:16, 19).
At the end of the book, John was told that the things, which had just been revealed, would soon take place (Rev. 22:6). Following that, Jesus announced that He was coming soon and that those who kept the words of the prophecy would be blessed (Rev. 22:7). Afterward, John was instructed not to seal up the book because the time was near (Rev. 22:10). Jesus again proclaimed that He was coming soon. He then added that His reward was with Him and He would give to everybody according to what they had done (Rev. 22:12). Jesus closed by once more declaring that He would come back soon (Rev. 22:20).
Without a doubt, the smell of imminence was in the air. These passages prove it. Jesus said He was going to come back soon, before His contemporaries had all died off. He did not say that He would return anytime over a period of two thousand years or more. He said soon! All the authors of the New Testament wrote and preached the same thing. Any eschatological approach that claims otherwise, not only brings the consistency of the New Testament into question, but also ultimately calls Jesus and the New Testament writers liars. If they were merely mistaken then they spoke presumptuously and should not be listened to or fear anything they have said, according to the Law: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).
The New Testament writers are clear about the "soon" return of Christ over 1,900 years ago. Read what they have to say:
When John the Baptist began to preach, he warned everybody to repent because the kingdom of heaven was near (Matt. 3:2). When the people and their leaders came out to see John, he emphatically told them that the Day of Judgment was not far away (Matt. 3:7-12; Luke 3:7-9, 16-17).
After John the Baptist had been imprisoned, Jesus continued to preach repentance. The reason was the same -- the time had come and the kingdom was near (Mark 1:14-15).
When Jesus sent out the Twelve to the people of Israel, they were instructed to preach that the kingdom was near. He warned them that they would be persecuted because of Him. However, Jesus assured them that they would not run out of cities to flee to before He returned (Matt. 10:5-7, 22-23).
When Jesus dined with the Pharisees, He told them that it would be their generation that would be held accountable for all the righteous blood that had been shed on the earth (Luke 11:37, 50-51).
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus told His disciples that if anyone from their adulterous and sinful generation were to deny Him, upon His coming in the Father's glory with the angels, He would reward each one of them for what they had done by also denying them. Then, He flatly stated that some of the disciples to whom He was speaking would not die before they saw Him coming in His kingdom (Matt. 16:27-28; Mark. 8:38-9:1).
When Jesus pronounced His seven woes upon the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, He again stated that their generation would be the one responsible for all the righteous blood that had been shed on the earth (Matt. 23:35-36).
In His Olivet Discourse, Jesus explained to His disciples that their generation would not pass away before it had witnessed the Apostasy, the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, the end of the age, the desolation of their temple, the overthrow of their nation, the coming of the Son of Man, and the Day of Judgment. He told them that they needed to watch and pray so that they could escape all the things that were about to transpire (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5-36).
At His trial, Jesus told the High Priest that he would see the day when the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of the Father and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).
Following His crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus spoke to the apostle Peter about his own death. When Peter asked how the apostle John would die, Jesus implied that John might not die until He returned. Afterward, John wrote that some of the brothers believed Jesus had said that he would never die, but John countered by indicating that Jesus had only said that he might live until the Second Coming (John 21:18-23).
On the day of Pentecost, Peter told the people that the fulfillment of the prophet Joel's words had come. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was an undeniable sign that they were in the last days and that the manifestation of the Day of the Lord was not far away. Peter begged the people to save themselves from their corrupt generation. Some understood the urgency of Peter's words and in response were baptized (Acts 2:1, 16-20, 40-41).
Years later when he wrote to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul indicated that some believers might still be alive to witness the Second Coming (1 Thess. 4:15ff).
Paul told the Corinthians that there was not much time left and that the world in its present form was currently passing away (1 Cor. 7:29, 31). He informed them that the fulfillment of the ages had arrived (1 Cor. 10:11). Later, he said that not all of them would die before the resurrection had occurred (1 Cor. 15:51ff).
When Paul wrote to the Romans, he advised them that the hour had come for them to realize that their salvation was much sooner than originally expected (Rom. 13:11). Then, he told them that it would not be long before God crushed Satan under their feet (Rom. 16:20).
James instructed the people to be patient until the coming of the Lord. Next, he stated that Jesus and the Judgment were coming soon (James 5:7-9).
Paul informed the Philippians that the Lord's coming was near (Php. 4:5).
The author of Hebrews wrote that the Old Covenant was in the process of passing away and that it would shortly be abolished (Heb. 8:13). The regulations of the covenant were only to be applicable until the new order had arrived (Heb. 9:10). The author further informed the Hebrews that when Jesus entered into heaven it had occurred at the end of the ages (Heb. 9:26). The Hebrews were encouraged to meet with each other more often as they saw the Day of the Lord getting nearer. They were then told that the time was very short and that the coming of the Lord would occur without delay (Heb. 10:25, 37).
The apostle Peter told the people that it was the last times and their salvation was ready to be revealed (1 Pet. 1:5). He also informed them that the Lord had been manifested in those same last times for their sake (1 Pet. 1:20). In addition, he said that the Lord was ready to judge the living and the dead and that the end of all things was near (1 Pet. 4:5, 7).
Paul suggested that Timothy might still be alive at the Second Coming when he charged him to remain faithful until that time came (1 Tim. 6:12-14).
Jude warned the people that godless men had slipped in among them. Then, he reminded them that they were in the last times and their situation was just as the Apostles had foretold would happen (Jude 4, 18).
The apostle John told the people that the darkness was passing and the true light was already shinning (1 John 2:8). Afterward, he stated that the world and its desires were currently passing away (1 John 2:17). He told them that many antichrists had come. He then said that their presence was a clear indication that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18).
In the book of Revelation, the apostle John wrote that the events, which were being disclosed, were going to happen soon. He then stated that those who heard, read and took the prophecy to heart would be blessed because the time was near (Rev. 1:1, 3).
When Jesus addressed the church in Ephesus, He warned them that if they did not repent He would come to them very soon and remove their church from its place (Rev. 2:5). He told the church in Pergamum that they also needed to repent. If they did not, He said that He would quickly come back and bring judgment upon them (Rev. 2:16). To the church in Thyatira, Jesus advised them to hold on to what they had until He returned (Rev. 2:25). Jesus exhorted the church in Sardis to wake up or He would come like a thief and they would not know when He was going to come to them (Rev. 3:3). The church in Philadelphia was commended for their endurance. As a consequence, Jesus told them that He would keep them from the hour of trial that was about to occur. He then declared that He was going to come back soon (Rev. 3:10-11). In his message to the church in Laodicia, Jesus stated that He was about to judge them for their lukewarmness and that they should be zealous and repent (Rev. 3:16, 19).
At the end of the book, John was told that the things, which had just been revealed, would soon take place (Rev. 22:6). Following that, Jesus announced that He was coming soon and that those who kept the words of the prophecy would be blessed (Rev. 22:7). Afterward, John was instructed not to seal up the book because the time was near (Rev. 22:10). Jesus again proclaimed that He was coming soon. He then added that His reward was with Him and He would give to everybody according to what they had done (Rev. 22:12). Jesus closed by once more declaring that He would come back soon (Rev. 22:20).
Without a doubt, the smell of imminence was in the air. These passages prove it. Jesus said He was going to come back soon, before His contemporaries had all died off. He did not say that He would return anytime over a period of two thousand years or more. He said soon! All the authors of the New Testament wrote and preached the same thing. Any eschatological approach that claims otherwise, not only brings the consistency of the New Testament into question, but also ultimately calls Jesus and the New Testament writers liars. If they were merely mistaken then they spoke presumptuously and should not be listened to or fear anything they have said, according to the Law: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).
The God-Man
The mistake that Christendom makes is assuming that the writers of the NT books knew any more about God than preachers do today. Toss a story and a rumor around about a dead leader for about 40 years before anyone writes the story down and there's no telling what the original story and rumor was.
Assuming that the words of the rumor spreaders are God-breathed is another mistake.
The more likely story is that Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preacher going around preaching that God would restore the kingdom to Israel - soon. He ran afoul of the authorities and got himself crucified.
To add insult to injury, his grieving followers discovered his body missing from his temporary tomb. What was his followers to do, since the authorities were hunting for them for sedition too?
They scatter, that's what they do. Then lo and behold, one of them claims to have seen the leader alive and that gets the ball rolling on a resurrection story because, not to be outdone, others start claiming to have seen him alive again also.
Then all kinds of things get invented about the leader; miracles, virgin birth, ascension to heaven, holy spirit possession etc. Eventually, the leader becomes God himself and part of a Trinity.
And, here we are today, with people seriously discussing the nonsensical rumor of a god-man as if it were all true.
Assuming that the words of the rumor spreaders are God-breathed is another mistake.
The more likely story is that Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preacher going around preaching that God would restore the kingdom to Israel - soon. He ran afoul of the authorities and got himself crucified.
To add insult to injury, his grieving followers discovered his body missing from his temporary tomb. What was his followers to do, since the authorities were hunting for them for sedition too?
They scatter, that's what they do. Then lo and behold, one of them claims to have seen the leader alive and that gets the ball rolling on a resurrection story because, not to be outdone, others start claiming to have seen him alive again also.
Then all kinds of things get invented about the leader; miracles, virgin birth, ascension to heaven, holy spirit possession etc. Eventually, the leader becomes God himself and part of a Trinity.
And, here we are today, with people seriously discussing the nonsensical rumor of a god-man as if it were all true.
Christadelphia and Evolution
Over at the Christadelphian "Bible Truth Discussion Forum", BTDF for short, the battle is raging once again over the theory of evolution. There seems to be, to my surprise, some Christadelpians who are educated enough to accept evolutionary biology and the facts of evolution, such as common descent.
The problem arises from how to reconcile evolution with the Bible and Genesis in particular. Therefore, most Christadelphians will probably choose to believe the literal reading of Genesis and ignore the scientific facts.
The real answer is rather obvious: That the science is correct and the Bible is wrong. However, history proves that Christians will fight against any truth that contradicts the literal reading of the Bible and we need not go any further than Galileo and Bruno to prove it.
Science is based on facts in evidence and the Bible is based on beliefs with no evidence. Scientific theory is falsifiable by testing, religion is not falsifiable.
I remember people saying that we couldn't fly to the moon because of the canopy of water above the earth - yes, that's right, the blue you see up there above your head is water, a canopy of water over the earth, from which God flooded the world in the days of Noah. Hey, but we got a pretty rainbow out of that deal, didn't we?
The problem arises from how to reconcile evolution with the Bible and Genesis in particular. Therefore, most Christadelphians will probably choose to believe the literal reading of Genesis and ignore the scientific facts.
The real answer is rather obvious: That the science is correct and the Bible is wrong. However, history proves that Christians will fight against any truth that contradicts the literal reading of the Bible and we need not go any further than Galileo and Bruno to prove it.
Science is based on facts in evidence and the Bible is based on beliefs with no evidence. Scientific theory is falsifiable by testing, religion is not falsifiable.
I remember people saying that we couldn't fly to the moon because of the canopy of water above the earth - yes, that's right, the blue you see up there above your head is water, a canopy of water over the earth, from which God flooded the world in the days of Noah. Hey, but we got a pretty rainbow out of that deal, didn't we?
Repent!
Adam sinned and condemned us all to death (huh?) or so the story goes. And here we are now, all condemned and everything and our righteousness is as filthy rags and we are all blind, miserable, poor and naked (spiritually, that is) and the only thing to do is repent and get fixed - 'cause we're broken, you see? And it's all Adam's fault . . . or Eve's - one of 'em anyway - because of eating a magical fruit from a magical tree in a magical garden that doesn't exist.
Anyway though, have you ever noticed that those who go to church, get converted and study the Bible day and night to "get fixed" are the most hateful people in the world?
I noticed, and that's why I started my new blog, The Failure of Christianity. I want to show that the Christian religion is a monster, not just an ordinary murderous monster (which it is) but the most evil, monstrous thing ever invented by humans (which it is).
Since its very beginning there was the infighting between the apostle over circumcision and the law of Moses. This humble, pious beginning escalated into wars between nations and has not yet ceased to satiate its appetite for blood.
The idea that Jesus is going to return and make peace at long last is not what is said in the Christian's holy word - "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". (2 Thess 1:7-8)
No, Jesus is to return and cause war and destroy and inflict plagues on all the world, killing nearly everyone in the most horrible ways according to the book of Revelation.
But, that's nothing new, there are plenty of examples of God ordained murder and genocide in the Old Testament.
Therefore, I believe it is the Christian who needs to repent and "get fixed", because they are the ones who are broken, not the ones on whom they wish God's wrath to fall. After all, the magical tree and the magical serpent and the magical garden never even existed, and just think of all the millions who have died (been tortured and murdered) because of ignorant people believing that old Mesopotamian myth of Adapa.
Anyway though, have you ever noticed that those who go to church, get converted and study the Bible day and night to "get fixed" are the most hateful people in the world?
I noticed, and that's why I started my new blog, The Failure of Christianity. I want to show that the Christian religion is a monster, not just an ordinary murderous monster (which it is) but the most evil, monstrous thing ever invented by humans (which it is).
Since its very beginning there was the infighting between the apostle over circumcision and the law of Moses. This humble, pious beginning escalated into wars between nations and has not yet ceased to satiate its appetite for blood.
The idea that Jesus is going to return and make peace at long last is not what is said in the Christian's holy word - "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". (2 Thess 1:7-8)
No, Jesus is to return and cause war and destroy and inflict plagues on all the world, killing nearly everyone in the most horrible ways according to the book of Revelation.
But, that's nothing new, there are plenty of examples of God ordained murder and genocide in the Old Testament.
Therefore, I believe it is the Christian who needs to repent and "get fixed", because they are the ones who are broken, not the ones on whom they wish God's wrath to fall. After all, the magical tree and the magical serpent and the magical garden never even existed, and just think of all the millions who have died (been tortured and murdered) because of ignorant people believing that old Mesopotamian myth of Adapa.
A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith
By Joe E. Holman
Smith:
The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.
Inoculation:
The year was 1722. The date, July 8th. The place, St. Andrew’s Church in London, England. A bold, determined preacher walked up to his pulpit and delivered a heartfelt sermon entitled, “Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” . . . Read More
Smith:
The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.
Inoculation:
The year was 1722. The date, July 8th. The place, St. Andrew’s Church in London, England. A bold, determined preacher walked up to his pulpit and delivered a heartfelt sermon entitled, “Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” . . . Read More
Is Unbelief a Sin?
Over at the Christadelphian "Bible Truth Discussion Forum" I asked the wrong questions and got slammed in a PM by moderator, "nsr".
Corky: What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.
nsr: Here you are making your trademark assertion about the reliability of the canon, despite the fact you've never done any research into the matter, and have been warned several times before about this.
Comment: In other words, nsr thinks he knows who wrote the books in the canon when the real biblical scholars of the world don't know. Plus, he assumes that I have never done any research into the matter.
Corky: If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?
In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?
nsr: Here you are implying that belief in God is the preserve of the "naive and gullible", and that "intelligent, reasonable, rational" people do not believe in God because there is no evidence. This is again an assertion about a lack of evidence when you haven't actually looked to see if there is any, and a blatant attempt to elicit angry responses, which you have also been warned about before.
Comment: Now, is that what I said or is nsr misreading what I wrote? I said nothing about a belief in God (unless nsr thinks God is one of those "unbelievable" things). I also did not say "there is no evidence". I simply asked pointed questions that evidently they can't answer so it offends them.
Those who are not offended by a few questions may comment on my blog, I'm easy and I won't ban you.
Corky: What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.
nsr: Here you are making your trademark assertion about the reliability of the canon, despite the fact you've never done any research into the matter, and have been warned several times before about this.
Comment: In other words, nsr thinks he knows who wrote the books in the canon when the real biblical scholars of the world don't know. Plus, he assumes that I have never done any research into the matter.
Corky: If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?
In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?
nsr: Here you are implying that belief in God is the preserve of the "naive and gullible", and that "intelligent, reasonable, rational" people do not believe in God because there is no evidence. This is again an assertion about a lack of evidence when you haven't actually looked to see if there is any, and a blatant attempt to elicit angry responses, which you have also been warned about before.
Comment: Now, is that what I said or is nsr misreading what I wrote? I said nothing about a belief in God (unless nsr thinks God is one of those "unbelievable" things). I also did not say "there is no evidence". I simply asked pointed questions that evidently they can't answer so it offends them.
Those who are not offended by a few questions may comment on my blog, I'm easy and I won't ban you.
Who is Antichrist?
Of course, the short answer is that the antichrist is the Jews, because the Jews deny that the Jewish Messiah has come in the flesh. However, the Jews are not who the author of the epistles of John is writing about. The author is writing about people who have left the Christian faith.
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:18-19).
Evidently the folks leaving the faith were calling the faithful a bunch of liars because the author says that what he is teaching “is no lie” (verse 27) but the real liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 22).
Now, why were these former believers denying that Jesus was the Messiah? Because, just as above, they had been taught that it was “the last time” and that Jesus would return in their generation.
They went out saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Pet. 3:4).
So, the dissenters had finally realized that the generation Jesus was talking about in Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 was past, “since the fathers fell asleep”, and they were the next generation and the end still had not come and Jesus still had not returned. However, the author of the epistles of Peter still wanted them to believe that the time of the end was at hand.
“But the end of all things is at hand:” (1 Pet. 4:7).
The New Testament is full of passages that say that “the time is short” and it is “the last days” and the time is at hand etc.
What conclusion could those Christian dissenters have come to except that they had been deceived and Jesus was not the Messiah? Therefore, it was Christian dissenters who the author of the epistles of John is calling the antichrist and are the same ones who the author of 2 Peter calls “scoffers” and this also makes him declare that it was “the last days”, 2,000 years ago (2 Pet. 3:3).
No! Obama is not the antichrist.
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:18-19).
Evidently the folks leaving the faith were calling the faithful a bunch of liars because the author says that what he is teaching “is no lie” (verse 27) but the real liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 22).
Now, why were these former believers denying that Jesus was the Messiah? Because, just as above, they had been taught that it was “the last time” and that Jesus would return in their generation.
They went out saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Pet. 3:4).
So, the dissenters had finally realized that the generation Jesus was talking about in Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 was past, “since the fathers fell asleep”, and they were the next generation and the end still had not come and Jesus still had not returned. However, the author of the epistles of Peter still wanted them to believe that the time of the end was at hand.
“But the end of all things is at hand:” (1 Pet. 4:7).
The New Testament is full of passages that say that “the time is short” and it is “the last days” and the time is at hand etc.
What conclusion could those Christian dissenters have come to except that they had been deceived and Jesus was not the Messiah? Therefore, it was Christian dissenters who the author of the epistles of John is calling the antichrist and are the same ones who the author of 2 Peter calls “scoffers” and this also makes him declare that it was “the last days”, 2,000 years ago (2 Pet. 3:3).
No! Obama is not the antichrist.
The End of All Things
For all those people who imagine that they are going to reign on the earth for a thousand years, I have some bad news.
"I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky And the fish of the sea, And the ruins along with the wicked; And I will cut off man from the face of the earth," declares the LORD (Zephaniah 1:3).
"Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth" (Zephaniah 1:18).
" Therefore wait for Me," declares the LORD, "For the day when I rise up as a witness Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, To assemble kingdoms, To pour out on them My indignation, All My burning anger; For all the earth will be devoured By the fire of My zeal" (Zephaniah 3:8).
See also: Isaiah 13:9, 24:6, 28:22; Jeremiah 4:23-26, 25:32-34; Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:7, 10.
Yes, no one left to reign over as priests and kings, because 2,000 years ago (whew, an awful long time) "the end of all things is (was) at hand" (1 Peter 4:7).
This time it's worse than Noah's flood, because instead of destroying all the living things on earth, God is going to destroy the entire universe.
Well, it wasn't "at hand" and it simply didn't happen - unless I woke up on a new earth this morning and saw a different universe.
"I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky And the fish of the sea, And the ruins along with the wicked; And I will cut off man from the face of the earth," declares the LORD (Zephaniah 1:3).
"Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth" (Zephaniah 1:18).
" Therefore wait for Me," declares the LORD, "For the day when I rise up as a witness Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, To assemble kingdoms, To pour out on them My indignation, All My burning anger; For all the earth will be devoured By the fire of My zeal" (Zephaniah 3:8).
See also: Isaiah 13:9, 24:6, 28:22; Jeremiah 4:23-26, 25:32-34; Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:7, 10.
Yes, no one left to reign over as priests and kings, because 2,000 years ago (whew, an awful long time) "the end of all things is (was) at hand" (1 Peter 4:7).
This time it's worse than Noah's flood, because instead of destroying all the living things on earth, God is going to destroy the entire universe.
Well, it wasn't "at hand" and it simply didn't happen - unless I woke up on a new earth this morning and saw a different universe.
The Virgin Birth
Recently I had the privilege of posting on an exclusive Christadelphian forum a thread concerning the virgin birth of Jesus and was accused of everything from trolling to fishing to misbehaviour just for asking a simple question. Okay, you talked me into it, here's the question:
Since Christadelphian theology doesn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus was God or a god/man, why believe in the virgin birth?
Of course, that's only a paraphrase of what all I said but just so you get the idea of the thread over there (entitled, "The Only Begotten Son").
After several warnings and no answers to the questions, I came to the conclusion that Christadelphians only believe in the virgin birth of Jesus because of being literalists and inerrant scripture believers.
The Christadelphians believe that Jesus was only a flesh and blood man like any other man except without sin - that being made possible by his being filled with the Holy Spirit (without measure) at his baptism. His resurrection being when he became "the only begotten son" and not at his birth.
This cult cannot grasp the possibility of the virgin birth being interpolated to support the later Catholic doctrines of the Trinity, even though the earliest gospel (Mark) and the apostle Paul do not mention a virgin birth.
This cult cannot grasp the idea that {a god + a woman = a god/man} even though there were many other such god/men in existence at the time of early Christianity. Instead they want to deny that Jesus is God yet retain the virgin birth doctrine, being too stupid to realize that it means the same thing.
Since Christadelphian theology doesn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus was God or a god/man, why believe in the virgin birth?
Of course, that's only a paraphrase of what all I said but just so you get the idea of the thread over there (entitled, "The Only Begotten Son").
After several warnings and no answers to the questions, I came to the conclusion that Christadelphians only believe in the virgin birth of Jesus because of being literalists and inerrant scripture believers.
The Christadelphians believe that Jesus was only a flesh and blood man like any other man except without sin - that being made possible by his being filled with the Holy Spirit (without measure) at his baptism. His resurrection being when he became "the only begotten son" and not at his birth.
This cult cannot grasp the possibility of the virgin birth being interpolated to support the later Catholic doctrines of the Trinity, even though the earliest gospel (Mark) and the apostle Paul do not mention a virgin birth.
This cult cannot grasp the idea that {a god + a woman = a god/man} even though there were many other such god/men in existence at the time of early Christianity. Instead they want to deny that Jesus is God yet retain the virgin birth doctrine, being too stupid to realize that it means the same thing.
The Goodness of God
Hey, this is my kind of God . . . yeah, I like horror movies, science fiction and macabre. Stephen King and God are my favorite authors.
The Branch
In the first century there was a movement in Galilee and Judea led by Judas of Galilee in 6 AD. After Judas was killed by the Romans, his followers were driven underground and became know as the Zealots.
In modern times and the search for the historical Jesus the evidence is pointing more and more to the Jesus movement being a branch of the Zealots who sought the independence of Israel from Rome through less violent means, i.e., God would restore the kingdom to Israel by destroying the Romans himself.
In other words, the Romans didn't hunt down and crucify Christians because of their religious beliefs but because they were Zealots.
Being the curious sort, I typed "Jesus was a Zealot" in my Google search and found some very interesting articles and books on the subject. Here is one at the top of my list.
Maybe that article will spur someone else to look further into it and maybe, just maybe check out what the Emperor Julian (Julian the Apostate) had to say about the church created by Constantine and Eusebius.
In modern times and the search for the historical Jesus the evidence is pointing more and more to the Jesus movement being a branch of the Zealots who sought the independence of Israel from Rome through less violent means, i.e., God would restore the kingdom to Israel by destroying the Romans himself.
In other words, the Romans didn't hunt down and crucify Christians because of their religious beliefs but because they were Zealots.
Being the curious sort, I typed "Jesus was a Zealot" in my Google search and found some very interesting articles and books on the subject. Here is one at the top of my list.
Maybe that article will spur someone else to look further into it and maybe, just maybe check out what the Emperor Julian (Julian the Apostate) had to say about the church created by Constantine and Eusebius.
The Ten Commandments Part 2
Jon Morgan offers an adequate answer to my last post. Not entirely satisfactory but adequate:
Hmmm... While there are many who claim Christianity without reading the Bible (and particularly the Old Testament), such ignorance would be surprising. Fortunately, it's also wrong. If you read from Deuteronomy you will find:
Deuteronomy 5:22 (ESV) 22 “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
So the original ten commandments on the original tablets of stone were those spoken on the mountain (and listed again in Deuteronomy 5). They were not just the verbal communications of Moses. If we read further in Deuteronomy we find:
Deuteronomy 10:1-5 (ESV) 1 “At that time the LORD said to me, ‘Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to me on the mountain and make an ark of wood. 2 And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you broke, and you shall put them in the ark.’ 3 So I made an ark of acacia wood, and cut two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 4 And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. 5 Then I turned and came down from the mountain and put the tablets in the ark that I had made. And there they are, as the LORD commanded me.”
God wrote the second tablets with the Ten Commandments with the same words that were on the first tablets of stone, and they were the Ten Commandments that God spoke on the mountain in the midst of the fire.
It all seems to add up to the traditional interpretation being correct. Exodus 34 is certainly interesting, but if you read it carefully you find that these words were for Moses to give to the people and written by Moses, while the stone with the Ten Commandments was said to be written by God. The way I reconcile these is to assume that the two are different, which harmonises with the clear statements of Deuteronomy that give the words to the people on Mount Sinai as the Ten Commandments.
You are of course welcome to invoke any documentary hypothesis you choose or discount the testimony of Deuteronomy, but I accept both it and Exodus which together show clearly that the Ten Commandments were those revealed on Mount Sinai in fire to the people, not those given to Moses personally in Exodus 34.
It is true that Christ gave new commandments, and that these replace the law given to Israel. However, to say that they are entirely different is misleading. Christ fulfilled the law and replaced it, and it is noticable that some of his sayings are of the form "You have heard it said ... But I tell you ..." actually giving a harder command (for example, replacing "Do not kill" with not being angry).
Hmmm... While there are many who claim Christianity without reading the Bible (and particularly the Old Testament), such ignorance would be surprising. Fortunately, it's also wrong. If you read from Deuteronomy you will find:
Deuteronomy 5:22 (ESV) 22 “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
So the original ten commandments on the original tablets of stone were those spoken on the mountain (and listed again in Deuteronomy 5). They were not just the verbal communications of Moses. If we read further in Deuteronomy we find:
Deuteronomy 10:1-5 (ESV) 1 “At that time the LORD said to me, ‘Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to me on the mountain and make an ark of wood. 2 And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you broke, and you shall put them in the ark.’ 3 So I made an ark of acacia wood, and cut two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 4 And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. 5 Then I turned and came down from the mountain and put the tablets in the ark that I had made. And there they are, as the LORD commanded me.”
God wrote the second tablets with the Ten Commandments with the same words that were on the first tablets of stone, and they were the Ten Commandments that God spoke on the mountain in the midst of the fire.
It all seems to add up to the traditional interpretation being correct. Exodus 34 is certainly interesting, but if you read it carefully you find that these words were for Moses to give to the people and written by Moses, while the stone with the Ten Commandments was said to be written by God. The way I reconcile these is to assume that the two are different, which harmonises with the clear statements of Deuteronomy that give the words to the people on Mount Sinai as the Ten Commandments.
You are of course welcome to invoke any documentary hypothesis you choose or discount the testimony of Deuteronomy, but I accept both it and Exodus which together show clearly that the Ten Commandments were those revealed on Mount Sinai in fire to the people, not those given to Moses personally in Exodus 34.
It is true that Christ gave new commandments, and that these replace the law given to Israel. However, to say that they are entirely different is misleading. Christ fulfilled the law and replaced it, and it is noticable that some of his sayings are of the form "You have heard it said ... But I tell you ..." actually giving a harder command (for example, replacing "Do not kill" with not being angry).
The Ten Commandments.
Is it just me, or does it seem like atheists, agnostics and free thinkers in general have read and know much more about the Bible than the average Christian?
I could give many examples of why this seems to be the case, but one of most compelling to me is the case of the 10 Commandments as pointed out in a recent pamphlet by M. Lee Dietz.
As he correctly pointed out, most all Christians, including politicians who want them prominently displayed in government buildings, seem to think the 10 Commandments that God supposedly etched in stone tablets and gave to Moses are as follows...
1.Thou shall have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image.
3.Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor thy father and mother.
6.Thou shall not kill.
7.Thou shall not commit adultery.
8.Thou shall not steal.
9.Thou shall not bear false witness...
10. Thou shall not covet..
I'm always seeing things like sketches, recreations and artists' renderings of the stone tablets that God gave to Moses. And 100% of the time, the above "charges" will be on them. But these were just verbal charges that God gave to Moses in Exodus 20 and told him to verbally communicate them to the people of Israel. They were never etched in stone and the Bible is very clear about this.
The commandments that were actually supposed to have been carved in stone by the finger of God, not once but twice, didn't appear until Exodus 34 and were as follows...
1. Thou shall worship no other god, for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.
2. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep
4. Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day, thou shall rest
5. Thou shall observe the feast of weeks
6. Thrice a year your men children shall appear before the Lord, the God of Israel.
7. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven
8. Thou shall not leave the feast of the passover unto the morning
9. The first of the fruits of the land thou shall bring into the house of the Lord thy God
10. Thou shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
As anyone can see, there is very little resemblance to the 10 charges that most Christians believe to be the commandments that were etched on those stone tablets. Its bad enough that they believe in a book of fairy tales, but it doesn't even look like most of them have even read it to begin with.
I could give many examples of why this seems to be the case, but one of most compelling to me is the case of the 10 Commandments as pointed out in a recent pamphlet by M. Lee Dietz.
As he correctly pointed out, most all Christians, including politicians who want them prominently displayed in government buildings, seem to think the 10 Commandments that God supposedly etched in stone tablets and gave to Moses are as follows...
1.Thou shall have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image.
3.Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor thy father and mother.
6.Thou shall not kill.
7.Thou shall not commit adultery.
8.Thou shall not steal.
9.Thou shall not bear false witness...
10. Thou shall not covet..
I'm always seeing things like sketches, recreations and artists' renderings of the stone tablets that God gave to Moses. And 100% of the time, the above "charges" will be on them. But these were just verbal charges that God gave to Moses in Exodus 20 and told him to verbally communicate them to the people of Israel. They were never etched in stone and the Bible is very clear about this.
The commandments that were actually supposed to have been carved in stone by the finger of God, not once but twice, didn't appear until Exodus 34 and were as follows...
1. Thou shall worship no other god, for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.
2. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep
4. Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day, thou shall rest
5. Thou shall observe the feast of weeks
6. Thrice a year your men children shall appear before the Lord, the God of Israel.
7. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven
8. Thou shall not leave the feast of the passover unto the morning
9. The first of the fruits of the land thou shall bring into the house of the Lord thy God
10. Thou shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
As anyone can see, there is very little resemblance to the 10 charges that most Christians believe to be the commandments that were etched on those stone tablets. Its bad enough that they believe in a book of fairy tales, but it doesn't even look like most of them have even read it to begin with.
Blame the Victim
It was bound to happen and sure enough it did. George Tiller, an abortionist doctor, deserved to be murdered! So says Edward Fesar, who teaches for a community college Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California.
In this blog post Edward Feser compares Tiller to Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed, dismembered and ate 17 men and boys. Feser claims that "Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was."
Actually, this is just typical of what happens when a Christian commits a crime in the name of God - blame the victim. It is always the victim's fault for being an abortion doctor to start with - or a homosexual or an atheist or whoever else the Christians are hating these days.
You would think a professor at a community college would be above such things but not this guy. He even has an atheist hate, book length, diatribe against the new atheists, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism."
In this blog post Edward Feser compares Tiller to Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed, dismembered and ate 17 men and boys. Feser claims that "Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was."
Actually, this is just typical of what happens when a Christian commits a crime in the name of God - blame the victim. It is always the victim's fault for being an abortion doctor to start with - or a homosexual or an atheist or whoever else the Christians are hating these days.
You would think a professor at a community college would be above such things but not this guy. He even has an atheist hate, book length, diatribe against the new atheists, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)