The Lost Book Of The Bible Sunday, August 13, 2017

• Hell is only mankinds grave. The bible even says that Jesus went to Hell. Bet you didn't know that.

• Quote the verse, please.

Now I realize what his post to me with a verse from acts without any context was about. He couldn't even come up with a verse to suport his assertation with as his acts 2:31 or whatever only says Jesus didn't just die.

• I do not recall any Bible verse stating Jesus went to Hell, but it is part of the Christian mythology of Jesus. It is said that he went to Hell for three days (just like most of the sons of god before him) to "plead for the lost souls." I think Jesus's trip through Hell is in one of the Apocrypha.

• Oh, it's in the bible all right, but it's a typo! See below from a previous post of mine.

I just finished reading The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed and Did Jesus Write This Book, both by Charles Francis Potter. He proposes that the Books of Enoch and similar writings were "lost" on purpose because they document the evolutionary development of theology later grafted onto Jesus. In particular he points to Enoch as the source for the beatitudes and "but I say" and ethical teachings of Jesus. As evidence he cites the exclusion of the books of the Psalms of Solomon, Epistle of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These are found in various of the oldest existing manuscripts and attested to by early church fathers.

Barnabas, for example, is included in the Codex Sinaiticus, Clement of Alexandria quotes it as scripture and Origen terms it a "Catholic Episle." Barnabas 16:5 quotes Enoch 89:55, 66, 67 and Barnabas chapter 4 reads "as Enoch says". Enoch was recogonized as scripture in the first century by the current new testament book of Jude, in the second century by Barnabas and Athenagoras, and in the third century by Clement of Alexandria, by Irenaeus, and Tertullian. After Hilary, Jerome and Augustine it was "lost".

On page 95 of The Lost Years of J Revealed, Potter shows that the phrase "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." was added to Acts 8:37 because it isn't in fourth century Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus nor the fifth century Codexes Alexandrinus and Ephraemi. It's still in the King James Version but has been removed from the Revised, American Standard Revised, and the new Revised Standard Version. In a strange twist of fate, he notes that the ethiopian eunuch falsely attributed as saying this, may in fact have been the source of the book of Enoch transported to europe where it escaped destruction and a copy was discovered late in the 19th century.

On the next several pages, Potter shows that the "he" refered to in 1 Peter 3:18-20 that "went and preached to the spirits in prison", the source of the credial phrase about descending into hell, is not Jesus but in fact originally refered to Enoch! He lists several Greek specialists that support this translation: Bowyer, Spitta, Cramer, Rendel Harris, M.R. James, Moffattt and Goodspeed. In Enoch chapters 6 to sixteen, Enoch not only preached to these spirits but the circumstances of their imprisonment are explained.

This story became a point of contention between Augustine and Tertullian. Guess who became the heretic and who the saint and which believed what? Fundi scholars attribute this little change to a scribal error known as "haplography", or writing only one of two identical groups of letters occuring near together. Another accident like "losing" all the copies of Enoch, no doubt. BTW, these "spirits" were the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1-4, Isaiah 14:12 and 24:21-23. Paul was apparently aware of this and still afraid of them when he gives the reason why women should cover their heads in church in 1 Cor 11:10, "because of the angels."

Further evidence of the evolution of biblical theology can be found in Luke 3:22 which in the "Gospel of the Ebionites", several ancient manuscripts, quotations by Justin, Clement, Origen, and even Augustine describes the descent of the Holy Spirit as Jesus baptism thus, "Thou are my Son, today I have begotten thee." This clear text is the basis for Adoptianism, or the belief that Jesus was only a human till god endowed (or adopted) him with divine nature. This belief can be traced back through Arius, Lucian, Paul of Samosata, to Theodotus of Byzantium and Artemon in Rome about 185 and before that to the Ebionites of the first and second centuries, the survivors of Qumran and Jerusalem in 70.

The Ebionites are also the ones that first call Paul a liar! What does the present day bible say at Luke 3:22? The "today" has been removed to match the eternal divinity dogma and all the Adoptionists are declaired heretics even by Augustine who knew what the bible originally said!

[From Larry Sites to David Rice: JESUS IN HELL]

Reasons For Believing Christianity Debunked

I found some old stuff lying around, and thought our fundies might want to tackle them. Here's the first one: "Reasons" for believing in Christianity debunked

1. We have eyewitness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead.

Actually, we don't. We have a few anonymously written documents. These documents were written decades after the supposed events described, and ascribed decades after that. On the other hand, we have reams of materials written by people who claim to have seen UFOs and/or extraterrestrials, many of whom are still alive today.

2. Twelve guys who knew Jesus claimed he rose from the dead.

We can't find these twelve guys mentioned anywhere in history outside of the dogma of the religion itself. For all we know, the list of names was concocted by some early gospel writer from scratch. Nor do we have any writings which can be reliably attributed to any of these phantom twelve guys. On the other hand, we have something like seventy eyewitness accounts of things at Roswell, to name only one UFO incident. Many of those eyewitnesses are still alive. You believe in aliens in UFOs probing anuses, right?

3. Those twelve guys suffered and died for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

The twelve guys we can't find mentioned anywhere in history? Of course we don't know any such thing. On the other hand, UFO witnesses have been willing to suffer humiliation and ridicule, for some reason apparently not linked to seeing a dead guy walking.

4. People high in the early Christian church claimed to know one or more of those twelve guys, so they must have existed.

Two guys want to be president of your local chess club. One learned to play chess from books. The other claims to have been taught by Bobby Fisher. For whom are you going to vote? If you wanted to be a big wheel in the new religion of Christianity, might you not claim to have been taught by <fill-in-an-apostle-here> to cement your position? Particularly if the apostles were nowhere to be found to deny your claim? In a more modern context, think it might win you some followers if you claimed to channel a thousand-year-dead sage?</fill-in-an-apostle-here>

5. No one bothered to debunk the Christian religion in its infancy.

Travel wasn't exactly easy in the first century A.D, and Judea was, at that time, often a war zone. Moreover, who attempts to debunk a whelp religion? Have you traveled to Roswell to debunk UFOs? How many people have dug up JFK to prove he's not lurking somewhere as the antichrist, or dug up Elvis to prove he's not hanging out at the local 7-11, even in these days of fast and easy transportation? And how easy do you suppose it would be to debunk UFOs by visiting Roswell, even if you could be bothered to make the trip? Would UFOlogists with their minds already made up listen? Would Elvis sightings stop if an unrecognizably decomposed body were exhumed?

Well, do I make myself clear?

Let's continue then. It has been suggested that, since we know people exist, it's reasonable to assume that gods exist using a variation of the conceptual fallacy of redefinition (among others). Seems silly, doesn't it? It is. Here's how it goes:

1. Define humans as "creative intelligences."
2. Define gods as "creative intelligences."
3. Claim that, since we know creative intelligences exist, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one more creative intelligence exists.
4. Restore original definitions, substituting "humans" for "creative intelligences" and "god" for "creative intelligence" in number 3 above.

Well, try this one. You see hoof prints on the beach. A unicorn is as likely an explanation for the source of the prints as a horse:

1. Define horse as "hoofed equine."
2. Define unicorn as "hoofed equine."
3. Claim that, since we know hoofed equines exist, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one more hoofed equine exists.
4. Restore original definitions, substituting "horses" for "hoofed equines" and "unicorn" for "hoofed equine" in number 3 above.

Occam's razor still states that one should not multiply entities without cause. We know horses exist, so there's no reason to assume that unicorns exist where horses will serve as an explanation.

Moreover, the known existence of horses does not imply the existence of unicorns. Neither does the known existence of hippos imply the existence of invisible pink flying hippos. Neither does the known existence of humans imply the existence of gods. Such an assertion is ludicrous, lacking other evidence.

In point of fact, explanations which use entities known to exist are preferable over explanations using entities which are not known to exist, all other things being equal, according to Occam's razor (do not multiply entities _without reason_). To claim otherwise is to abuse the principle of parsimony without any reason other than blind (and silly) faith.

It's been claimed that monotheism was responsible for the scientific revolution that came after the European Dark Ages. Is it true? No! Here's why:

1. Monotheism was in practice in Judea for centuries with no "scientific revolution." Perhaps all the Hebrews were asleep.
2. No "scientific revolution" occurred during the first thousand years of Christianity. Perhaps all the Christians were asleep.
3. Scientific and mathematical discoveries were made throughout the world without the aid of monotheism. Scientific progress has escalated more-or-less at an ever-increasing rate, aside from occasional Dark Ages (see note 5 below for the short answer as to why).
4. The origins of European science are to be found in ancient Greece, India and Arab lands, not some monotheistic society. This includes the early origins of scientific method (natural phenomenon have natural, not supernatural, causes), and speculations on evolution and heliocentric systems.

So, what were the driving forces behind the European "scientific revolution?" The most important were:

1. The reintroduction of ancient Greek texts brought back from the Crusades (the Christians had previously burned their copies of these texts, thus, in large part, causing the European Dark Ages).
2. The introduction of Arabic mathematical concepts, again, brought back from the Crusades. Note that the Arabs were the mathematical geniuses of their time, having imported both Indian and Greek knowledge and then built on that foundation.
3. Various other information from Islam (such as optical science, which Roger Bacon built upon).
4. A lessening of the power of the Christian Church, which continues to this day.
5. A broadening of the role of artists (architects, for example) and other hands-on craftsmen, creating a class that appreciated both scholarliness and technical proficiency.
6. The invention over the centuries of the appropriate tools for scientific observation, including lenses for telescopes and microscopes, and, most importantly, the printing press, which allowed ideas to be widely distributed, discussed and mulled over. Thus, more minds were able to grapple with a wide body of scientific knowledge. Those Greek texts returned from the Crusades reached more people than ever before, as did new texts.

It has been suggested that monotheism (particularly the Christian three-headed version) provides a "mindset" that allows one to question the laws of nature while no other mindset does so. Yet the ancient Greeks did such questioning, as did the Hindus and Chinese. Is monotheism the ultimate mindset for science?

No. Virtually any religious or non-religious mindset can be used as a basis for investigating the laws of nature. For examples: Polytheists might reason that the universe must be founded on logical rules, else the gods themselves would be unable to communicate; nontheists might reason that the universe can be observed to obey rules which at least appear to be comprehensible to humans; and so forth. Note that the converse is also true. Plain fact is, you can rationalize most anything you like from such starting points.

How did monotheism (particularly the Christian three-headed version) actually work out for science in practice? Well, in 529 AD Justinian closed the Academy and the Lyceum, two universities in Athens, founded by Plato and Aristotle. The reason? Christian distrust of pagan learning. In 800 AD, French ecclesiastic St. Bernard forbid Cistercian monks from studying medical books, declaring that prayer was the only remedy allowed to treat the sick (meanwhile Persians required their physicians to take examinations before becoming licensed). It was not until ancient Greek ideas began to filter back into Europe and get printed that science began to win in its battle against the Church. Even then, and to this day, Christianity continued to try to suppress scientific discoveries that it found unpalatable (ask Galileo or Hawking for details).

How did the monotheistic "mindset" work out for science? In Islam, science made great progress at first, but a religious backlash settled in later in many places. In Christianity, as many people seemed to oppose as support science, often citing reasons that seemed identical in all respects except their conclusions. It appears to have been a wash as to mindset -- no overall effect (although it is worth noting that the more successful science became, the more it detached itself from religious influences altogether). Again, this is probably due to the fact that one can rationalize any stance beginning solely from the basis of believing that one or many gods exist, or simply not believing in gods at all.

Did individuals cite Christianity as the basis for their interest in science? Undoubtedly. People have cited Christianity as the basis for everything from child sacrifice to racial bigotry to mass suicide. In point of fact, for an individual to practice science in early Christian society, it was often necessary to concoct some story to feed the Church as a practical matter, to keep from being thrown in jail for practicing magic or being branded a heretic (with the particular Christian kindnesses shown to such folk).

[Source: "Reasons" for believing in Christianity debunked by Mkimes]

Dating Saul of Tarsus

The date of Paul's conversion, as suggested in the "infallible inerrant Bible" indicates he saw the risen Christ before Christ even died. Using Acts and Gal together, the following is arrived:

Paul's conversion (Acts 9:3ff, Gal 1:16) = 31 AD.

First visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26,Gal 1:18). This was 3 years after conversion (Gal 1:18) = 34 AD.

Second visit to Jerusalem (Acts l5:2-4, Gal 2:1-10). 14 years after lst Jerusalem visit = 48 AD.

Paul visits the churches (through Syria and Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, through Phrygia and Galatia to Troas and Macedonia, through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica (3 weeks - Acts 17:2), to Beroea, then Athens and onto Corinth (Acts 15:40-18:1). Say 1 year = 49 AD. (NB. This is known as "Paul's second missionary journey").

Paul arrives in Corinth (Acts 18:1); after l.5 years (Acts 18:11) he then appears before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12-16) (NB. Paul leaves Corinth in Acts 18:18) = Summer 51 AD.

NOTES:

(N1). With regard to (5), an inscription from Delphi includes a letter from the emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) and in this there is a ref to Gallio as proconsul; the date is the 26th acclamation of Claudius and as the 22nd, 23rd and 24th were all made in 52 AD and the 27th was before August 52 AD - the 26th would therefore be in Spring/Summer 52.

The term of office as a proconsul was just one year - beginning in the late Spring or early Summer; therefore as Gallio's time is factually known, the Acts story in chapter 18 can be located in Spring/Summer 51 or 52 - most likely 51. Therefore in dating Paul's life up to Acts 18, it leads up to this specific date as it is absolutely definite. No one disputes this.

(N2) In 18:2, Paul meets two Jews who had been expelled from Rome; this edict of banishment was in 49 AD and supports the date given in (4).

(N3) Taking Acts and Gal as being accurate, yet more problems arise:

(a) Is the 3 years of Gal 1:18 to be dated from Paul's conversion or his returning to Damascus?

(b) How long did the missionary work in (4) take? The above includes a year.

(c) When does the 14 years in Gal 2:1 begin - his conversion (his starting point in the passage) or the 1st Jerusalem visit mentioned just before?

Therefore, it appears from the above table that Paul's conversion took place in the year after Christ died and yet much was supposed to have occurred between these events, ie. all that is included in Acts 1:1 - 9:1.

Furthermore the minimum times possible have been allowed in the above so there cannot be any accusation that it has been formulated in a way to presuppose anything, or deliberately cause problems.

For example, in (4) - it would be most unlikely all this travelling could be done in just one year. If it was (say) two years because there is a fixed point (ie. (5).) as 51 AD which is known to be correct and can't be altered, the starting point has to be moved back to fit in the extra year into the schedule and Paul's conversion is then dated as 30 AD. However that would mean Paul was converted by seeing the risen Christ before he even died.

The same applies with Gal 1:18 - if the 3 years begins from Paul returning to Damascus and not the conversion, there would have to be time also included for Paul's antics in Arabia (Gal 1:17) and being included in the time before 51 AD would again would push Paul's conversion back to something like 29 AD. In fact some Christians do state Jesus' death was 33 AD and this would mean Paul was converted by seeing the risen Christ (ie. 29 AD) before Christ had even started his three-year ministry (30 AD) let alone had died and risen.

Dating Paul's conversion as 31 AD and Christ's death in 30 AD creates many problems, ie. it is known that the Jewish Passover (8th April - the Jewish 15 Nisan) fell on a Saturday in the year 30 AD; but the Synoptics make it clear that Jesus was crucified on the Passover but the following day was Saturday and they therefore date the Passover as a Friday. The Passover began on Thursday evening (the Jewish day begins the previous evening) and ended Friday evening - ie. Mark 14:l2 to 15:42. In sum, the different narratives cannot be reconciled and appear to be divorced from historical fact.

It should also be mentioned that with regard to working out when Paul was converted, that whilst just 1 year for Paul's 2nd missionary journey was given, others say it was longer, eg. the evangelical New International Version (Bible) in its schedule of Paul's life says it was 2 years (ie. this then makes Paul's conversion 30 AD). Furthermore they date the time between Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion (ie. Acts l:l-9:l) as SEVEN YEARS.

If this figure was used above then it would make Paul's conversion remain as 31 AD (this cannot be changed or made later), but Christ's death/ascension would be 7 years earlier, ie. in 23 AD. However, this cannot be so as Luke (3:1) states that Christ's ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and as there is no doubt about the time of his rule, the l5th year is definitely 28-29 AD.

Therefore using the information that the Bible itself supplies, the accounts given of Christ's death and/or Paul's conversion, etc, are shown to be ficticious. Furthermore one question that must be asked is why the New Testament writers appear to have this amazing difficulty in locating Jesus in a chronological setting if he really existed?

[Source: HolySmoke.Org]

The Dark Side of Christianity Saturday, June 24, 2017

There is a dark side to any religion. The Christian church has created a legacy that has seeped into cultures all over the world. The church played a part in hate, racism, bigotry, sexism and abuse. History was pretty grim during the Christian Crusades and during the Salem witch trials, which killed many innocent people in the name of God. More recently, some preached against condom use in AIDS ravaged areas of Africa because of Catholic tradition. We can acknowledge that the past portrays a dark side of religion. Christians can't blame atheism or the devil all the time. We need to tackle our own depravity. People don't want to hear this, but the church has their own mess to deal with before they can conquer the world for Christ. You don't have to hang witches to be a bad witness for Christ. There is plenty of nonbelievers to fill the hollows in the world. We've come a long way from the Salem witch trials and yet, we act in a dark method, refractory to what we read in the Bible. Is the church making us look bad by proxy? Perhaps. Here is how the dark side of Christianity operates. 

We love to gossip.

We are instructed in the Bible to "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear." Gossip is a serpent and can wreck lives, marriages and the body of the church. Words, including the Scripture, are twisted. Facts are exaggerated, and before you know it, people are ready to come to your house with pitchforks. Well, you get the point. It starts out as "Did you hear that Jim is seeing a therapist about his marriage?" The next thing you know is that Jim is going to have a divorce and will get custody of his kids. But gossip is a sin that God takes seriously and hiding behind the guise of Christianity is a cop out. God states in Leviticus 19:16: “Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.” Don't be fooled as this happens in the church. George Washington talked about using our words foolishly! “The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.”

We fuel division.

There was a story that people were upset that a church program was not being expanded to a certain age group of children in aftercare. This created a stir and people started to argue and tempers flared. Needless to say, people left the church over it and things were never the same. The enemy loves to cause divisions within the church and although this was a small-scale example, the force was extremely painful. When our egos are involved, a mess usually follows. It may be worse if you attend a country club church. This "Is a metaphor for a church where many of the members have a sense of entitlement instead of an attitude of service. They pay their dues to get their way. And if they don't get their way on every issue, even minor issues, they may sow the seeds of dissension that lead to a church split," author Thom Rainer wrote.

We murder in our hearts.

We don't need weaponry to destroy people and to become a dark representation of Christianity. Religion is always looking out for itself. Jesus wasn't religious. Many difficulties arise in our culture due to the animosity in our hearts. Jesus said: "Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going because the darkness has blinded them." When people perform acts in the name of God, they believe that their hate is justified. 

We allow sin to fester.

We go to church to learn about Jesus' teachings and to grow together. Yet, we don't call out sin in the pews or in the pulpit. When this happens and we become more concerned about keeping up appearances, we lose our flavor. This can be the tolerance of idolatry, adultery, greed and known sin that is not dealt with. What is the point if we are the same as the world? Jesus famously said: "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."

Christian history is full of dark stories and mayhem. Although we don't use swords or hunt for witches anymore, we do judge, ostracize and hurt people daily. We all need to be careful when we do anything in the name of God because we can go into a disruptive pattern in our own lives. The good news is we can turn the page.

Corine Gatti | belief.net

What Does The Hebrew Word "Echad" Mean? Thursday, February 6, 2014

INTRODUCTION

One of the most frequently recited verses in Scripture is Deuteronomy 6:4. In other words, that verse is spoken – out loud from memory – on an extremely frequent basis. For example, observant Orthodox Jews will recite that verse at least twice a day – once in the morning, and once in the evening.

The Hebrew in that verse is pronounced as follows:

Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.

Here is the translation of that verse, from the ESV:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

All of the other common English translations of the Bible have extremely similar renderings of that verse. Deuteronomy 6:4 is sometimes referred to as “the sh’ma” (or “the shema”) – since it is referenced so frequently. Interestingly, Jesus himself also recited the sh’ma. Note the following passage:

Mark 12:28-30 (ESV):
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

At this point, the obvious question is: why is that verse recited so frequently? The general answer to that question is that the sh’ma very succinctly summarizes the difference between the God of the Bible – Yahweh – and the pagan gods of other religions. Basically, that verse explicitly states that there is only ONE Almighty God. This is in stark contrast to the multiple, competing gods, in the pantheons of most other religions.

As a result, reciting the sh’ma is a very simple, convenient way for a person to re-confirm that he believes in the God of the Bible – rather than believing in multiple, pagan gods.

THE HEBREW WORD 'ECHAD'

The very last word in the sh’ma is the Hebrew word echad. That word is rendered as “one” in most English translations of the Bible; some translations use “alone” instead. In either case, the straightforward, common-sense understanding of echad in the sh’ma tells us that only one person is Almighty God – and that one person is our Heavenly Father – Yahweh.

Some groups have an alternate belief about echad, though. In essence, those groups assert that echad refers to a “compound unity”. In other words, they believe that echad refers to one group, which contains multiple members. For example, they state that echad means “one” as in “one baseball team”; as opposed to “one” as in “one chair”.

So, according to that understanding of echad, the sh’ma could be translated this way:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is a compound unity.

Of course, the reason why this alternate understanding of echad is important is because it allows some groups to “spin” the sh’ma – into an endorsement for the Trinity! In other words, some groups state the following: “The sh’ma tells us that God is one. That is true – but that “one” refers to a compound unity. So, the sh’ma is telling us that there is only one God – but He is comprised of multiple persons.”

HOW IS 'ECHAD' ACTUALLY USED IN SCROPTURE?

The crux of the above argument is that “echad” refers to a “compound unity”. Of course, in order to determine if that argument has any merit, it is necessary to examine how that word is actually used in Scripture.

The word echad (and its feminine version achat) appears 970 times in Scripture. In the vast majority of cases – over 600 times – the word echad explicitly refers to a simple, unitary one. In other words, in almost every case, echad refers to one single item – rather than to one group of items.

This concept is usually expressed in English translations with the word “one”; but the words “single”, “unique” and “first” are used as well, depending on the context. Here are some examples of echad meaning a simple, unitary one:

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one (echad) place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:9, ESV)

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one (achat) of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. (Genesis 2:21, ESV)

We are all sons of one (echad) man. We are honest men. Your servants have never been spies.” (Genesis 42:11, ESV)

“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one (echad) shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. (Ezekiel 37:24, ESV)

It [the Passover meal] is to be eaten in a single (echad) house (Exodus 12:46, NASB)

I will remove the iniquity of this land in a single (echad) day (Zechariah 3:9, ESV)

For it will be a unique (echad) day which is known to the Lord (Zechariah 14:7, ESV)

But my dove, my perfect one, is unique (achat) (Song of Solomon 6:9, NASB)

The name of the first (echad) [river] is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11, ESV)

And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first (echad) day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. (Genesis 8:5, ESV)

Clearly, all of the above examples refer to one single person, place or thing – not to one group of items.

WHAT ABOUT THESE CASE?

As mentioned, in the vast majority of cases, echad refers to one single item. However, in a small minority of cases, echad refers to one group of items. Here are three examples of this:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one (echad) flesh. (Genesis 2:24, ESV)

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first (echad) day. (Genesis 1:5, ESV)

And they came to the Valley of Eshcol and cut down from there a branch with a single (echad) cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23, ESV)

Here is a “summary” of the above examples:

Example 1: Echad is used to describe a husband and a wife – together – as one flesh.

Example 2: Echad is used to describe an evening and a morning – together – as the first day.

Example 3: Echad is used to describe a single cluster of grapes.

Some groups point to those specific examples, to try to prove that echad – in the sh’ma – refers to the Trinity. In other words, they assert the following:

Echad, in the sh’ma, is used to describe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – together – as one God.

However, is the above assertion really true? Do the three examples listed above actually describe the doctrine of the Trinity?

Consider those three examples again. In example 1, Scripture states that a husband and wife – together – become “one flesh”. This means that the husband – by himself – does not fully comprise the one flesh; and that the wife – by herself – also does not fully comprise the one flesh. Instead, the husband and the wife, by themselves, are only parts – or “halves” – of the one flesh.

Similarly, in example 2, Scripture states that an evening and a morning – together– became the “first day”. This means that the evening – by itself – does not fully comprise the first day; and that the morning – by itself – also does not fully comprise the first day. Instead, the evening and the morning – by themselves – are only “subsets” of the first day.

The same principle applies to example 3. One single grape – by itself – does not fully comprise the entire cluster; one grape is just a single member – a subset – of a cluster of grapes.

The reason why the above items are important is because the doctrine of the Trinity asserts the following:

The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. However, there are not three Gods, but one God.

Of course, that doctrine is entirely different than the examples provided above. Consider example 1 again – it states that the husband and the wife – by themselves – are NOT fully the “one flesh”. The Trinity doctrine, though, states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – by themselves – ARE fully the “one God”.

To make the contrast even more clear, consider the following: In order to cause example 2 to agree with the Trinity doctrine, Scripture would have to say something like this:

The evening fully comprised one entire day, and the morning fully comprised one entire day. However, there were not two days, but one day.

Of course, the above assertion is pure nonsense. What Scripture actually states is that the evening was just part of the day, and the morning was just part of the day – and that the two of them, together, comprised one full day.

Now, consider this: In order to cause the Trinity concept to agree with the examples above, one would have to say something like this:

The Father is “one third” of God, the Son is “one third” of God, and the Holy Spirit is “one third” of God; and the three of them – together – comprise one God.

However, most Trinity proponents strongly disagree with the above statement. This is because they are completely focused on the idea that each “person” of the Trinity is fully God – and that there are not three Gods, but one God. That concept is not expressed by the word echad at all – not in any of the places where it appears in Scripture.

CONCLUSION

Some mainstream expositors make the following type of blunt assertion, whenever they discuss the sh’ma: Echad means a compound unity – period.

• The implication of that assertion, of course, is that echad only means a compound unity. In other words, that assertion implies that in every case where echad is used, it always refers to one group of items – rather than to one single item. However, as mentioned above, in the vast majority of cases, echad actually refers to just one single item.
• So, the implication that echad always refers to a “compound unity” is demonstrably false.
• Not only that, but even in the minority of cases where echad does refer to a compound unity, the meaning still does not conform to the doctrine of the Trinity. Basically, in the cases where echad refers to one group of items, it is clear that each member of the group is only a subset of the listed “compound unity”.
• For example, Scripture states that a husband and a wife – together – become“one flesh”. This indicates that the husband and wife are each “subsets” of the one flesh – but that together they comprise a “complete” one flesh. This is the opposite of the Trinity doctrine – which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God – but there is still just one God.

The final item to note is that many other passages in Scripture state that only our Heavenly Father is Almighty God. That, in turn, tells us that echad – in the sh’ma – refers to just one person: our Heavenly Father.

First of all, note that the phrase “God the Father” does appear in Scripture – in many places – but the phrases “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” do NOT appear anywhere in Scripture. The terms that actually do appear in Scripture are the Son of God and the Spirit of God.

Next, consider the two passages below. In the first, Jesus himself states that our Heavenly Father is the only true God, while Jesus is the one who was sent by God. Similarly, Paul tells us that the Father is our God – while Jesus is our Lord – i.e., our “master”, or “boss”:

John 17:1-3 (ESV):
When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (ESV):
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Finally, Jesus explicitly denied that he was Almighty God; and he even stated that our Heavenly Father was his God – just like He is our God. Consider the following passages:

Mark 10:17-18 (ESV):
17 And as he [Jesus] was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

John 20:17 (ESV):
Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

The information in this post will hopefully prove useful, if one encounters the argument of “Echad in the sh’ma proves the Trinity”.

[Brian Keating]

The Christian God: EVIL! Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Bible presents an interesting picture of God, ie. a god who never changes (Malachi 3:6) but actually does frequently change his mind and even regrets what he's done ("repents") - Genesis 6:6,7, Exodus 32:l4, l Samuel l5:35, 2 Samuel 24:l6, l Chronicles 21:l5, Jeremiah l8:8,l0, 26:3,l3,l9, 42:l0, Ezekiel 24:l4, Joel 2:l3, Amos 7:3. Although it is to be noted that Numbers 23:l9 and l Samuel 15:2 say that God never repents.

It states God is "spirit", ie. non-physical (John 4:24) and yet he is always called 'him' or 'he' as if he had a male body, and then it states that although spirit, he has feet (Psalm l8:9), arms (Jeremiah 27:5), wings (Psalm 36:7), hands (Job 27:ll), eyes (Deuteronomy 8:3), a mouth (Isaiah l:20), ears (2 Chronicles 6:40), nostrils (Exodus l5:8) and legs (Genesis 3:8). He also uses a razor - Isaiah 7:20. He also occasionally roars (Joel 3:l6) and sometimes he even whistles (Isaiah 5:26). Although he has never been seen (John l:l8), he has actually been seen (Isa 6:l), and he even revealed his rear to Moses (Exodus 33:21-22).

The presence of evil

Christians argue that it is through Adam's sin that evil exists and furthermore it is because of his transgression that all humans must die; this is clearly taught by Paul in Rom 5:12,17,18 and is the central theology of Christianity; however, this wholly contradicts 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 31:30 that state a person will NOT suffer for an ancestor's wrongdoing.

If the God of the Bible is truly God, then there is a dilemma; for God to be God, he has to be omnipotent, responsible for the creation of everything; this includes evil; if he did not create evil, then he was not wholly creative, and therefore cannot be God. In fact the Bible does actually say God commits evil, eg. Exodus 32:l4, 2 Sam 24:l6, 1 Chron 21:l5, Jer l8:8, 26:3,l3,l9, Jonah 3:l0. Furthermore he sends lying spirits (l Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles l8:22) and deliberately deceives people (2 Thessalonians 2:ll). And not only this, he admits to being responsible for the creation of evil and misery - Isaiah 45:7, and that he has deliberately made people so he can destroy them - Proverbs l6:4.

He condemns killing (Exodus 20:l3) but orders it (Exodus 32:27); he encourages wisdom (Proverbs 4:7) but condemns it (l Corinthians l:l9); he protects the righteous (Proverbs 12:21) but does not (Hebrews ll:36-37); he cuts off the wicked (Proverbs l0:27) but does not (Job 21:7-9); he commands respect for parents (Exodus 20:l2) but encourages hatred for them (Luke l6:9); he blesses peace (Matthew 5:9) but brings war (Matthew l0:34, Revelation l9:ll).

It continues by saying God will keep the earth (Ecclesiastes l:4), but will destroy it (2 Peter 3:l0); is invisible and unseen (John l:l8, l Timothy 6:l5-l6) but has been seen (Amos 9:l, Deuteronomy 5:24); he lives in dazzling light (l Timothy 6:l5-l6), but lives in darkness (l Kings 8:l2).

The Christian life

One example of Christian teaching not being dervived from the Bible is how Christians say a great deal of the Bible gives instructions regarding a happy married/family life. In reality, this is not so at all.

As far as "Jesus' teaching about the 'sanctity' of marriage" or even family life, the Gospels say very little on this. Jesus' teaching regarding divorce arises in Matthew l9:3-l2 and Mark l0:2-12; Luke and John omit this passage. In Mark, Jesus speaks to his Jewish audience about a woman divorcing her husband - l0:12 - however no such thing was possible in Palestine ! Here the author of Mark betrays the fact that (i)he was not an eyewitness to the events he writes of (ii)that he was not a first century Palestinian Jew (who obviously would not make such an error) ie. Christians maintain the author of Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12. However it is clear just from this that he was a Gentile, writing for a Gentile (Rome?) audience.

He makes numerous errors in his Gospel about Palestinian life, geography, customs and theology. (iii)the other Gospel writers freely adapted their material to emphasise the point they were trying to make. ie. their narratives are not reliable accounts, but rather editorial compositions/redactions with no basis in historical fact.

Mark also allows no reason for divorce - l0:l2, but the author of Matt does have Jesus saying one reason was acceptable for divorce (ie. unfaithfulness) - ie. l9:9. Presumably by the time Matthew was written, Christians (particularly Gentiles) were finding Jesus' instruction in Mark impossible to follow, so Matthew's author introduced an escape clause. Matt's author omits the statement about women divorcing their husbands as he clearly realised what an error this was (he actually tidies up other errors in Mark). In 1st century Palestine, adultery was not a crime against the woman, but a crime against her husband (!!!). Mark is therefore wrong in l0:ll and Matt (in l9:9) therefore corrects this and omits the 'against her'.

The statement that Christian life is the basis of a happy fulfilled family life, is certainly not based on Jesus' supposed teaching. In fact Jesus says very little on this subject. One of the occasions he does refer or rather, allude to family life is when he lists some of the Ten Commandments to the man asking about acquiring eternal life, and repeats the commandment of honouring parents. This appears in Matthew l9:l6-22 where the enquirer is a young man (l9:20) and in Luke l8:l8-23, but here he is a ruler. In Mark (l0:l7-22) he is clearly not 'young' as he recalls his youth in l0:20. This is a typical example of how the Gospels do not agree with each other.

In Mark, Jesus lists off some of the Decalogue (l0 Commandments) including 'Honour your parents', but he also lists 'Do not defraud' (l0:l9) as one of the Commandments. However, this is not one of the Ten Commandments. (These are found in Exodus 20:l-l7, Deuteronomy 5:6-21). Note how Matt (l9:l8) and Luke (l8:20), correct this error in Mark (they correct others also elsewhere in Mark). This again is an example of how Mark's author was not a Jew (who would at least know the l0 Commandments).

Furthermore, it clearly has Jesus saying things that could not have been said, and how the speech cannot be authentic; furthermore, it shows how Matt and Luke's authors freely changed Mark where they saw a mistake; their compositions cannot be reliable accounts either.

There is also the factor that it is somewhat inappropriate for Jesus to preach about the honouring of parents when he also advocates, for example, hating one's family (Luke l4:26), that his purpose was to break up families (Matthew l0:34-36, Luke 12:51-53), not even burying them when they die (Matthew 8:21-22) and deserting one's own family (resulting in a reward) (Luke l8:29-30).

Jesus' teachings

Although Christians maintain Jesus' teaching was very new and revolutionary (eg. Matt 19:3ff), this is just not so. Most of it is borrowed from the Old Testament and contemporary faiths. In this case, he is simply repeating the strict divorce ruling of Rabbi Shammai. The famous 'Golden Rule' of Jesus in Matt 7:l2 (Do to others as you would wish them to do to you) is also far from unique; this is found in various teachings predating Christianity and even found in its negative form in the Old Testament Apocrypha - Tobit 4:l5. Much of Matthew's 'Sermon on the Mount' (not found in Mark, nor John and broken into pieces and scattered through his Gospel by Luke's author) contains a good deal borrowed from pre-Christian religion, eg. Matt 5:9 is found in the pre-Christian Book of the Secrets of Enoch (52:ll) and Matthew 5:34-37 is also found there (49:l). In chap. 42 of this pre-Christian book, there are beatitudes which resemble the Gospel ones both in number and form.

In sum, there is nothing unique about Jesus' teachings, the record of his life is historically doubtful through the dishonesty and incompetence of the first Christian evangelists and leaders, and the claims made about Jesus by present-day Christians are false.

[Source: HolySmoke.Org]

John's Gospel Cannot Be Trusted Tuesday, September 4, 2012

From: Simon Ewins

To: Michael Hardy

[SE] John 3:22 Jesus baptizes.

[SE] John 3:26 Jesus baptizes.

[SE] John 4:1 Jesus baptizes.

[SE] John 4:2 Jesus does not baptize.

[SE] So you agree then, that John cannot be trusted? Good!

[MH] No. You have to read the whole story.

Flame mode on

I am sick and tired of being told to 'read the whole story'. I have read the whole fucking story countless times. I have read the entire bloody bible cover to cover three times. I have made page after page of notes and taken at least an entire fucking year to read the damned book each time, carefully re-reading each passage that was not immediately obvious in its meaning or intent.

I have cross-referenced and annotated page after seemingly endless page.

Even to this day I read, study and research the bible on average one hour per day. How often to you study the basis of your faith? Don't tell me to 'read the whole story'.

I have and it is so full of inaccuracies and contradictions that it becomes little more than an unbelievable joke. The best word that you could have used is undeniably 'story'. This places it exactly where it should be, right alongside 'Through the Looking Glass'.

Then I come upon such nonsense as what follows.

Flame mode off

[MH] Jesus goes out into the Judean countryside with his disciples, and baptizes some people. More and more people come. One man can't handle the demand. The disciples take over the work so that by 4:2, it was not Jesus who was doing the actual baptisms, but his disciples.

Pathetic

Where the hell does it say anything in John 3:22 to John 4:2 about there being too many for Jesus to handle? Where does it say anything about Jesus' disciples taking over 'the work'? Where does it say that 'more and more people come'?

John 3:1-21 is simply more gnostic pap that has nothing to do with the point at hand.
John 3:22 is a simple statement that Jesus baptized while he 'tarried' in Judaea with his disciples.
John 3:23,24 simply provide some background about John the Baptist.
John 3:25,26 are stating that John's disciples and the 'Jews' (what were John's disciples, if not, also Jews?) had a question about the validity of purification in general and Jesus baptizing in particular.

John 3:27-36 are the words of John the Baptist so they can be eliminated.

John 4:1 states that 'the Lord' (who for some reason seems to be distinct from Jesus) knew that the Pharisees had gotten wind of the fact that 'Jesus had made and baptized more disciples than John'.
John 4:2 states that Jesus didn't baptize. The rest of John 4 is irrelevant.

How in the name of honesty you can make a statement such as the one quoted above is beyond me. There is no support for such an idea to be found in John 3 or 4 at all.

The rest of your pathetic and unsupportable rationalizations weren't worth reprinting. I will simply say that if that's what you want to believe, go ahead. If you insist upon basing your life on something that is inconsistent and laughable then you will end up being inconsistent and laughable. I am sincere when I say that this is a shame because you would seem, in other respects, to have a perfectly serviceable brain.

[Source: HolySmoke.org]

Christian Faith, The Teaching of Paul

Apart from Paul teaching a very different theology from the Jesus of the Gospels. It is interesting to note that he recomended celibacy (1 Cor 7:1,7,8,25-26,29,32,38) because he believed the end was imminent - 1 Cor 7:29,31. The very fact that the first Christians believed that the end of the world was imminent over 1900 years ago shows the validity of their teachings. The nearness of the end of the world is stated elsewhere, eg. Heb 1:2, 10:37, James 5:7-9, 1 John 2:18,28, 3:2. The author of Revelation makes it clear he thought all the things of which he wrote (eg. the end of the world) were imminent, eg. 1:1,3, 3:11, 22:7,12,20.

NB. Encouraging lifelong celibacy is echoed by Jesus (Matt 19:12) and in Rev 14:3-4, although virtually all present-day Christians conveniently ignore this.

Paul's teachings about women are distasteful to say the least, eg. they were to obey their husband and were creately solely for man - 1 Cor 11:3,7,8,9, women were to keep quiet and subordinate and if they needed to know anything they should ask their husbands - 1 Cor 14:33-35, wives should be subject to their husband's rule as he is their head - Eph 5:22-24, women are to keep silent and not have authority over men. Mankind's separation from God and the misery that has followed this was all caused through the first woman being tricked - 1 Tim 2:11-15, women were to be 'trained' to be domesticated and submissive to their husbands - Titus 2:4ff. The author of 1 Peter also stated that wives were to submit to their husbands - 1 Peter 3:l.

ACCURACY

There are actually numerous fictional stories in the Gospels, (ie. stories of occurrences that defy historical possibility), eg. the Jews going to Pilate on their sabbath day - something quite impossible (Matthew 28:62). Note how Matthew (26:l7-l9), Mark (l4:l2-l6) and Luke (23:8-l3) say that it was the Passover (this was eaten on the evening of l4 Nisan) that Jesus ate at the last supper. However in John, after the meal, after the arrest, after the trial before the Sanhedrin, the Passover still had not started (John l8:28) and even after his appearance before Pilate the next day, the Passover still had not begun - John l9:l4. This was deliberately done by John's author to have Jesus executed at the same time that the Passover lambs were slaughtered (the day before the Passover) to fit the idea in John l:29,36 that Jesus was a sacrificial lamb.

NB. Lambs were NOT offered up as sacrifices for sin; only rams and goats were - yet another error by the N.T authors.

If the Gospel writers could juggle things around so easily, how can their accounts be reliable ? Each Gospel either contains det- ails known to be incorrect (eg. that Herod was a king - Mark 6:l4 when in fact he was only a petty tetrach - this is corrected in Matt and Luke), or they contradict one another. How can they be reliable historical documents ? For example, the Synoptics have Jesus clearing the Temple at the end of his ministry (Mark ll:l5-l7 and par.), but John has this at the very beginning (2:l3-16). John has Jesus travelling back and forth between Galilee and Jerusalem, but the synoptics have him in Galilee and making the one journey south to Jerusalem ending in his execution. It is clear that the Gospels have no basis in factual history, and are the creations of those who wrote them.

SALVATION

Whilst there are Biblical texts that say one has to be a Christian to be 'saved' and furthermore only a small number of people will be 'saved', eg. Matt 22:l4, Luke 13:24, there are texts that refer to Jesus taking away everybody's sins - not just Christians, eg. John l:29, and that Jesus will save the whole world, eg. John 4:42, l John 4:l4. It is also said that belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation (eg. Acts 2:21, l6:30,31, Romans l0:9), but in contrast, there are texts that say a person's lifestyle and (good) works will save them and it is on how a person lives that they will be judged/rewarded, eg. Psalm 62:l2, Proverbs 24:l2, Matthew 7:21, l9:l6,l7, l6:27, Luke l4:l3,l4, John 5:29, Acts l0:35, 1 Cor 3:8, 2 Cor 5:10, 1 Peter 1:17, James 1:27, Rev 20:12,13.

NB. The original meaning of "sin" was a negative event. In Hebrew, the commonest word for sin is 'hattat' or 'het' - derived from the root meaning 'to miss', ie. it was falling below an expected standard, or failing to do something, ie. like missing the target; in fact the verb appears in the Old Testament with this original meaning, eg. Job 5:24, Proverbs 8:35f. However, Christians teach that sin is active rebellion against God, a positive action that separates man from God - but if a Christian, justified by faith, Jesus 'takes their sin away'; according to the meaning of the word 'sin' - in its original con- text, it is nothing of the sort. Sin is not something a person does, but rather, the reverse.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY

The first two centuries of Christian history demonstrate the type of person responsible for establishing the church. The ultra-conservative 4th cent church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who was only keen to portray the church in a good light, had to admit that Papias (bishop of Hierapolis ca. l30 AD) was a "man of exceeedingly small intelligence" (H.E. III.39.13) and yet it is from this man that the church derived most of its information about two of the Gospels that were accepted into the canon.

Another example of historical inaccuracy is the story of the number of early Christians martyred; Gibbon ('Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', chapters l5-l6) has unquestionably shown that these figures have been exaggerated out of all proportion and the numbers involved were considerably less. In fact, even the stories about the persecution of Christians appear to be embellishments to the point of fraud, eg. the supposed persecution of Christians by Nero is yet another example of this; whilst Christians claim that a considerable number of Christians were martyred by Nero, this is based on Tacitus who refers to this (50 or so years afterwards), but the first clear mention of this by a Christian was by Melito of Sardis in ca. l70 AD.

If it had been such a widespread terrible persecution, Christian writers would have surely made specific mention of it earlier than l70 AD. It is highly improbable that there would have been that many Christians living in Rome in Nero's time anyway so early on. Tacitus only mentions it, apparently embellishing the story, because he wanted to paint a bad as possible picture of Nero. It appears the famous persecution by Nero of Roman Christians was sporadic, localised and very short lived, but blown out of all proportion by later Christians.

NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

There is also the question of the writings in the New Testament canon which were not accepted/used by the early Christians (James, Hebrews, Revelation) but are now accepted, and that Christians reject the writings the early Christians did accept and used (eg. Hermas, Barnabas, the Didache). This in itself shows the church is not interested in sustaining the 'original faith' and has chosen the writings that suits its own teachings. This is all apart from the fact that the church did not even agree to the 27 writings now in the N.T. until Athanasius' Easter Letter of 367 AD, but even then, the dispute continued right on to the 9th century. For example, Jude in the N.T - supposedly written by Jesus' brother - uses quotations from two O.T books not accepted by Christians as being inspired!

Any examination of any of the lists from the 2nd cent (Muratorian) to the 4th cent (eg. Athanasius' letter) shows what a real muddle the church was in when it tried to decide what writings would be allowed into the canon. Obviously the church only accepted the writings that did not conflict with its own teachings, so in reality the Bible is a man-made book, ie. its contents were chosen by erring humans, some of which were hardly honourable, or very orthodox (eg. Athanasius taught an almost-docetic view of Christ). However, for some strange reason, Christians, ignorant of their own history, seem to think the apostles all met up one day in the the 1st century, collected the 27 N.T writings together and said, "This is the New Testament!" There could be nothing further from the truth.

[Source: HolySmoke.Org]

Questions About Christianity Thursday, June 21, 2012

Questions Intellectuals Ask About Christianity

Henry F. Schaefer III 

---

Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer is one of the most distinguished physical scientists in the world.  The U.S. News and World Report cover story of December 23, 1991 speculated that Professor Schaefer is a “five time nominee for the Nobel Prize.” He has received four of the most prestigious awards of the American Chemical Society, as well as the most highly esteemed award (the Centenary Medal) given to a non-British subject by London’s Royal Society of Chemistry. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Moreover, his general interest lectures on science and religion have riveted large audiences in nearly all the major universities in the U.S.A. and in Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Calcutta, Cape Town, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, London, Paris, Prague, Sarajevo, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Sofia, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tokyo, Warsaw, Zagreb, and Zürich.

For 18 years Dr. Schaefer was a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley, where he remains Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia.

---

The views presented in this lecture are neither supported nor opposed by the University of Georgia. These notes were printed and paid for privately, and not in any way at the expense of the University of Georgia.

---

1. Is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian?

Scientists who were Christians:

Deceased:

• Francis Bacon
• Johannes Kepler
• Blaise Pascal
• Isaac Newton
• Michael Faraday
• James Clerk Maxwell
• William Henry Perkin
• George Stokes
• Lord Kelvin
• J. J. Thomson
• Charles Coulson

Living:

• Norman March
• Robert Griffiths
• Richard Bube
• Donald Page
• Allan Sandage
• David Cole
• Francis Collins
• John Polkinghorne
• S. William Pelletier
• Andrew Bocarsly
• James Tour

2.What about Adolph Hitler? Wasn’t he a Christian?

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. —Adolph Hitler

3. Who made God?

God never needed to be made because He was always there. God exists in a different way from human beings. We exist in a derived, finite, and fragile way, but the Creator exists as eternal, self–sustaining, and necessary, in the sense that there is no possibility of Him ceasing to exist. In philosophy, many errors result from supposing that the conditions and limits of our own finite existence apply to God.

4. Can god make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

God is omnipotent. But omnipotence does not mean that God can do literally everything.

As the shorter catechism says "God can do all His holy will."

God cannot sin...God cannot lie...God cannot change His nature.

God cannot deny the demands of His holy character.

God cannot make a square circle, for the notion of a square circle is self–contradictory.

God cannot cease to be God. But all that God wills and promises He can and will do.

5. Doesn’t the inherent subjectivity of morality prove that God does not exist?

A. People commonly say that "morality is subjective" or that it is "relative." But when they speak in a moral vein—which is to say, when they pass judgment on human behavior—they do so as moral realists. Most atheists are just as convinced as Christians that Adolf Hitler was an evil person.

B. People resist moral realism because they think it leads to "intolerance." In doing so they make two fundamental mistakes. First, they fail to realize that tolerance itself is a value and that they are simply making this one value rule over all others. This is itself a form of moral realism. Second, they fail to understand that tolerance and moral realism can coincide.

C. People disagree about how to implement values, but in the abstract they don’t disagree about the truth of any value.

1. No one ever says that "justice" or "fairness" or "kindness" or "bravery" or "charity" are not sound values—in the abstract.

2. Moral disagreements are always about the implementation of values, about trying to integrate them into our behavior. This involves taking into account issues of knowledge as well as issues of right and wrong.

D. There are no "new values," or "different values." People sometimes think there are new values, simply because the language with which we express values changes. For instance, a popular value term now is "diversity." But while you don’t find this word in the traditional language of morality, such as that used in the language in the New Testament, you will find the concept (e.g. I Corinthians 12:14–31). There Paul talks about the different roles played by different (i.e., diverse) parts of the body of Christ.

E. People are attracted to moral subjectivism or relativism because it exonerates them of guilt. But the very fact that they so strongly desire to perceive themselves righteous betrays a commitment to moral realism.

6. Is the New Testament Picture of Jesus Reliable?

The grounds for accepting the New Testament as trustworthy compare very favorably with the grounds on which classical (Greek, Roman) scholars accept the authenticity and credibility of ‘reliable’ ancient documents.

—F. F. Bruce (1912–), Distinguished English academic classics scholar, University of Manchester

Example: Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars–nine or 10 existing manuscripts. The oldest dates from 850 A.D.

However, there are 4,000 extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part. The best complete documents go back to 350 A. D. Parts of John’s Gospel are dated at 130 A. D.

To express skepticism concerning the resultant text of the New Testament books...is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well–attested bibliographically as is the New Testament. —John Warwick Montgomery

7. How could any intelligent 20th century person believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead?

A) If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the testimony of the disciples? Forty days later, you hear their voices with shouts of excitement, "We’ve seen a dead man walking!"

B) If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the faithfulness of the disciples to the testimony of the resurrection even in the face of their own deaths? Of the 11 disciples, only one died of old age—John—and he was exiled to Patmos, an island work camp. They died as martyrs with the truth of the resurrection on their lips.

C) If Jesus remained dead, why did 500 people say they saw Him alive (see I Corinthians 15:6)?

D) If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the credibility of the witnesses? In the first century, the people questioned the first–hand witnesses…and their story was not proven wrong.

E) If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the inability of the first century skeptics to deal with the resurrection with an alternative explanation? All the power of Rome and of the religious establishment in Jerusalem was geared to stop the Christian faith. All they had to do was to dig up the grave and to present the corpse. They didn’t.

F) If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the reality of the Christian church and its phenomenal growth in the first three centuries of the Christian era? Christ’s Church covered the Western world by the fourth century. A religious movement built on a lie could not have accomplished that.

G) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, his closest friends were an extraordinary compulsive group of liars. This charge does not fit well with the ethical caliber of the writings of Jesus’ disciples. Virtually all religions now concede that the writings of the apostles represent a very high level of morality.

8. Who is Jesus?

[People say] "I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

—From Mere Christianity , C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English Literature, Cambridge University, England

9. Why do bad things happen to good people

Scrawled on the side of a vacant building in Berkeley, CA:

Most people want to serve God…usually in an advisory capacity.

If human life is in fact ordered by a beneficent being whose knowledge of our real needs and of the way in which they can be satisfied infinitely exceeds our own, we must expect a priori that his operations will often appear to us far from beneficent and far from wise, and that it will be our highest prudence to give him our confidence in spite of this.

—C.S. Lewis: Lecture to the Oxford Socratic Club, 1955

A god whom we could understand exhaustively, and whose revelation of himself confronted us with no mysteries whatsoever, would be a god in man’s image, and therefore an imaginary god.

—J. I. Packer, theologian

Human arrogance tends to believe that if we had been in charge of creation we would have done it better. With a little more care about the details, we would have kept the beauty of sunsets, but eliminated germs like staphylococci. The more we understand the processes of the world, however, the less likely does it seem that this would be possible.

As finite human beings we should not claim to know God’s will exhaustively. But it is clear that God did not intend to create an enormous machine whose sole purpose is the elimination of human suffering. Suffering is very much a part of God’s plan for our brief sojourn upon this planet.

Why do bad things happen to good people? An often–heard variant: "God would have a lot more friends if He treated the ones He already has better."

Response: If God rescued from every problem those who are true to Jesus, Christians would not need faith. Their religion would be a great insurance policy, and there would be lines of selfish people ready to sign up.

10. Doesn’t the uneven geographical distribution of Christianity around the globe prove that it must not be a universal truth?

No more that the uneven distribution of the understanding of calculus around the world proves that calculus is untrue.

11. What about other religions?

If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, "Are you the son of Bramah?" he would have said, "My son, you are still in the veil of illusion." If you had gone to Socrates and asked, "Are you Zeus?" he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, "Are you Allah?" he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, "Are you Heaven?" I think he would have probably replied, "Remarks that are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste." The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man…He (Jesus) was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects: hatred–terror–adoration.

—A Mind Awake: An anthology of C. S. Lewis

12. Will not God accept those of other religions who are sincere?

All other religions are diametrically opposed to Christianity on the most crucial question: "Who is Jesus Christ?" They deny that Jesus is God, that He rose again after dying on the cross, and that because of His death, we can have forgiveness of sin.

No one questions the sincerity and intensity of the faith of, for example, a Buddhist monk. But sincerity or intensity of faith does not create truth. Faith is no more valid than the object in which it is placed.

The question must be, "What is true?" Read the original accounts and see what Jesus claimed about Himself. Not every religion can be true. Most are mutually contradictory. Either one is true and the others are false, or they are all false. Either Christ is who he said He is or He is not. If He is not, then He was lying, He was sincerely deluded, or the stories were all made up about Him.

If Jesus is who He said He is, then Christianity is true and He is the only way to God.

13. Hasn’t the overall influence of Christianity been negative?

A balanced response to this old question has been given by Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor, Yale University:

Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World.

Wars have often been waged in the name of Christianity. They have attained their most colossal dimensions through weapons and large–scale organization initiated in (nominal) Christendom. Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war. From its first centuries, the Christian faith has caused many of its adherents to be uneasy about war. It has led minorities to refuse to have any part in it. It has impelled others to seek to limit war by defining what, in their judgment, from the Christian standpoint is a "just war." In the turbulent Middle Ages of Europe it gave rise to the Truce of God and the Peace of God. In a later era it was the main impulse in the formulation of international law. But for it, the League of Nations and the United Nations would not have been. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.

14. How can a loving God send people to Hell?

The premise is correct. God loves us. But His love is strong, rather than weak and permissive.

The question should actually be, "How can a holy God let sinful people into heaven?" You can’t simply camp out on God’s love and forget His holiness.

No one is worthy enough to enter heaven. But because of His love, God wants us to be with Him. So, Jesus’ death on the cross, where He paid the penalty for all that we have done wrong, was God’s way of satisfying His holiness and demonstrating His love.

Look at that sacrifice: God has done everything possible to keep people out of hell. What have you done about that provision? Are you choosing hell rather that heaven?

15. What about people who have never heard even the name of Jesus?

Many people have thought about this question, and few claim to understand God exhaustively. If I did, I would be God! But we do know that the Bible says God will judge the world with justice. It also says God has made His presence known to all people through nature and through our conscience, so we all find ourselves without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

The world can be divided into two groups: those who have heard already, and those who have not heard yet. I have confidence that God will take care of that latter group. But because everyone here has heard, you will need to make a decision about what you will do with Jesus Christ.

16. Why are there so many hypocrites in the church?

Yes, there are people in the church who do not live the life they profess. God hates such pretense as much as you do. But businesses, social clubs and other religions all have their hypocrites as well.

Look at Christ and who He claimed to be rather than solely at those who follow, or profess to follow, Him. Christianity stands or falls on the life of Christ, not on the performance of His followers. Anything in life that is genuine will inspire counterfeits.

Jesus Christ’s claims are true, and He was not a hypocrite. Will you follow Him? Don’t miss out on knowing Jesus because of someone else’s failure.

17. Won’t a good moral life get a person to heaven?

Living a good life cannot get a man or woman into heaven, because God’s standard for "good enough" is perfection. If He allowed anything imperfect into heaven, heaven would be marred. So who can get to heaven on his own merit? No one, because no one is perfect.

So how can any one get there? We can’t live a sinless life, nor can we make up for our wrongs. But Jesus did both. God offers a relationship with Him on this earth and eternity with Him in heaven. All one needs to do is trust in Jesus’ death on the cross as the penalty for our sins, paid in full.

18. Many non–Christians are offended by the "exclusiveness" of Christianity. Can anything be said in response?

A) Christianity is "universal" in the sense that Jesus invites all people everywhere to receive the gift of eternal life made possible by the death on the cross.

B) Since many basic tenets of different religions are contradictory, someone has to be wrong.

C) Exclusivity seem unavoidable. Who wants to board a commercial airplane on which the pilot is not exclusively committed to a safe landing? "Doesn’t the pluralist believe exclusively that several religions provide acceptable paths to God?" The exclusion of exclusivity is also exclusive.

D) Christianity’s uniqueness arises not from the narrow–mindedness of individual Christians, but from the extraordinary claims of Jesus Christ, attested by those who were eyewitnesses of His life, death, and resurrection.

Conclusion:

While there are many other questions that intelligent people ask about God, these are some of the principal ones that could become intellectual roadblocks to those who are truly seeking to know the truth about God. As you can see from the answers I have put forth, I do not believe that any of these are sufficient to keep a reasonable person from pursuing a personal relationship with God.

In fact, the answers I found to these questions were an important factor in an incredible discovery that I made during my fourth year on the faculty at University of California, Berkeley. I discovered that God offered forgiveness to me for all of my disobedience and rebellion against Him. I found that Jesus Christ had paid the penalty for all of my self–centered actions when He suffered and died on the cross and was raised from the dead. When I trusted Jesus to be my Savior that year, I discovered that through Jesus I had been forgiven of my sins. I also found that I had been given a clean relationship with God, a purpose for living, and the assurance of spending eternity with God when I die. Can you imagine anything more wonderful than that?

This discovery made such an incredible difference in my life, I want to encourage you to find this personal relationship with God as well. If you will acknowledge that you have sinned against God, and if you trust Jesus to save you from the just punishment of a holy God, you will find that He will make you into a new person, from the inside out. I encourage you to make this discovery today.

---

Copyright © 2001 by Henry F. Schaefer III. All rights reserved.