JimSpace

2012-01-20T12:03:00.015-05:00

The Earth that Adam Knew?

What did the earth look like at the time of Adam’s creation? Later, when joined by his wife, they were given the grand privilege to “be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28) Then, according to Bible chronology, 1,656 years later the earth was flooded, in the event called the Noachian Deluge.—Genesis 7:11, 12; 2 Peter 2:5, 6.

Was this land that saw the creation of the first intelligent physical person, Adam, and that experienced the devastating deluge, a single supercontinent? Did God do that? Did he create Adam on a supercontinent and then flood it? And did this deluge result in the subsequent supercontinental breakup into the modern continental configuration?

Figure 1: a young-earth creationist poster

On the left, earth is depicted with a single supercontinent, but during the “Flood Period” the supercontinent is depicted as splitting-up into our modern configuration on the right.

While young-earth creationism teaches that Adam was created on the supercontinent which divided during the Deluge, it is wise to consider the situation from the Creator’s perspective. Plate tectonics is healthy for the earth and has resulted in many beautiful features of the land: diamonds, gemstones, and precious minerals on one end, and breath-taking mountains on the other. On the other hand, a supercontinent would create environmental extremes with a lush coast and dry interior, “because rain clouds would not have been able to penetrate far inland,” notes one scientist. “In such extreme climates, only a small proportion of the land could support life.” Indeed, the vastness of the supercontinent’s landmass would also provoke extreme weather. He explains: “Monsoons form because of temperature differences between the land and ocean. If you have a huge land mass, it warms up a lot and stimulates a mega-monsoon.”[1] Eventually, the supercontinent would start to divide, triggering seismic unrest and volcanism. Is this really an environment that God would want to create his first intelligent physical creation in? The reasonable answer is no. While it would have been conceivably easier for the primeval couple to “fill the earth” with their posterity and for the animals to have been gathered to Noah’s ark on a single landmass, after taking these other factors into account, it seems extremely unwise, and even unloving, to create Adam on a supercontinent. Thus, we have another reason why young-earth creationism is unreasonable.[2] Adam’s posterity would simply need to spread around the diversified world using land bridges and boats, and God was ultimately responsible for selecting and bringing the animals to the ark. It was Noah who brought them into it, as well as foodstuff.—Genesis 6:19-21; 7:2, 3.

Regarding the future of the continents, and the looming supercontinent that is estimated to form in about 250 million years, humans living on earth millions of years from now will have to wait on the Creator, the “Former of the mountains,” to see how he will direct matters.—Amos 4:13.

Concerning Genesis 2:5, 6
A consideration of Genesis 2:5, 6 is in order, paying attention to salient Hebrew words, which have been included below:

“Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth [erets] and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth [erets] and there was no man to cultivate the ground [adamah]. 6 But a mist would go up [or, “springs would well up”—NET Bible] from the earth [erets] and it watered the entire surface of the ground [adamah].”

Verse 7 is necessary to read in order to place these verses into their chronological sequence. It informs us that “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man [adam] out of dust from the ground [adamah].” This is more significant than many realize. Verses 5, 6 are thus placed before the creation of Adam, during the second creative day described at Genesis 1:10-13. It was this watered soil, adamah, that Adam was created from. Thus, it must have preceded Adam. Significantly, when God told Noah at Genesis 7:4 that he would ‘make it rain on the earth,’ Noah did not seek clarification as if he never experienced that before.[3] Thus, we may safely reason that it had rained during the antediluvian period. From this consideration we may postulate that while “rain clouds would not have been able to penetrate far inland” on a supercontinent, there probably were springs that watered the interior. However, this still does little to make a supercontinent a desirable place to create mankind on, taking those negative factors considered above into account.

Footnotes:

[1] Williams, Caroline and Nield, Ted. Pangaea, the comeback.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/104ns_011.htm

[2] For a more comprehensive deconstruction of young-earth creationism, see: Genesis Defended. http://jimspace.000space.com/GD.htm

[3] See the January 15, 1998 issue of The Watchtower, page 9 paragraph 6.

2012-01-11T12:01:00.024-05:00

Defending Trinitarianism

“I’m sure that there are views that I hold that are probably false. But I’m trying my best to get my theology straight, trying to do the best job...”

—Dr. William Lane Craig, in a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens on April 4, 2009.

Dr. William Lane Craig is a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. As such, he has ably defended theism and has expounded on theodicy, the goodness of God, and is also an adamant apologist for Trinitarianism. He also hosts a question-and-answer forum on his website, where he fields questions from people sent to him from the Internet. One question was submitted that challenged Trinitarianism, and it is this question that will be the subject of this blog entry. In this question by a Michael from the UK, nine questions are respectfully presented, and Dr. Craig provided responses for each question. This blog posting will present the text from Michael, Dr. Craig’s response, and then my response prefaced by “Me.”

Question 247. January 9, 2012
Subject: Muslim Objections to Jesus' Deity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9277

Me: It thus appears that a Muslim’s question challenging Trinitarianism has been selected.

Michael introduction: Hello Dr. Craig. You are an inspiration to us all in defending Christianity in such a humble manner. You may just like to answer one question but if so you wish and time allows it would be nice to hear your thoughts on all the questions I have asked. My question(s) to you are:

Dr. Craig introduction: Your questions are obviously disingenuous, Michael, and I wouldn’t normally have chosen them except that these are the same sort of simple-minded objections which Muslims have been taught to repeat as refutations of Christian theism. Therefore, for the sake of our numerous Muslim readers, and unitarians everywhere, I’ll say a brief word about each question.

Me: So, Michael begins by respectfully praising Dr. Craig as being an inspiration on being a humble defender. This humility is seen in the opening quote from him from the debate with an atheist. But, Dr. Craig then attacks the questioner as being disingenuous—insincere—and simple-minded, and then labels the question for Muslims, what Michael is not! (On the other hand, I can sympathize with Dr. Craig in this one respect, that the following questions do appear to be naïve, that is, not anticipating the typical Trinitarian response.) However, Dr. Craig also revealed a preconceived bias or bigotry in claiming that Trinitarianism is Christian but Unitarianism is not. Actually, the first definition of “Christian” is ‘relating to or professing belief in Jesus as Christ.’ Now, since both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism accept Jesus Christ, they are Christian—as is Mormonism as it does the same. Thus, he would have been more academic and honest to qualify “Christian theism” as “Trinitarian theism” to avoid giving the impression of being bigoted. (Note, calling a religion “Christian” does not mean I accept it as accurately reflecting Christianity.)

Michael: 1/ You believe that Jesus was God, so what does the Bible tell us as to the reason why God himself died on the cross?

Dr. Craig: 1. Crucial to an understanding of the Christian doctrine of Christ is that the incarnate Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. When Christ died he did so, not in his divine nature but in his human nature, i.e., his soul was separated from his human body. He gave his human life as a sacrifice for sin to redeem us from sins.

Me: First, “Christian doctrine of Christ” should be “Trinitarian doctrine of Christ,” as the former is based on the preconceived bias that Trinitarianism is true Christianity. Second, Christ was not incarnated, but was born from a woman. (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26-42; John 1:14; Galatians 4:4) This is not a minor difference of semantics, but is loaded with soteriological significance that Trinitarians consistently miss. Third, Jesus having a divine nature and an immortal soul is redundant, therefore absurd. We can all agree that Jesus had a brain, mind and body. Per Trinitarianism, his divine nature would be his ontological identity of being a member of the immortal Godhead. Why then would he need an immortal soul? Jesus cannot, therefore, be a three-in-one person. Fourth, to say that his human nature died but his divine nature did not unwittingly denies Jesus’ sacrifice, for he did not really sacrifice his life. Additionally, this also unwittingly nullifies the ransom affects of Jesus’ death, for Adam was only human nature. The ontology of the Trinitarian Jesus therefore fails to match with Adam’s ontology. For the ransom to be valid, the ontologies of both Adam and Jesus had to be on par with one another. Trinitarianism monkeys with this correspondence by adding an immortal divine nature to Jesus’ ontology.

Michael: 2/ When Jesus was baptized and ascended from the waters God said "You are my beloved son in whom i am well pleased" Was God pleased with himself?

Dr. Craig: 2. Equally crucial to an understanding of Christian doctrine is that God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, at the baptism of Jesus, as at many other junctures, what you have is the Father’s speaking to the Son. Confusion can arise because often in the New Testament the Father is spoken of simply as “God” rather than as “God the Father.”

Me: Exactly! Often in the New Testament the Father is spoken of simply as “God” rather than as “God the Father.” Thus, we can see that Dr. Craig unwittingly refuted Trinitarianism. As Jesus said in John 17:1-5, the Father is the “only true God,” and He is the only one to receive full worshipful devotion. Worshipping Jesus or the Holy Spirit the same way is idolatry, and turns them into false Gods. Additionally, 2 John 2 says “peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father.” Thus we see that “Father” is also synonymous with God. Jesus is Son of the Father, the Son of God.

Michael: 3/ Jesus ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God. Does God sit next to himself?

Dr. Craig: 3. The Son sits next to the Father. This metaphor is a way of expressing the exaltation of Christ, the right hand being a position of authority and honor.

Me: Ironically, the exaltation of Christ poses an ignored and devastating problem for Trinitarianism. As expressed in Philippians 2:9 NLT, “God elevated him to the place of highest honor [God highly exalted Him (NASB)] and gave him the name above all other names.” The Holman Christian Standard Bible Study Bible in its note here says Christ was “super-exalted.” God gave Jesus a position he did not have before. Think about what this means: God took Jesus and gave him a position that is superior to the one he had before. If Jesus had a divine nature, then he already had that superior position. This alone refutes Trinitarianism.

Michael: 4/ Jesus said the "Father is greater than I". Can God be greater than himself?

Dr. Craig: 4. Again the Son is speaking of the Father, probably with respect to his state of humiliation during his incarnate life. But however you interpret the Father’s being greater than the Son, two persons are being spoken of, so there is no contradiction.

Me: Jesus was speaking as a person, and as a person he is lesser than the Father, than God. If Jesus meant his human nature, then Jesus was being deceptive, for he would actually have been on par with the Father. Thus, the Trinitarian Jesus would have had to say in order to be honest: “the Father is greater than my human nature.” The fact that he didn’t, and that he was being honest as Peter assured us (1 Peter 2:22), leading his audience to naturally take him literally, refutes the dual nature doctrine. So, yes, there certainly is a contradiction, and one of an astronomical magnitude. (Additionally, while not claiming that Dr. Craig necessarily did this, but Trinitarians need to be careful not to claim that Jesus’ human nature is speaking here, for that would inadvertently assign personhood to nature, giving Jesus two persons to his person, both capable of speaking independently. This is Nestorian heresy condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.) Thus, to summarize, if Jesus was speaking in behalf of his human nature, then he was deceiving his audience by leading them astray regarding his divine nature; thus Peter was wrong about Jesus’ honesty. But if Jesus was divested of his pre-human divine nature (Philippians 2:7), and born as man from Mary (Galatians 4:4), then he was literally speaking the truth, and Peter was correct in his glowing appraisal of Jesus’ honesty. Lastly, it is worth noting that even after Jesus’ resurrection by God the Father (Galatians 1:1), Jesus refers to him as “my God” four times. (Revelation 3:12) It appears then that the Father is still greater than the exalted Jesus—which proves that the Father was greater than Jesus on earth.[1]

Michael: 5/ At certain times Jesus prays to his father and also prays to his Father in private. Does God pray to himself and pray to himself in secret and why?

Dr. Craig: 5. The Son prays to the Father. He is not talking to himself; two distinct persons are involved. During his state of humiliation, in which Jesus was subjected to the human condition, he needed to rely moment by moment of his heavenly Father and on the Holy Spirit to discharge his mission. He thereby becomes our model and example.

Me: Exactly! When Jesus was subjected to the human condition, he needed to rely moment by moment of his heavenly Father and on the holy spirit to discharge his mission. He thereby becomes our model and example. But the Trinitarian Jesus had his immortal divine nature to rely on! Thus, again we can see how Dr. Craig has unwittingly refuted Trinitarianism. The Trinitarian Jesus would have behaved differently than the Biblical Jesus, and is therefore not a model for us to relate too.

Michael: 6/ We always read Jesus is the 'Son of God'. We never ever read 'God the Son'. Why is this?

Dr. Craig: 6. “Son of God” is typical for Judaism. It is not, in fact, the most important of the divine titles ascribed to Christ. What you do have in the New Testament is amazing expressions like “the only begotten God” (John 1.18) for Jesus and other cases of his being called “God.” (See Murray Harris, Jesus as God [Baker: 1992]).

Me: “Only begotten” means he was produced, and this expression was used in verse 14 and at 3:16, as “only-begotten Son.” As Jesus told us, only the Father is the true God for exclusive devotion. (John 17:1-5) But ontologically, all spirit beings under God are gods too. For instance, Psalm 8:5 calls the angels (“heavenly beings” NET Bible) elohim and the LXX replaces elohim with “angels,” and Hebrews 2:7 confirms that these are angels by quoting the LXX, showing that the LXX translators understood it correctly. Angels are also described as gods in the rest of the Bible, before and after Psalm 8:5, from Genesis to Revelation. But Biblical monotheism is monolatrism, the worship of only one Almighty Creator God, the Father.

Michael: 7/ Why do you think that the Bible mentions that Jesus is our true high priest and mediator between God and man?

Dr. Craig: 7. In his human nature Christ is both the sacrifice for our sin and the high priest who offers that sacrifice to God the Father.

Me: See my response for questions 4 and 5 to see how the dual nature has been refuted.

Michael: 8/ Why do you think that God sent an angel to strengthen Jesus before he was to die on the cross?

Dr. Craig: 8. As explained, in his human nature Jesus was just like you and me and so needed strengthening to carry out his dreadful task.

Me: See my response for question 5, as Jesus had his immortal divine nature to draw strength from, and certainly needed no angel for support.

Michael: 9/ Jesus is the seed of David. If Jesus was God do you think God is the seed of David and by what logic?

Dr. Craig: 9. Jesus’ human nature is David’s seed, that is to say, Jesus’ human lineage traced back to David, as a DNA analysis could have revealed.

Me: I like Dr. Craig’s answer here! I personally would have answered Michael’s questions much the same way as Dr. Craig, while simultaneously refuting myself with my rebuttals(!), which shows that I can think like a seasoned Trinitarian. Aside from that, one problem with this answer is that it presents the truth that Jesus was born from a fertilized ovum, which contradicts the incarnation since incarnate beings are not born! Defenders of the incarnation draw attention to the expression at John 1:14: “resided [Greek skayno-o, literally, “tented”] among us,” and claim this shows Jesus was, not a true human, but an incarnation. However, the apostle Peter used a similar expression about himself, and Peter was obviously not an incarnation. (2 Peter 1:13, 14) The Gospel message is that Jesus was a transcendent, mighty spirit being (John 17:5) who was sent by the Father to earth to be born from a woman (Galatians 4:4), divesting himself (Philippians 2:7) of what he was prior—thus crossing an “ontological bottleneck” to become a human born from a human. Jesus was then “revealed in the flesh.”—1 Timothy 3:16, NET Bible.

Michael concludes: So you have probably realised by now that I certainly don't believe a Trinitarian view, because I don't believe for a moment that it is taught in the Bible. It would be nice to hear your thoughts to these answers and possibly engage in future discussion on this most important part of the gospel message in the Bible, that being Jesus is the 'Son of God' and not 'God the Son'.

Best Regards

Michael
U.K.

Dr. Craig concludes: Now as a unitarian, you may not like the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, but given those doctrines your questions are easily answered. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to explain what is the problem with those doctrines. I have sought to defend the philosophical coherence of both these doctrines in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview and to explain the exegetical basis for these doctrines in my Defenders lectures on Doctrine of God: The Trinity and Doctrine of Christ: The Person of Christ. As a seeker of God, Michael, you owe it to yourself to plumb more deeply into these deep subjects and not rest content with simplistic objections.

Me: First, it’s not about disliking the dual nature doctrine, it’s about finding it incompatible with the Bible and with reason. Second, Dr. Craig did not present convincing answers to the questions, and even ended up unwittingly refuting his position more than once! How is that convincing? I agree that it’s incumbent upon the Unitarians or non-Trinitarians to explain the problems with Trintiarianism, and that is what has been done here. Lastly, Trinitarians owe it to themselves to plumb more deeply into these deep subjects and not rest content with simplistic responses that at times unwittingly refute Trinitarianism.

Lastly, Trinitarian apologetics gets very convoluted when discussing how Jesus retained his human nature. They insist that Jesus retained his human body that he sacrificed, but then seem to ignore the Chalcedonian Definition of 451 that Jesus is “truly man [anthropon alethos], of a reasonable soul and [human] body.” What’s the point of saying Jesus is “truly man” now if he’s not really a man, complete with hair, a circulatory system and moist corneas? Dr. Craig explained here at Question 99, final paragraph, curiously leaving out the Chalcedonian Definition in his answer: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6963

“Therefore, perhaps we might say that his human nature does not now manifest itself corporeally. Compare a tuning fork which is plucked and begins to hum. If the vibrating fork is placed in a vacuum jar, though it continues to vibrate, it does not manifest itself by a humming noise because there is no medium to carry its vibrations. Similarly, Christ's human nature, no longer immersed in spacetime, does not manifest itself as a body. But someday Christ will return and re-enter our four-dimensional space-time continuum, and then his body will become manifest.”

The problem here is that human nature cannot change its manifestation depending on where it is. If you remove human nature from its earthly environment, it can no longer survive. It will thus manifest itself as dead. His analogy would thus be more accurate if he placed the vibrating tuning fork in a molten lava flow. Both the vibrations and the fork would be nonexistent. One cannot choose an analogy that simply preserves one’s preconceived position, one has to use an analogy that accurately reflects what the analogy represents. Placing human nature outside of earth’s atmosphere is not analogous to a vacuum alone. It is more analogous to a molten lava flow!

Footnotes:
[1] The NET Bible footnote on John 14:28 for the expression “the Father is greater than I am” states: “it seems evident that by the fact Jesus compares himself to the Father, his divine nature is taken for granted.” But a plain reading of this verse in its context exposes this claim as eisegetical, for Jesus said that he is going to the Father. Jesus was speaking honestly and plainly to his audience. Indeed, as stated above, even after Jesus returned to him, he addressed him as “my God” four times (Revelation 3:12), reinforcing the conclusion of eisegesis in that footnote, as the Father is always superior to the Son, Jesus.

Related blog entries:

Does The Trinity Make Sense? Rabbi Tovia Singer vs William Lane Craig Debate http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-trinity-make-sense-1of2-rabbi.html
Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
Biblical monotheism is... http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical-monotheism-is-monolatrism.html
The Exaltation of Christ http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/08/exaltation-of-christ-god-elevated-him.html
Do You Reject Trinitarianism? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

2011-12-15T12:05:00.000-05:00

A Primal Predator's Acute Vision

Anomalocaris, with a face only a mother could love, the "undisputed terror of the Cambrian seas."

The fossilized eyes of a Cambrian Era predator, Anomalocaris (meaning "strange shrimp"), have revealed the astonishing complexity of a prehistoric aquatic animal without clear precursors. Its eyes have been compared to the eyes of dragonflies, and by comparison, is superior to most modern examples of similarly-designed eyes.

(Anomalocaris eye fossils, Credit: John Paterson, University of New England)

This latest example of astonishingly sophisticated primal design, seen in predacious eyes, is seemingly out-of-place for naturalism (the belief that designs and engineering in nature formed naturally), for advanced eyes like that of dragonflies should not appear in this early period of life. That they do naturally lends support to an intelligent cause building organisms on earth.

Further Reading:
An Eye-Opening Discovery: The Remarkable Vision of Anomalocaris
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/an_eye_opening053921.html

2011-10-25T12:02:00.004-04:00

The Test of a Prophet

God provided a means of identifying false prophets, and what to do with them. These instructions are found at Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22. In the New World Translation these read:

“In case a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises in your midst and does give you a sign or a portent, 2 and the sign or the portent does come true of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us walk after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us serve them,’ 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or to the dreamer of that dream, because Jehovah YOUR God is testing YOU to know whether YOU are loving Jehovah YOUR God with all YOUR heart and all YOUR soul. 4 After Jehovah YOUR God YOU should walk, and him YOU should fear, and his commandments YOU should keep, and to his voice YOU should listen, and him YOU should serve, and to him YOU should cling. 5 And that prophet or that dreamer of the dream should be put to death, because he has spoken of revolt against Jehovah YOUR God...

Here the false prophet gives "signs or portents," adding to God's word, and advocates worship of false gods. Even if his "signs or portents" come true, he must be executed for his false teaching of advocating false gods.

“‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’

So the false prophet adds to God's word by making new predictions that fail and/or advocates worship of false gods. He must be executed.

In both descriptions, there is nothing about misinterpreting scripture, but only adding to scripture, as well as adding a new, false, god to worship.

While Jehovah's Witnesses never claimed to be inspired or add to the Bible, there have been instances of immature interpretation of existing prophecy. But only the hateful would confuse that with being a false prophet. Ironically, the Trinitarians who accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of false prophecy are not only being hateful and therefore unchristian, but they are also advocating the worship of a new, false God, the Trinity. Therefore, per Deuteronomy, Trinitarianism must be executed. This is done by rejecting it: not being under its control, not fearing it.

Further reading:

False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy? jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/false-prophecy-or-misguided.html
The Problem with “False Prophecy” Polemics jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html
Carl Sagan on belief jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/08/carl-sagan-on-belief-in-1986-late-carl.html
Do You Reject Trinitarianism? jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html
‘They keep changing the dates’: Jehovah’s Witnesses Changing Chronology by George D. Chryssides http://www.cesnur.org/2010/to-chryssides.htm

2011-10-08T16:12:00.003-04:00

Can't get past the title...

(Note: Putting Jesus in His Place is a book that attempts to defend Trinitarianism.)

While I have not read this book, I do have this observation.

Putting Jesus in His Place uses an acronym based on the letters in the word HANDS. This reminds me of Uzzah, who attempted to put the ark of the covenant in its place with his hands.—2 Samuel 6:6, 7; 1 Chronicles 13:9, 10.

Thus, it would appear that the title (with its supporting acronym) is ill-considered, as it naturally invokes the imagery of the Uzzah incident.

Additionally, the title is irreverent-sounding. Irreverent in that, who are we to put Jesus in his place? That’s what it could easily sound like. But since Trinitarianism is the crown jewel of the antichrist, this is hardly surprising.

2011-09-21T12:34:00.010-04:00

Mapping the Greatest Missionary's Journey

Jesus is the greatest missionary, as seen in the tremendous personal sacrifices he endured to bring sinners into salvation. (Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:11-13) Below is a simplified map of this historic journey.[1]

See John 8:23, where Jesus said he is from "the realms above" (the transcendent spirit realm), and we reside in "the realms below," on the earth in the physical realm (NW).

Jesus' pre-human position in heavenly/spiritual/divine glory. (John 17:5)
The (a) kenosis and (b) katabasis, the (a) emptying or divesting of his divine glory and (b) him 'stepping down' into the physical realm on earth. (Philippians 2:7)
Conveyed by holy spirit to Mary's womb and born as a perfect man. (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4) His life and death. (Philippians 2:7, 8)
His resurrection back to spirit life, his anabasis: 'stepping up' into the spirit realm. (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Peter 3:18)
Jesus' current exalted position as immortal in heavenly/spiritual/divine glory. (Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 6:16)

Footnote:
[1] Compare with Jacob's ladder vision in Genesis 28:12, which depicts angels ascending and descending on a ladder or staircase from heaven to earth.

Further reading:

Who Is Jesus Christ? http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm
The Ransom—God’s Greatest Gift http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_05.htm

Related blog entries:

A simplified diagram of reality http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/simplified-diagram-of-reality.html
Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
The Exaltation of Christ http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/08/exaltation-of-christ-god-elevated-him.html

2011-09-12T12:12:00.003-04:00

Fig Leaves in Genesis

The fig is native to SW Asia, Israel, Syria, and Egypt. Its leaves are large, measuring as much as 20 cm (8 in.) or more in width.[1] It is first mentioned in Genesis 3:7, where the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, “sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings.” This may simply mean that they fastened the large fig leaves together, using twigs of the fig tree to do so.[2] This action may imply some familiarity with sewing fig leaves on Adam's part. He may have had some experience doing this while he was a single man building a shelter for himself in the Garden of Eden. This therefore helps us understand that he was in the garden for some time exceeding what young-earth creationism claims.

Interestingly, fig leaves in Eden also presents a problem for Mormonism. The Mormon scripture of Moses 4:13 reads the same as Genesis 3:7, about sewing fig leaves together. However, Mormonism also teaches that Eden was “located on what is now the North American continent,”[3] near what it calls “Adam-ondi-Ahman,” located by its founding prophet Joseph Smith in northwestern Missouri.[4] However, there is no evidence of fig trees ever existing anywhere in Missouri in ancient times.

Footnotes:
[1] "Fig." Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1.

[2] "Sewing." Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2.

[3] "Eden, Garden of." [Mormon] Bible Dictionary. http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/eden-garden-of?lang=eng&letter=e

[4] Doctrine and Covenants 116:1, dated May 19, 1838. "10. The Valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman." Church History Photos. http://lds.org/scriptures/history-maps/photo-10?lang=eng&query=Adam-ondi-Ahman

2011-08-23T12:18:00.006-04:00

The Exaltation of Christ

“God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names.”

Philippians 2:9, NLT

God the Father resurrected Jesus, who was born from a woman, to spirit life and exalted him to a position he did not have before.

If Jesus is a person of the Almighty Godhead, this scripture, Philippians 2:9, is nonsensical. However, since it is a scripture, then Trinitarianism, the Jesus-is-a-person-of-the-Almighty-Godhead theology, is nonsensical.

Note: Trinitarians may read 'Father' in place of 'God,' and say it was Jesus' human nature that was exalted, as Jesus already had, in their view, a divine nature that needs no exaltation. However, please notice two things:

Philippians 2:9 says it was 'God,' not 'the Father' or 'God the Father as a person of the Trinitarian Godhead,' who exalted Jesus. It was God, a superior person in his own right.
Philippians 2:9 says it was Jesus who was exalted, not his human nature. If it was his human nature, Philippians 2:9 whould have had to say so. But it did not.

Therefore, God exalted Jesus, period. Jesus was "lower than angels" and was exalted by God to be higher than angels, like he was before, only now with more authority.—Hebrews 2:7-9.

Further reading:
Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html

2011-07-25T12:48:00.006-04:00

A case for Christ’s pre-human existence

In Matthew 22 Jesus said:

⁴¹ Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: ⁴² “What do YOU think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.” ⁴³ He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, ⁴⁴ ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? ⁴⁵ If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” ⁴⁶ And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, nor did anyone dare from that day on to question him any further.

Jesus’ argument is either that he has a pre-human existence, or that the Christ does not come from David and he was exposing their error.

However, Matthew’s gospel stresses that Jesus is the son of David and therefore has the genealogical prerequisite to be the Christ! Matthew uses the phrase “son of David” nine times, more than the other gospels (Mark has it two times and Luke three times, John, zero). In fact, Matthew’s messianic genealogy with its formula of three fourteen generations only works if you count David twice!

Thus, it seems rather obvious that Matthew used Jesus’ argument to implicitly teach that Jesus had a pre-human existence, since he stressed more than the other gospels that the Christ comes from David.

(Introductory picture from the October 1, 2006 issue of The Watchtower, page 9.)

2011-07-08T12:30:00.002-04:00

Review: The Myth of Junk DNA

"Jonathan Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA, is a well-written book that manages to accomplish two separate tasks: to silence the Darwinists who had claimed that recent genomic discoveries supported their dystopic version of [Stephen Meyer's] The Signature in the Cell; and to bring all of us up-to-date on the breath-taking mysteries being decoded from this most ancient script.
...
Yet even more spine-tingling is the sense that we are seeing truly dense information storage, something far more elegant than a Donald Knuth computer code. We expected to find something resembling our FORTRAN or machine-code assembly language, but instead we found something far more baroque, far more detailed, far more advanced than even Microsoft Windows. For in 3 Gigabytes, Microsoft barely gets Windows up and running for an expected lifetime of 5 years and it still must be patched monthly for the latest viruses, but in 3 Gigacodons, an entire baby is constructed with a full set of repairs for the assaults of countless viruses and the insults of an 80-year lifetime. If Meyers has shown the cell to have a software signature, then Wells has shown it to be written as poetry in an unknown tongue, replete with rhymes and stanzas and refrains and harmonies we can barely hear. If Meyers taught us to read DNA, Wells teaches us to sing it."

Source link:
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/30/review__the_myth_of_junk_dna.thtml

2011-07-08T12:29:00.007-04:00

Daniel's Prophetic Image Update

The image of Daniel 2,
seen in the Awake!, May 2011 page 16, depicting the gold head, silver chest and arms, copper belly and thighs, iron legs, and iron and clay feet and toes.

As can be seen by this illustration appearing in the May 2011 Awake! magazine, the iron legs represent the Roman Empire, and the iron and clay feet and toes represent the Anglo-American World Power. No other dominant world powers will appear. Moreover, Daniel 2:41-42 portrays the feet and toes as one "kingdom," and it is noteworthy that the toes are not numbered and are of the same materials as the feet.

This eschatological image therefore assures us that we are living in the last period before the stone, God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44), replaces human rulership.

Additionally, the fabulous and historic 2011 District Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses explained further, for the first time since the publication of the May Awake!, what the clay signifies. This updated explanation is by far the most lucid, insightful one ever given.

2011-05-24T12:00:00.021-04:00

Messianic Symbolism of Jonah

Jonah the wayward prophet provided a messianic sign or foreshadow in what he experienced. Hurled overboard a ship, he sank beneath the waves and was prevented from resurfacing by the crashing, pounding breakers. He even became entangled in seaweed, it winding around his head! (Jonah 1:15, 2:5) He was then swallowed by some type of giant aquatic beast by divine intervention. (Jonah 1:17)[1]

The time he spent there has been identified as the "Sign of Jonah" by Jesus at Matthew 12:39-40. As Jonah was in the belly of a leviathan for three days, so Jesus would be in the grave for a similar length of time, for parts of three days. Thus, as fulfilled, the "Sign of Jonah" is a remarkable messianic foreshadowing of Jesus' death and resurrection: the "Gates of Sheol" (Isaiah 38:10) opened for him like leviathan's jaws opened for Jonah. Notice, however, that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit person in the spirit realm. (John 8:21; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Philippians 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18) Could the surface of the water and the dry land that Jonah returned to be symbolic of that for this application only, as his aquatic gastric grave was symbolic of Sheol only? Jesus descended from heaven and called it the "realms above." (1 Corinthians 15:47; Philippians 2:7-8; John 8:23) As he was born as a man, he was not able to return to the spirit realm on his own. (Galatians 4:4) This is similar with Jonah, his descending from above to beneath the surface of the water and being obstructed from resurfacing on his own. Significantly, as Jonah was completely swallowed by the aquatic beast, so Jesus as a person was in the grave.[2] How would it make any sense if Jesus was not completely in the grave, if only his human nature was in the grave as taught by Trinitarianism? If the Sign of Jonah applied only to Jesus' human nature, then it is a very "watered down" sign indeed.

In summation, Jonah's messianic symbolism was fulfilled with Jesus in these ways:

Jesus' descent from the spirit realm to earth and birth as a man.
His death in the grave for parts of three days.
His resurrection back to the spirit realm. (The last two being identified by Jesus as the Sign of Jonah.)

Footnotes:

[1] One reference describes the sequence of events this way in graphic detail:

Jonah plummeted into the raging waves. Perhaps he struggled, floundering a bit, and saw amid a chaos of foam and spray that the ship was swiftly moving away. But the mighty breakers crashed over him and forced him under. He sank down and down, sensing that all hope was gone.
Jonah later described how he felt at this time. Fleeting images crossed his mind. He thought with sadness that he would never again see the beautiful temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem. He had the sensation of descending to the very depths of the sea, near the roots of the mountains, where seaweed entangled him. This, it seemed, was to be his pit, his grave.—Jonah 2:2-6.
But wait! There was something moving nearby—an immense, dark shape, a living thing. Looming close, it darted at him. A great maw opened over him, engulfed him, swallowed him down! (The Watchtower, January 1, 2009 pages 27-8)

Ironically, Jonah was saved and preserved by this aquatic monster.

Critics of Jonah may overlook the fact that this story is about acts of divine intervention. So of course it is not explainable by natural causes! That is the whole point. The very text at Jonah 1:17 identifies it as a supernatural event, for it says Jehovah God "appointed" an aquatic creature to swallow (and preserve) him. The NET Bible footnote on this verse adds:

Joyce Baldwin notes, “Here, with YHWH [Jehovah] as the subject, the verb [minnah, "to send, to appoint"] stresses God's sovereign rule over events for the accomplishment of his purpose (as in 4:6-8, where the verb recurs in each verse). The 'great fish' is in exactly the right place at the right time by God's command, in order to swallow Jonah and enclose him safely" (Joyce Baldwin, "Jonah," The Minor Prophets, 2:566).

[2] It is interesting to note that both Jonah and Jesus had flora wrapped around their heads. In Jesus' case however, his head wrapping was done in sadistic mockery by Roman soldiers who braided a crown of thorns and placed it on his head. (Mark 15:17; John 19:2) "While the particular plant in question has been linked by many with Paliurus spina-christi, a shrub growing to a height of 6 m (20 ft) and having flexible branches with stiff thorns, no certain identification is possible." ("Thorn," Insight on the Scriptures, 2:1096.)

Related blog entries:

A simplified diagram of reality
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/simplified-diagram-of-reality.html
Mapping the Greatest Missionary's Journey http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/09/mapping-greatest-missionarys-journey.html
Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
Do You Reject Trinitarianism? (Points 1-3)
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

Related Link:

My Thoughts on: The Spirit Realm
http://jimspace.000space.com/tsr.htm

2011-04-29T17:00:00.016-04:00

From the Fall to the Ascent

Two people: a handsome man and a beautiful woman, both of whom are clad in thick, furry animal skins, leave behind a lovely forested garden... in utter disgrace and frustration. Behind them spins—as if by an invisible hand—a furious blade of brilliant flame. They depart under the stern, unforgiving glare of the garden's guardians—manifestations of supernatural spirit creatures called Cherubs.

In their wake they leave a trail, indeed a deep river, of human blood from untold millions, even billions of dead mingled with terrifying screams and agonizing groans. The couple are deaf to the sorrowful shrieks that fill the air, and their feet are dry of the blood. With an air of naivety, they leave unaware of their legacy that is all to plain in the sight of the Cherubs.

Two points must be understood when considering hamartiology and soteriology, the study of the nature of sin and the study of salvation:

God did not know that Adam would sin.
Adam and Eve cannot be saved by the ransom.

(The following is from articles in the WTL CD-ROM.)

Here is what God set before Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” “And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: ‘From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.’” (Gen. 1:28; 2:16, 17) Would you encourage your children to undertake a project with a marvelous future, knowing from the start that it was doomed to failure? Would you warn them of harm, while knowing that you had planned everything so that they were sure to come to grief? Is it reasonable, then, to attribute such to God?

If God foreordained and foreknew Adam’s sin and all that would result from this, it would mean that by creating Adam, God deliberately set in motion all the wickedness committed in human history. He would be the Source of all the wars, the crime, the immorality, the oppression, the lying, the hypocrisy, the disease. But the Bible clearly says: “You are not a God taking delight in wickedness.” (Ps. 5:4) “Anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.” (Ps. 11:5) “God . . . cannot lie.” (Titus 1:2) “From oppression and from violence he [the One designated by God as Messianic King] will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes.” (Ps. 72:14) “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) “He is a lover of righteousness and justice.”—Ps. 33:5.

“A Corresponding Ransom”
“In Adam all are dying,” said the apostle Paul. (1 Corinthians 15:22) The ransom thus had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam—a perfect human. (Romans 5:14) No other kind of creature could balance the scales of justice. Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom”—one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6)[1] It would not be necessary for untold millions of individual humans to be sacrificed so as to correspond to each descendant of Adam. The apostle Paul explained: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin.” (Romans 5:12) And “since death is through a man,” God provided for the redemption of mankind “through a man.” (1 Corinthians 15:21) How?

Jehovah arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. According to Romans 6:23, “the wages sin pays is death.” In sacrificing his life, the ransomer would “taste death for every man.” In other words, he would pay the wage for Adam’s sin. (Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24) This would have profound legal consequences. By nullifying the death sentence upon Adam’s obedient offspring, the ransom would cut off the destructive power of sin right at its source.—Romans 5:16.

Adam and Eve could not have benefited from the ransom. The Mosaic Law stated this principle regarding a willful murderer: “You must take no ransom for the soul of a murderer who is deserving to die.” (Numbers 35:31) Clearly, Adam and Eve deserved to die because they willingly and knowingly disobeyed God. They thereby gave up their prospect of everlasting life.

As seen in the June 15, 2011 issue of The Watchtower, page 13.

To illustrate: Imagine that you live in a town where most of the residents are employed at a large factory. You and your neighbors are well paid for your labors and lead comfortable lives. That is, until the day the factory closes its doors. The reason? The factory manager turned corrupt, forcing the business into bankruptcy. Suddenly out of work, you and your neighbors are unable to pay the bills. Marriage mates, children, and creditors suffer because of that one man’s corruption. Is there a way out? Yes! A wealthy benefactor decides to intervene. He appreciates the value of the company. He also feels for its many employees and their families. So he arranges to pay off the company’s debt and reopen the factory. The cancellation of that one debt brings relief to the many employees and their families and to the creditors. Similarly, the cancellation of Adam’s debt benefits untold millions.

Who Provides the Ransom?
Only Jehovah could provide “the Lamb . . . that takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) But God did not send just any angel to rescue mankind. Instead, he sent the One who could furnish the ultimate, conclusive answer to Satan’s charge against Jehovah’s servants. Yes, Jehovah made the supreme sacrifice of sending his only-begotten Son, “the one he was specially fond of.” (Proverbs 8:30) Willingly, God’s Son “emptied himself” of his heavenly nature. (Philippians 2:7) Miraculously, Jehovah transferred the life and the personality pattern of his firstborn heavenly Son to the womb of a Jewish virgin named Mary. (Luke 1:27, 35) As a man, he would be called Jesus. But in a legal sense, he could be called the second Adam, for he corresponded perfectly to Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47) Jesus could thus offer himself up in sacrifice as a ransom for sinful mankind.

To whom would that ransom be paid? Psalm 49:7 specifically says that the ransom is paid “to God.” But is not Jehovah the one who arranges for the ransom in the first place? Yes, but this does not reduce the ransom to a pointless, mechanical exchange—like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. It must be appreciated that the ransom is, not a physical exchange, but a legal transaction. By providing for the payment of the ransom, even at enormous cost to himself, Jehovah affirmed his unwavering adherence to his own perfect justice.—Genesis 22:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 11:17; James 1:17.

In the spring of 33 C.E., Jesus Christ willingly submitted to an ordeal that led to the payment of the ransom. He allowed himself to be arrested on false charges, judged guilty, and nailed to a stake of execution. Was it really necessary for Jesus to suffer so much? Yes, because the issue of the integrity of God’s servants had to be settled. Significantly, God did not allow the infant Jesus to be killed by Herod. (Matthew 2:13-18) But when Jesus was an adult, he was able to withstand the brunt of Satan’s attacks with full comprehension of the issues. In order to counterbalance the sin of Adam, Jesus had to die, not as a perfect child, but as a perfect man. Remember, Adam’s sin was willful, carried out with full knowledge of the seriousness of the act and its consequences. So in order to become “the last Adam” and cover that sin, Jesus had to make a mature, knowing choice to keep his integrity to Jehovah. (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47) Thus Jesus’ entire faithful life course—including his sacrificial death—served as “one act of justification.”—Romans 5:18, 19.

By remaining “loyal, guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners” in spite of horrific treatment, Jesus proved with dramatic finality that Jehovah does have servants who remain faithful under trial. (Hebrews 7:26) No wonder, then, that at the moment before his death, Jesus cried out triumphantly: “It has been accomplished!”—John 19:30.

From: http://www.faithflashes.com/art

Footnotes:
[1] The translation “corresponding ransom” is from one Greek word: antilutron. See also the Concordant Version, which translates antilutron as “correspondent Ransom.” http://www.concordant.org/version/NewFiles/15_FirstTimothy.htm Additionally, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under “Ransom” calls the ‘anti’ preposition “significant.”

Related blog post: Only One Could be the Christ
(http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/only-one-could-be-christ-messiah-who.html)

2011-03-03T17:05:00.015-05:00

Only One Could be the Christ

The Messiah! Who would he be and when would he come? He, as a single person, would have dual functions as king and high priest, and only one person in the universe could fulfill that remarkable role. The first mention of a messiah or savior for the human race goes back to the first book of the Bible, Genesis, at 3:15. And he arrived at just the right time in human history:

“God had maneuvered the nations in preparation for Messiah’s appearance, and the circumstances were ideal for spreading the news of that event far and wide. The fifth world power, Greece, had provided a common language, a universal means of communication among the nations. Rome, the sixth world power, had welded its subject nations into one world empire and had provided roads to make all parts of the empire accessible. Many Jews had been scattered throughout this empire, so that others had learned of the Jews’ expectation of a coming Messiah. And now, more than 4,000 years after the Edenic promise [at Genesis 3:15], the Messiah had appeared! The long-awaited promised Seed had come!”[1]

It is extremely important to realize that “God did not send some angel to rescue mankind. He made the supreme sacrifice of sending his only-begotten Son, “the one he was specially fond of.”—Proverbs 8:30; John 3:16.”[2] This is true because:

“Only Jehovah’s firstborn Son could measure up to the special needs of the situation involving sinful mankind. He is such an image of his heavenly Father in showing affection for members of the divinely produced family that he is without equal among the sons of God. Since all other intelligent creatures were brought into existence by means of him, his affection for them would certainly be abundant.”[3]

And:

“It was on a mission of salvation that Jehovah lovingly sent his only-begotten Son. God did not send his Son here in order to judge the world. If God’s Son had been sent on such a judicial mission, the outlook for all mankind would have been hopeless. The sentence of adverse judgment that would have been pronounced by Jesus Christ upon the human family would have been condemnation to death. (Romans 5:12) Thus, by this unique expression of divine love, God counterbalanced the death sentence that sheer justice would have required.”[4]

By way of contrast, the LDS Church’s study manual, Gospel Principles, in chapter 3 presents Jesus and the pre-rebel Satan as equals who both made offers to be the Christ, or Messiah. Using the Mormon scriptures of the books of Abraham and Moses, it says:

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1–4).
...
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose.[5]

Thus, it is clearly seen that Gospel Principles and the Mormon scriptures of Abraham and Moses presents them (Jesus and the person who later became Satan) both as having equal opportunity to become the Messiah. However, the angels were not in the same legal position to offer a ransom for Adam as Jesus was. Adam was God’s first intelligent physical production, his first physical son. And in accords with soteriological mechanics, the Messiah would have to offer what Adam lost. While any spiritual creation could have fulfilled the basic requirements of such, none could have fully corresponded to Adam as a firstborn son. And none would have known Jehovah God better than his firstborn son. Thus, only Jesus as God’s firstborn son could have fully satisfied the role of Messiah![6] (Refer to image below.)

From You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982) page 63.

Think too of Jesus’ return to heaven before God. Then and there it was that “God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Immagine if a subordinate angel was the Messiah, he would be exaulted as Jesus is now!

Thus, when all these factors are taken into account, it becomes clear that only one person could have been the Messiah. And he was Jesus.

Additional Reading:
Who Is Jesus Christ?

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm (Chapter 4 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?)
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050915/article_02.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_01.htm

Footnotes:

[1] “Matthew.” All Scripture Inspired of God and Beneficial.

[2] The Watchtower. 1991 2/15 p. 14 par. 15 “A Corresponding Ransom for All.”

[3] The Watchtower. 1992 1/15 p. 10 par. 6 “Everlasting Happiness Awaits Godly Givers.”

[4] ibid. p. 11 par. 8

[5] http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng

To learn how Lucifer was not Satan’s original name, and the credibility crisis this creates for Mormonism, please read my blog entry “Is Satan Lucifer?” (http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-satan-lucifer-how-can-this-be-since.html) Additionally, Jesus represents Jehovah his father, but is not the same person as Jehovah. In the Hebrew Bible, Jehovah is elohim, thus “Elohim” is not a seperate person from Jehovah contrary to Mormon doctrine. It is also important to realize that God did not create Satan, rather he created the angel who later rebelled and became Satan, which in Hebrew means “Resister.”

[6] See my blog entry “Do You Reject Trinitarianism?,” number 1.
(http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html)

Related blog post: From the Fall to the Ascent
(http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/04/from-fall-to-ascent-two-people-handsome.html)

2011-03-02T12:58:00.024-05:00

False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy?

There is a big difference between misguided and immature exegesis of prophecy or scripture and outright false prophecy. The later is an attempt to deceive by contradicting true prophecy and scripture.

One challenge offered to Jehovah’s Witnesses is to admit that they made mistakes. There is no cognitive dissonance about this. As one would expect from sincere Christians, this challenge is very easy to meet, as this one example shows:

The October 1, 1984 issue of The Watchtower on page 24, ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me,’ stated:

“Regarding his [Rutherford’s] misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he once confessed to us at Bethel, “I made an ass of myself.””

Another such admission is found in our faith-strengthening history book Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom:

“Later on, during the years from 1935 through 1944, a review of the overall framework of Bible chronology revealed that a poor translation of Acts 13:19, 20 in the King James Version, along with certain other factors, had thrown off the chronology by over a century. This later led to the idea—sometimes stated as a possibility, sometimes more firmly—that since the seventh millennium of human history would begin in 1975, events associated with the beginning of Christ’s Millennial Reign might start to take place then.

Did the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses on these matters prove to be correct? They certainly did not err in believing that God would without fail do what he had promised. But some of their time calculations and the expectations that they associated with these gave rise to serious disappointments.” (pages 632-633)

Thus, it was a breakthrough in deciphering Bible chronology and uprooting an inherited and cherished error from the 19th century that led to the sensational (and sometimes immaturely expressed) expectations for 1975. But this did not prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from continuing to study the Bible and improve our understanding of it.

Additionally it states:

“In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel [the main point about not being specific about what might happen]. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation.” (page 104)

That cited Watchtower stated:

“With the appearance of the [1966] book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.”

So blame was not cast on the Witness community, but on the ones taking the lead among them.

Ones who wrestle with this issue of how God could be using people who in times past made immature date setting would do well to consider the psalmist King David’s words recorded at Psalm 69:5-7:

“O God, you yourself have come to know my foolishness,
And from you my own guiltiness has not been hidden.
O may those hoping in you not be ashamed because of me,
O Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies.
O may those seeking you not be humiliated because of me,
O God of Israel.
For on your account I have borne reproach,
Humiliation has covered my face.”

In this Psalm he speaks prophetically in the person of Jesus Christ. As such, the verses above could apply only to Christ’s representatives, his congregation, on earth. Thus, this messianic prophecy includes the acknowledgment that Christ’s brothers would at times do foolish things, which is only to be expected, especially during the early years of coming out of Babylon the Great with Christendom’s false teachings of the Trinity and hellfire. (See page 368 of the 1965 Watchtower.)

(All underscoring added by me.)

Additional reading:

The Problem with “False Prophecy” Polemics
http://jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html
The Test of a Prophet
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-of-prophet-god-provided-means-of.html
Carl Sagan on belief http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/08/carl-sagan-on-belief-in-1986-late-carl.html
‘They keep changing the dates’: Jehovah’s Witnesses Changing Chronology by George D. Chryssides http://www.cesnur.org/2010/to-chryssides.htm

Introductory picture is the Puyehue volcano in Chile, (AFP/File/Claudio Santana).

2011-02-23T12:03:00.054-05:00

Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth
Jesus was born from a woman. That means he was a human ONLY.

Jesus prayed to God—
the Personage who is superior to him

Philippians 2:7 says Jesus "emptied Himself" (NASB, NWT, RSV, ASV, and others read the same) or "divested himself" (Murdock) to become a man. (Termed the "Kenosis Event," from the Greek word meaning "empty.") He emptied himself of divine nature to become a man born from a woman, ontologically lower than angels. (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 2:7, 9) He was not incarnated or materialized, he was born. Thus, the end product (a man born from a woman), shows what was emptied or discarded: everything he was before (divine nature as a spirit person). Doesn't that make sense?

Significantly, Jesus is called "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), for he willingly sacrificed what Adam lost through his disobedience, perfect human life. This perfectly demonstrates that Jesus was only human nature, for after sacrificing himself to match what Adam willfully lost, he had to be resurrected to life. If Jesus' divine nature was still intact, then Jesus never really sacrificed his life (which would not have matched with what Adam lost anyway) and he would not need to be resurrected by his Father, as he could have just revitalize his dead body, or materialized a new human body, much like angels had done prior (Genesis 18:2; 19:1, 12; Joshua 5:13, 14 [likely Michael the archangel]; Judges 13:3, 6; Hebrews 13:2).

Further, at John 6:57 Jesus tells us that his Father sent him to us and he lives because of his Father. No duality or hypostatic union is necessary for Jesus to be real. He looked to his heavenly father, not to his divine nature. This further demonstrates that he was divested of that. But is there anything we can compare this too? Yes:

In the Bible, there are many examples of spirit creatures assuming human form. While some were visionary, others were materializations (see above). Hence, they lived, not as men, but as spirits—as divine beings. Therefore, they could discard their material bodies at will and still be alive. Jesus, on the other hand, was not a materialization. He was born from a woman, from his virgin mother Mary. Therefore, he was not able to dematerialize or discard his body.

The difference between a materialized spirit and the born Jesus is significant, and cannot be stressed enough. Consider:

A materialized spirit could never offer himself as a corresponding ransom for the sins of humanity like Jesus did. (1 Timothy 2:5, 6)
A materialized spirit could never fully "sympathize with our weaknesses" like Jesus did. (Hebrews 4:15)
A materialized spirit is not "lower than angels" like Jesus was, but is still an angel or spirit. (Hebrews 2:7, 9) (See Figure 2.)
A materialized spirit could instantly heal injuries no matter how serious, as Jesus could not without his God's power. (Acts 10:38)

That would severely affect how you would view a test or threat against your physical body. But Jesus could fully "sympathize with our weaknesses" as he was in danger of physical injury, pain, and fatigue. (At John 8:59, Jesus hid himself from physical injury and pain. Likewise, at Luke 4:28-30 he had to forcibly remove himself from a mob to avoid physical injury and an untimely death. Lastly, at Mark 4:38 and Luke 8:23 Jesus was sleeping.) Although he performed miracles with his God and Father's power, he still knew what it was like to be born from a mother and to grow to manhood. (Luke 8:46, 9:43; John 10:32; 1 Corinthians 1:24) Therefore the difference is very much an ontological one. Materialized spirits are ontologically spirits, not humans. The born Jesus was ontologically human, not spirit. (Refer to figures 1 and 2.)

This reversed upon Jesus' resurrection to spirit life by his God and Father. (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Peter 3:18; Galatians 1:1) Back in the spirit realm, Jesus was now ontologically spirit, not human. Thus, when he appeared before his apostles as a resurrected being at Luke 24:36-43, he was now a materialization like angels had done prior.[1] Indeed, he even had to inform them that he was not appearing as a spiritual manifestation, but as a material manifestation. As John describes, Jesus appeared—materialized—in a locked room on two separate occasions, the second for the benefit of Thomas, complete with his stigmata to drive the point home that he was resurrected. (John 20:19, 26, 27, 29)[2] In a dynamic demonstration that he was living as a spirit, he ascended to the sky, where a cloud obscured him from view. (Acts 1:9) This was when he discarded his materialized body for the last time.[3]

Figure 1:

Illustrating the "Kenosis Event" of Philippians 2:7.

Figure 2:

Illustrating the difference between human nature and a materialization.

With the later, the spirit person controls the materialization with his transcendent mind. The materialization cannot act independently, and is all that is seen in the physical realm (like the tip of an iceberg).

Emptied but not emptied?
Trinitarianism obviously cannot accept that Jesus emptied or divested himself of what he was prior to becoming a human born from a human. Thus, it should be no surprise to see statements such as the following: "Christ did not "empty" Himself of Godhood. He did not cease to be what He essentially and eternally was."[4] (Refer to figure 3.) Thus, it maintains that Jesus did not empty himself of what he was prior and unwittingly condemns Paul as a heretic, despite Paul's preemptive condemnation of those who change the gospel he preached of heresy. (Galatians 1:8) What is also overlooked is that Jesus' divine nature or "Godhood" was for a time, four days in fact, in hypostatic union with a zygote in Mary's fallopian tube, as well as in hypostatic union with the rest of the pre-sentient developmental stages. Yet, this ignored and embarrassing situation is avoided by simply believing that Paul spoke the truth, that Jesus divested himself of what he was before becoming a man—a man supported and sustained by his heavenly Father before sacrificing his life and returning to heaven and being restored to his divine nature, exalted in position, and granted immortality.—Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:9; 1 Timothy 6:16.

Figure 3:

The Hypostatic Union of Trinitarianism illustrated.

This highlights how this version of Jesus' ontology has his person and consciousness divided between two realms, one transcendent to the other. (Note, this version of Jesus is not two halves, but "fully" divine and "fully" human. This illustration merely shows the ontological division between these two natures.) Thus, Jesus' human nature brain has to communicate with his transcendent divine nature mind both ways (human to divine and vice versa). Unfortunately for Trinitarianism, it is impossible for the human brain to communicate with a transcendent mind for one person (which is vastly different than prayer). Lastly, when Jesus said "I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am" in John 14:28 and "I live because of the Father" in John 6:57, he was speaking as a person, not as a human nature, as this illustration makes clear (for Jesus is one person with one center of consciousness). Claiming otherwise, that Jesus' human nature is speaking here, unwittingly assigns personhood to nature, giving Jesus two persons to his person. (This is Nestorian heresy condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.) Alternatively, claiming that Jesus was speaking of his human nature unwittingly condemns him as a liar, for he then willfully mislead his audience by withholding the relevant qualification of his divine nature. Yet, Peter assured us that 'no deception was found in his mouth.' (1 Peter 2:22) Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus was speaking as a person about his person.

Footnotes:
[1] Jesus even appeared different in his post-resurrection body, as seen in the accounts at Luke 24:16 and John 20:14, where Cleopas, his friend, and Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at first. Additionally, Mark 16:12 (regardless of its manuscript authority) states that Jesus "appeared in another form [ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ; hetera morphe] to two of them [Cleopas and his friend] walking along," which is apparently explaining why they did not recognize Jesus immediately. This demonstrates that Jesus had sacrificed his body (Hebrews 10:10), and had not taken it back, which the author of Mark 16:12 evidently understood. Thus, it becomes rather obvious (to thinking persons) that Jesus' sacrificed body was simply no longer in existence, as his tomb was empty by divine providence.—Mark 16:5, 6; John 20:3-9.

[2] He did not unlock and re-lock the doors undetected, and then quietly and stealthily sneak in among them, or temporarily blind their eyes as a deceiver, but he simply appeared in the room and in their midst both times. This proves he was materializing among them. Denying this point betrays a lack of responsible focus, is ridiculously stubborn, and is a rank absurdity.

The NET Bible offers an enlightening footnote on John 20:19. It states that while the Greek text may literally say "the doors were shut," "'locked' conveys a more appropriate idea for the modern English reader." Additionally, it acknowledges that "it is possible ... that he simply appeared in the middle of the room without passing through the doors at all. The point the author makes here is simply that the closed doors were no obstacle at all to the resurrected Jesus." (It also allows for Jesus silently unlocking the doors or them silently opening by divine intervention, but that would mean Jesus snuck "tiptoe" undetected into their midst, which is unacceptable and, frankly, laughable.)

[3] The encyclopedic reference Insight on the Scriptures has an outstanding article titled "Ascension." Regarding Jesus' ascension, and what happened to his materialized body, it states:

While Jesus began his ascent in a physical form, thus being visible to his watching disciples, there is no basis for assuming that he continued to retain a material form after the cloud interposed itself. The apostle Peter states that Jesus died in the flesh but was resurrected “in the spirit.” (1Pe 3:18) Paul declares the rule that “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.” (1Co 15:50; compare also Jesus’ statement at Joh 12:23, 24 with 1Co 15:35-45.) Paul likens Jesus’ ascent to God’s presence in the heavens to the entry of the high priest into the Most Holy compartment of the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement and specifies that on such occasion the high priest carried only the blood (not the flesh) of the sacrificial victims. (Heb 9:7, 11, 12, 24-26) Paul then compares the curtain, which separated the first compartment from the Most Holy compartment, to Christ’s flesh. The high priest in passing into the Most Holy, into God’s typical presence, did not carry the curtain with him but passed through that barrier and beyond it, so that it was behind him. Thus, Paul states that “we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is, his flesh.”—Heb 9:3, 24; 10:10, 19, 20; compare Joh 6:51; Heb 6:19, 20.

Thus Jesus discarded his materialized body as he passed "through the curtain" into the transcendent spirit realm. As for his method of discarding, he simply disposed of it in such a manner so as it did not fall to the ground below!

[4] "Empty." Vine's Expository Dictionary.

Further reading:

My Thoughts on: The Spirit Realm http://jimspace.000space.com/tsr.htm
Related blog entries:

The Exaltation of Christ http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/08/exaltation-of-christ-god-elevated-him.html
A simplified diagram of reality http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/simplified-diagram-of-reality.html
Mapping the Greatest Missionary's Journey http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/09/mapping-greatest-missionarys-journey.html
Biblical monotheism is...
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical-monotheism-is-monolatrism.html
Defending Trinitarianism
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism-im-sure-that.html

Picture and caption from Who Is God?, The Watchtower, May 15, 2002 page 7. (watchtower.org/e/20020515/article_02.htm)

2011-01-18T12:09:00.018-05:00

Mormonism

Definition: A Restorationist movement lead by claimed prophets, starting with Joseph Smith (1805-1844), with distinctive beliefs and a unique scriptural canon in addition to the Bible: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

Are their any problems with Mormonism?
Consider the following:
(1) Mormonism makes salvation impossible for this reason: It has a 'no blood before Adam's Fall' doctrine, including no children or death in the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom.[1] Additionally, the Fall is described as a blessing in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:22-5. (See number 2 below.) The problem is that it presents blood as a product of Adam's transgression, yet Jesus had blood,[2] but he was free of the affects of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15) Therefore, what we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless—he did not have any products of Adam's transgression, but Mormonism gives him just that, blood from Adam's transgression.

(2) 2 Nephi 2:22, 23 contradicts Genesis 1:28 which states this regarding Adam and Eve (NW): "Further, God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it.'" (RS renders this "And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'" Yg, NASB, NIV, as well as others, read similarly.) Thus Adam and Eve were told to have children, yet 2 Nephi 2:23 says "they would have had no children." Additionally, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible omits this passage in its version of Genesis 1:28, while at the same time it is retained in another Mormon version of Genesis 1:28 found in Moses 2:28 in the Pearl of Great Price, which therefore also contradicts 2 Nephi 2:22, 23. This contradiction is a fatal flaw in Mormon scripture that alienates it from God.

Furthermore, 2 Nephi 2:22, 23 and 25 places Adam's fall in a favorable, even liberating light. This contradicts Romans 5:8, 10-12, 18, 19 where Adam's fall is described in negative, debilitating terms, even called a "trespass," or "offense," and "disobedience," leading to "condemnation." This contradiction with Romans chapter 5 is another fatal flaw in Mormon scripture that alienates it from God.

(3) There is also the problem of the source language of the Book of Mormon, called "reformed Egyptian," which is described as more compact than Hebrew in the Book of Mormon at Mormon 9:32-33. However, this is impossible. The book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, by Charles M. Larson (Grand Rapids, 1992), says: "Ancient Egyptian writing is composed of both phonograms ('sound-signs') and ideagrams (signs that convey their meaning pictorially). In this language a word was usually expressed by using one or more phonograms, followed by an ideagram. In this arrangement the ideagram is called a determinative, because it 'determines' the meaning of the foregoing sound-signs and defines their meaning in a general way. ... While some Egyptian words need no determinative, many have more than one; some words even require as many as three determinatives to express a single thought. Egyptian writing was thus cumbersome to use, and lacked any true depth of abstraction. ... Eventually its vast inferiority to other forms of writing, such as Greek or Hebrew, led to its disuse and ultimate disappearance. But no one realized any of this in Joseph Smith's time."—Pp. 88, 89.

Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that the Hebrew-speaking Israelites would not switch to Egyptian Hieroglyphics and reform that to be more compact than Hebrew which was a superior language and already more compact than Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

(4) Mormonism also retains the Latin name Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12 KJ) for Satan in its scriptures (see 2 Nephi 24:12, Doctrine and Covenants 76:26 and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible at Isaiah 14:12). However, Bible scholarship post-dating Mormonism has shown that Lucifer is not Satan, Lucifer is merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel′, "shining one," which is not a name or a title but, rather, a term describing the boastful position taken by Babylon's dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, Mormonism cannot remove this error without serious consequences to its credibility, as divine revelation would not perpetuate error and confusion.[3]

When Someone Says—

'I'm a Mormon (or Latter-day Saint)'

You might reply: 'I noticed your "Truth Restored" ad campaign. Clearly you value the truth about God, right? So do I. In this regard, notice what Jesus said in John 17:17. (Read it.) So we can trust God's Word; is that how you feel?' Then perhaps add: 'I agree with you that there was a Great Apostasy from the truth, and consequently a need for a restoration. Also, I agree that the cross is inappropriate as a Christian symbol. But I do believe that Jesus was free of Adamic contamination to be the Ransomer. Do you believe that Adam was created without blood and that blood is a product of his transgression?' (Note, do not use the word "sin" here, as they do not believe it was a sin but something Adam had to do.) 'Yet Jesus shed his blood for us?' (Allow for response.) 'Would you agree that Jesus our Savior was free of the affects of Adam's transgression?' (Luke 1:35; Heb. 4:15) (Turn to page 29, under the heading "Adam and Eve," in Reasoning From the Scriptures, or to chapter five in the Bible Teach book on page 47, and use this as a basis for discussion, highlighting Jesus' role as Ransomer.)

Footnotes:

[1] "Fall of Adam." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/fall-of-adam?lang=eng&letter=f This is taught elsewhere too.

[2] "Christ." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang=eng In order for Jesus to be the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), he would have to be what Adam lost and voluntarily sacrifice that to be the ransom. Mormonism makes that impossible.

[3] See blog entry "Is Satan Lucifer?" http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-satan-lucifer-how-can-this-be-since.html

(This was written by me attempting to mimic the general style of Reasoning From the Scriptures.)

Link to another blog article:
Mormonism (Latter-Day Saints; LDS)
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/03/mormonism-latter-day-saints.html (Not by me)

2011-01-14T17:30:00.016-05:00

Biblical monotheism is...
monolatrism, the consistent worship of only one divine person in the divine/supernatural realm inhabited by divine/supernatural persons. The one divine person who receives full devotion and worship is the almighty creator.

For instance, Psalm 8:5 calls the angels ("heavenly beings" NET Bible) elohim and the LXX replaces elohim with "angels," and Hebrews 2:7 confirms that these are angels by quoting the LXX, showing that the LXX translators understood it correctly. Angels are also described as gods in the rest of the Bible, before and after Psalm 8:5, from Genesis to Revelation.^[1]

Thus, regarding the "true God/false God" dichotomy of Trinitarianism, it must be known that such needs to be informed of the Biblical definitions of "god." One meaning is nature or being, the other is worshipful. Thus, true Christians worship the one true God the Creator. Other objects of worship are false. But in terms of nature or being, there are many gods or supernatural beings. See Daniel 7:10 for just one example of many.

Additionally, any obeisance ("proskuneo") given to Jesus is to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:11) For example, Joseph's brothers also bowed to him in Genesis 43:28 ("proskuneo" LXX), but he was not a false god, because his brothers knew that full worshipful devotion belonged to Jehovah.

Some will say this understanding of "god" is henotheism, but this term has some shortcomings that the term monolatrism does not. For instance, regarding henotheism it is stated that:

"'a God' may refer to one personality (among others) of the supreme God, and also the God may be said to have the power of assuming many personalities. Max Müller [who coined the term] encountered these subtleties in the Upanishads and Rig Veda [of Hinduism], and posited the idea of henotheism as a way of explaining them. ... Henotheism is based on the belief that a god may take any form at any time and still have the same essential nature. The central idea is that one name for a god may be used in a circumstance where a particular aspect of this god is being represented or worshiped while a different name may be given to or used to describe or worship a different aspect of the god in a different circumstance. This example does not imply the superiority of one over another, but simply that a god can exist in many forms at once and offering worship or praise using different names does not have to imply polytheism." (underscore added)

Thus, it appears that henotheism has some extra baggage that monolatrism lacks. The later expresses Biblical monotheism more succinctly.

As Jesus said in the clearest possible terms imaginable at John 17:1-5, the Father is God, and He is the only one to receive full worshipful devotion.

Now, since Trinitarianism advocates worshiping Jesus and the Holy Spirit as persons of the Godhead along with the Father, it unwittingly advocates idolatry. Only the Father is to be worshiped. Thus, according to the Trinitarian "true God/false God" dichotomy, Trinitarianism unwittingly calls Jesus and the Holy Spirit false Gods and idols. Contrarily, Jehovah's Witnesses worship only the Father in monolatry.

Biblical theology is monolatrous and Trinitarianism is idolatrous.

Footnotes:
^[1] Some notable examples of such are found at Genesis 32:25; Judges 6:21; 13:19, 20; Daniel 3:25; 6:22; 10:5, 6; Acts 12:6-10 and Revelation 8:5. Also note the supernatural power of the fallen angels, the demons, at Genesis 6:2 where they were able to produce male bodies for themselves and Job 1:14-19 where Satan directed groups of people and controlled the elements of fire and wind.

Video: Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism http://youtu.be/A0dOg3k2JCE

2011-01-05T12:03:00.007-05:00

In response to "Read the Bible not the Watchtower!"

Jehovah's Witnesses read the Bible first, the Watchtower second. The people who chant "read the Bible not the Watchtower" read the post-biblical creeds and other traditions of men and books and other material from their religion. So, their admonition is hypocritical. Frankly, it's laughable and dismissable.

It also betrays a frightened mindset seeking a trapdoor, which is what their shallow admonition amounts to.

(Introductory picture is from the cover of the February 15, 2011 Watchtower.)

“If you stop to kick at every dog that barks at you, you’ll never get very far.”—C. T. Russell

2011-01-04T12:59:00.011-05:00

A simplified diagram of reality

The spirit realm transcends the physical realm, which Jesus called the “realms above” (τῶν ἄνω; twn anw), a realm “above” our “lower” realm (τῶν κάτω; twn katw) where our physical bodies cannot enter. (John 8:21, 23) A human needs permission to enter this transcendent realm, by resurrection into it.

The resurrected human has crossed the “line” into the spirit realm and is now a spirit creature. Intelligent creatures in both realms give full devotion to Jehovah God.

Theological terms:
Theography: the study of where God is.
Theocartography: the art of making maps that lead to God.

Link: My Thoughts on: The Spirit Realm
http://jimspace.000space.com/tsr.htm

Related Blog entry: Mapping the Greatest Missionary's Journey http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/09/mapping-greatest-missionarys-journey.html

2011-01-03T17:01:00.019-05:00

Are the Persons of the Trinity separate and distinct or distinct only?

In a two-part video debate between Trinitarian Dr. William Lane Craig and Rabbi Tovia Singer, moderated by Trinitarian Lee Strobel, Dr. Craig said that the holy spirit is "separate and distinct" as a person.[1] He is not the only Trinitarian to say this. One Trinitarian author makes the same claim, and even compares the divine persons of the Trinity to other separate and distinct people: angels, demons, and humans. He said: "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate & distinct from one another as individual beings like these various other intelligent beings are separate and distinct from one another." (emphasis original)[2]

However, more astute Trinitarians disagree, and specify that the members of the Trinity are only distinct from one another and not separate.[3] To illustrate, picture a tricycle. The wheels on this vehicle are distinct from one another, but are still tied in to one another. The wheels are not separate from one another or the bike would be unable to move. The same principle is found in a housing complex, where the apartments are all connected by the outside walls. They are certainly distinct from one another, but they are not separate houses.

Thus, Trinitarians who state that the members or persons of the Trinity are "separate and distinct" should realize two things: The wording of that phrase implies tritheism: three gods, and that this wording troubles more astute Trinitarians who say the persons of the Trinity are distinct only. The ones who miss this crucial distinction should also consider their Shield of the Trinity diagram, which depicts each person of the Trinity as an angle of a triangle.[4] Each angle is distinct as they point in different directions, but they are certainly not separate from one another!

This division in Trinitarianism, the separate and distinct theology versus the distinct only theology, presents a serious problem of credibility. But this is to be expected, as Trinitarianism is a doctrine of the antichrist.

Addendum: Angle or Angel?

Trinitarianism may object to calling Christ an angel, but it inadvertently calls Christ an angle!

Footnotes:

[1] As seen here: http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-trinity-make-sense-2of2-rabbi.html

[2] "The Number of Individuals in the Godhead." The Gospel Way. http://www.gospelway.com/god/persons_godhead.php

[3] "The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet not divided (distincti non divisi), different yet not separate or independent of each other (discreti non separati)." McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. 2007. Page 250. http://books.google.com/books?id=tHlY94UWi3UC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA250#v=snippet&q=distincti%20non%20divisi&f=false

Additionally, Trinitarian apologist Matt Slick explains regarding them: "They are not three separate gods and are not three separate beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God." (Italics added) "The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum." (http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity-hypostatic-union-and-communicatio-idiomatum) And Trinitarian Kenneth Samples declares that "God is three distinct persons." (See "What a tangled web we weave" [http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html].) For another example, see the video "The Trinity Defined and Refuted (Part 1 of 7)" (1:10-1:27) by Sean Finnegan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlFZ9tz0MRA

This is also seen in footnote 5 of "Do You Reject Trinitarianism?" http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

[4] See blog entry "What a tangled web we weave" http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html (Some modern Trinitarians are troubled by such depictions of the Trinity, even though they were the product of devout Trinitarians of the past.)

Credits:

Introductory picture from "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/start.htm
Shield of the Trinity diagram from "Biblical Doctrine: The Trinity, Four Essential Affirmations." http://theresurgence.com/2009/11/23/biblical-doctrine-the-trinity

2010-12-20T12:32:00.023-05:00

What is an apostate?

As defined by the Jehovah's Witness book Reasoning From the Scriptures, "apostasy is abandoning or deserting the worship and service of God, actually a rebellion against Jehovah God. Some apostates profess to know and serve God but reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible but reject Jehovah’s organization."[1]

There are also two different types of apostates. Members of an apostate religion who are either converts or born into it are apostate on a sociological level. This also applies to converts and people born into an ex-JW splinter group. As they are not ex-JWs, they personally are not apostate. But since they are in an ex-JW/WTS splinter group, they would be in an apostate religion.

However, Jehovah's Witnesses who desert their religion and turn to attack it are apostate. Since Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are serving God and doing his will, and have the best knowledge and understanding of the Bible, deserting and rebelling against them would be apostate. That not everyone agrees that Jehovah's Witnesses fill that role is irrelevant. Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to label things and people as apostate.

At this point we can ask, 'From the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, are members of other religions that do the same apostate?' The answer is 'No,' for apostasy is only against the truth, the true God. People leaving other religions and attacking them are not apostate, for they never abandoned and attacked the truth. Thus, Jesus was not an apostate. As one person said, "It is interesting that this does not apply to those who have left other faiths to come to the truth." Thus, an ex-(fill in the blank) Jehovah's Witnesses is not an apostate. This is not hard to grasp, yet some have a very difficult time understanding this, for reasons known only to themselves.

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses have more freedom than some want to acknowledge. We can read things outside of the Watchtower. We can read a wide variety of things, even things written by ex-JW apostates that are not apostate in nature. For example, say one apostate ex-JW wrote a book that fills a niche that has nothing to do with religion, not even mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses or alluding to them. Yet, he also wrote apostate material in a separate, unrelated work. It is permissible to read his non-religious work? Why would it not be? A recent Awake! magazine did just that, even quoting from one.[2]

There is also the danger of being contaminated by reading ex-JW apostate material, as a 1986 Watchtower points out. Notice the comparison made:

Let us illustrate matters in this way: Suppose your teenage son received some pornographic material in the mail. What would you do? If he was inclined to read it out of curiosity, would you say: ‘Yes, son, go ahead and read it. It won’t hurt you. From infancy we’ve taught you that immorality is bad. Besides, you need to know what’s going on in the world in order to see that it’s truly bad’? Would you reason that way? Absolutely not! Rather, you would surely point out the dangers of reading pornographic literature and would require that it be destroyed. Why? Because no matter how strong a person may be in the truth, if he feeds his mind on the perverted ideas found in such literature, his mind and heart will be affected. A lingering wrong desire planted in the recesses of the heart can eventually create a perverted sexual appetite. The result? James says that when wrong desire becomes fertile, it gives birth to sin, and sin leads to death. (James 1:15) So why start the chain reaction?

Well, if we would act so decisively to protect our children from exposure to pornography, should we not expect that our loving heavenly Father would similarly warn us and protect us from spiritual fornication, including apostasy? He says, Keep away from it![3]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses on the Yahoo! Answers forum said: "Like any normal person, we do not bother to read *purposeful* misrepresentations and *slanderous* material by opposers any more than we care to read pornography."[4]

Apostasy is also death-dealing, and finds its origins with Satan, the author of human death. (Hebrews 2:14) As one source said,

It must be emphasized that while apostasy is a danger for all who drift from the faith (Heb. 2:1-3) and fall away from God (6:6), it is not made complete without constant and willful sinning against the voice of the Holy Spirit (see Mt 12:31, note on sin against the Holy Spirit).[5]

Thus, apostates are opposed to the truth. The Apostle Paul described them as "mentally diseased," in that they debate in an autistic manner, and are "corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth." They may fail to grasp even simple concepts. From them "spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, violent disputes about trifles," and most serious of all, alienation from the holy God of truth.—1 Timothy 6:4-5.

Abbreviations:

JW: Jehovah's Witness(es).
WTS: Watchtower Society, organization used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Footnotes:

[1] Apostasy. p. 34.

[2] January, 2011, page 15. "Was it Designed? The Inverted Retina." (The source being on biology, which quoted "Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?" from the young-earth creationist Institute for Creation Research [ICR], as found on ICR's website: http://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/.)

[3] ‘Do Not Be Quickly Shaken From Your Reason.’ March 15, p. 13 par. 11-12. (Italics original.)

[4] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aov6Dw72Gt5t7f8sC..4pqUjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20091127221123AANlyMr

[5] Full Life Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids Mich, editor Donald Stamp, p. 1918.

Black hole graphic from http://cosmology.com/BlackHoles.html

Additional reading:

2010-11-16T12:01:00.006-05:00

Do You Reject Trinitarianism?
Part II: Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth

How did Mary become pregnant?

According to Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35, Mary became pregnant by holy spirit. These read:

Luke 1:35 - In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Matthew 1:18 - she was found to be [with child] pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.

One source truthfully states:

"The gospels of Matthew (Matthew 1:18) and Luke [1:35] say that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. These gospels, later tradition and current doctrine present Jesus' conception as a miracle involving no natural father, no sexual intercourse, and no male seed in any form, but instead brought about by the Holy Spirit."[1]

According to Trinitarianism, the holy spirit is a person of the Godhead (specifically the third person), and therefore is God.[2]

Let's plug Trinitarian language into Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35, and see what we have (this is how Trinitarianism reads them):

Luke 1:35 - In answer the angel said to her: “God will come upon you, and the Most High God will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Matthew 1:18 - she was found to be pregnant by God before they were united.

If the holy spirit is God, then logically did Mary have sex with God?

It sure sounds like Trinitarianism unwittingly teaches that God had sex with Mary. Doesn't it look like that? It looks like a sexual union of an alien person with a human female, giving the holy spirit the role of an incubus.

If Trinitarianism responds saying that the Holy Spirit Person of God (God the Holy Spirit) used power to make Mary pregnant, then how is that any different from the holy spirit being a spiritual energy, an active force from God fulfilling God's purposes?

As discussed in Part I, Trinitarianism unwittingly denies two crucial Christian truths: the ransom and the divinity of Christ. It also appears that Trinitarianism unwittingly denies another crucial Christian truth, the virgin birth.

Trinitarianism unwittingly denies:

Christ's ransom
Christ's deity
Christ's virgin birth
Christ

Footnotes:

[1] "Virgin birth of Jesus." Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

[2] Trinitarian website: "The Person The Holy Spirit and prayer." http://www.thesanctuarychurch.us/holy_spirit.html
Also the source for the holy spirit graphic (the fiery dove) seen here.

The image of Mary is from My Book of Bible Stories, Story 84, "An Angel Visits Mary." This excellent article may be read here: www.watchtower.org/e/my/article_84.htm

Link to Part I

2010-11-04T12:11:00.051-04:00

Do You Reject Trinitarianism?

For starters, here are reasons why I do:

1) It unwittingly presents an invalid soteriology, as its Jesus did not offer what Adam lost. Adam lost perfect life on earth. The Trinitarian God-man Jesus by definition could not offer a ransom that corresponded to that, for Adam was not a God-man, but a perfect man. (1 Timothy 2:5, 6; 1 Corinthians 15:45) In order for Jesus to buy back what Adam lost, he would (in order to be the true ransomer by definition) have to be a perfect man himself, nothing more, nothing less—in accords with the Mosaic Law. (Refer to Figure 1.)

Figure 1

From You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982) page 63.

According to divine justice as expressed in the Mosaic Law, soul was to be given for soul. (Exodus 21:23; Leviticus 24:18) Since Adam was created as a sinless soul, another sinless soul had to be given in exchange as a ransom: this ransomer would have to correspond to Adam by being a sinless man. Therefore, the Apostle Paul at 1 Timothy 2:6 used the word literally meaning “corresponding ransom,” ἀντίλυτρον; antilutron.[1] The ransomer would have to voluntarily surrender what Adam lost by his disobedience in Eden, perfect human life. Nothing more, nothing less is required to avoid upsetting the soteriological balance. (Romans 5:14, 17) Thus, it was Jesus as the second and last Adam who emptied himself of divine glory (Philippians 2:7) to become what Adam lost: a sinless, perfect human life. (1 Corinthians 15:45) This, his sinless perfect human life, he voluntarily surrendered and sacrificed.

Trinitarianism, in contrast, teaches that Jesus did not fully or really die, as his “divine nature did not die,” only his “properties of divinity” with his human body died.[2] To restate: by being God Almighty, Jesus could not, by definition, fully die. Thus, Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus did not have to fully sacrifice his life. Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matthew 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter’s rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.

2) It violates the laws of physics that the Bible agrees with: the Trinitarian Jesus is “fully man” in the divine realm. As one Trinitarian put it: “Jesus continues to be fully God and fully human—now God in glorified human flesh.”[3] Yet, Jesus said that he is not from our world, that he comes from a transcendent realm (τῶν ἄνω; twn anw), a realm “above” our “lower” realm (τῶν κάτω; twn katw) where our physical bodies cannot enter. (John 8:21, 23) Additionally, there is Jesus’ contrast at Matthew 16:17, where he contrasts “flesh and blood” with his “Father who is in the heavens,” and 1 Corinthians 15:50, where Paul said that “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” “Flesh and blood” is human nature,[4] and it can only exist on earth or in earthly conditions. (See also Psalm 115:16, which confirms the above reasoning that humankind, people of “flesh and blood,” can only live on earth, not in the spirit realm.) Thus, Trinitarianism is at odds with the laws of physics and contradicts Jesus and Paul. It makes Jesus into a fool for retaining his physical, human body and taking it to a place where he said it by definition cannot exist. To assert that Jesus retained his physical human body would be to contradict his earlier teaching in John 8:21, 23. It would also introduce an absurdity and an abstraction, like a two-dimensional being ascending to three-dimensional space and retaining his two-dimensional body. It is absurd and impossible.

3) It turns Jesus’ divinity into an abstraction. He is the second person of the Godhead, yet he is also “fully human” in the divine realm where Jesus and Paul said human flesh cannot exist, harmonizing with the laws of physics. This is the Hypostatic Union doctrine, which says Jesus is fully man and fully divine. This is like someone being fully two-dimensional and fully three-dimensional. It is impossible and absurd.

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is God, but his co-equal Father is also God, and so is the Holy Spirit. It therefore unwittingly denies the divinity of Christ, for it cannot be an abstraction. By making it an abstraction, and an absurdity, it is unwittingly denied, for absurdities are self-refuting and abstractions cannot exist.

Furthermore, merely saying that Jesus’ humanity does not diminish his divinity is prestidigitation, for it certainly does! Take for example a hypostatic union of a fish-bird. Would his fishyness diminish his birdyness, and vice versa? Absolutely!

4) Trinitarianism ignores the Bible teaching of agency. An example of the Bible teaching of agency is the account of Jacob wrestling with an angel in Genesis 32:24-30, and noted in Hosea 12:3, 4. He wrestled with an angel, but it is also said that he wrestled with God face to face. These descriptions are harmonized by the angel represented God Himself. Thus, when Thomas famously declared to the resurrected Jesus “My Lord and my God!”, it can be said that he was speaking in the same sense as Jacob calling the angel God. Jesus represented God like Jacob’s angel. Another example of the Bible teaching of agency is found in Exodus 23:21, where an angel was called Jehovah God. Thus, Jesus is God in the same sense that the angel in Exodus 23:21 was Jehovah God:

Exodus 23:21 in the NWT-Ref reads: Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon YOUR transgression; because my name is within him. [Footnote: That is, the “angel” as Jehovah’s representative, to act in his name.]

Exodus 23:21 in the NET Bible reads: Take heed because of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.
[The footnote on “name” says in part: “Driver quotes McNeile as saying, ‘The “angel” is Jehovah Himself “in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose.”’”]

As Jesus represented his Father and came in his Father’s name (John 5:43; 8:29), it could be said that Jesus is Jehovah God Himself in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose. Again, perhaps this is why Thomas declared “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) It is through the Bible teaching of agency that he is God, for John recorded Thomas’ exclamation “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not literally God himself. (John 20:31)

Thus, the angel of the Exodus was Jehovah representationally, not literally or ontologically. The same with Jesus. He is Lord “to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:11) He honors his God and says “my God” four times as a resurrected being in Revelation 3:12. How Jesus represents God is seen in one of his messianic designations, Immanuel, “With us is God.” This name was also the name of a son in Isaiah’s day, perhaps his own son, and he certainly was not God. (Isaiah 8:18) Yet, Jesus fulfills the full meaning of Immanuel by representing God. As he said in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” Since Trinitarianism does not teach that Jesus and his Father are one person, but two distinct (not separate) persons,[5] Trinitarianism must concede that this declaration does nothing to explain the Trinity.[6] Additionally, the same word for “one” is also used in John 17:21 for Jesus’ disciples. In fact, Jesus himself taught his apostle Philip that he represents his Father and God Jehovah in John 14:9: “He that has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus so perfectly reflects the personality of his Father that living with and observing him is, in effect, like actually seeing the Father. Yet, the Father is superior to the Son, as Jesus acknowledges in the next verse: “The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality.” Jesus properly gives all credit for his teachings to his heavenly Father.[7]

5) Trinitarianism ignores that Jesus is a man experientially, not ontologically. That is why Paul could say in 1 Timothy 2:5 that Jesus is “a man,” but in Galatians 1:1 say that he is ‘not a man.’ Jesus is a man due to his experience of being such on earth, but he does not exist as a man now.

6) Trinitarianism fails to understand that Jesus being “a god” (John 1:1, NWT) alongside his God (Revelation 3:12) is not polytheism but monolatrism, which is Biblical monotheism. It also fails to understand, or include in its theological cognizance, that angels are supernatural beings, therefore by definition they are gods. Yet, Christians do not worship these lesser deities but worship the Father, Almighty God. (John 17:1-5)

7) Trinitarianism fails to understand that God is the source of salvation. Jehovah God is the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11), yet Judges in Israel were saviors, sent by Jehovah the Savior. (Judges 2:16; 3:15) Jesus is our savior, sent by Jehovah the Savior. Jehovah God is the Source of Salvation who sends saviors. Jesus is the final savior sent by the Prime Savior.

Indeed, by way of contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm and openly declare Jesus’ divinity and lordship to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:11) It’s that simple.

(Notice: all definitions of Trinitarianism have come from Trinitarians. I have not referred to Jehovah’s Witnesses or The Watchtower for my beliefs.)

Footnotes:

[1] See also the Concordant Version, which translates antilutron as “correspondent Ransom.” http://www.concordant.org/version/NewFiles/15_FirstTimothy.htm Additionally, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under “Ransom” calls the ‘anti’ preposition “significant.”

[2] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”

http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity-hypostatic-union-and-communicatio-idiomatum

[3] “The Dual Nature of Jesus Christ.” http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature

[4] See for instance Adam Clarke’s Commentary, which states:

This is a Hebrew periphrasis for man, and man in his present state of infirmity and decay. Man, in his present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; his nature is not suited to that place; he could not, in his present weak state, endure an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory. Therefore, it is necessary that he should die, or be changed; that he should have a celestial body suited to the celestial state. The apostle is certainly not speaking of flesh and blood in a moral sense, to signify corruption of mind and heart; but in a natural sense; as such, flesh and blood cannot inherit glory, for the reasons already assigned. http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=015

[5] “The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet not divided (distincti non divisi), different yet not separate or independent of each other (discreti non separati).” McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. 2007. Page 250. http://books.google.com/books?id=tHlY94UWi3UC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA250#v=snippet&q=distincti%20non%20divisi&f=false

Additionally, Trinitarian apologist Matt Slick explains regarding them: "They are not three separate gods and are not three separate beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God." (Italics added) “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.” (http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity-hypostatic-union-and-communicatio-idiomatum) And Trinitarian Kenneth Samples declares that “God is three distinct persons.” (See “What a tangled web we weave” [http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html].)
For another example, see the video “The Trinity Defined and Refuted (Part 1 of 7)” (1:10-1:27) by Sean Finnegan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlFZ9tz0MRA

Trinitarianism appears to be divided on this issue of separate and distinct or distinct only. See “Are the Persons of the Trinity separate and distinct or distinct only?” http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-persons-of-trinity-separate-and.html

[6] The NET Bible footnote for “one,” while promoting Trinitarianism, says: “the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one ‘thing.’ Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity.” While this quoted portion of the footnote is essentially correct (aside from subtly implying that God is an abstract “thing” instead of a person), it is framed in Trinitarian application, for it qualifies their unity as “(unity of essence).” This is a baseless Trinitarian interpretation that fails to take into account the Christian teaching that Jesus was born from a human woman, therefore Jesus was emphatically not the same essence as God his Father. Far from having “trinitarian implications” as the footnote claims, John 10:30 merely shows that Jesus represents his God, and more clearly has agency implications as seen previously in Exodus 23:21 and discussed in point number 4 above. (See “Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth” http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html)

[7] Starting with “Jesus so perfectly…” taken from The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived. Ch. 116. (Used not as an authority on my beliefs, but for its simplicity of expression.)

Bibles used:

New World Translation with References
New English Translation
New American Standard Bible

(A less comprehensive version of this was posted on Yahoo! Answers, but was deleted since some Trinitarians were offended and complained about it. This version is preserved here.)

Introductory Trinitarian diagrams and descriptive artwork are, from left to right:

Scutum Fidei (See “What a tangled web we weave...”
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html)
Triquetra (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triquetra)
Eye of Providence (See “Eye of Providence” http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/05/eye-of-providence-christian-trinitarian.html)

Related blog posts:

Link to Part II: “Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth” http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism-part-ii.html

2010-10-27T17:00:00.003-04:00

Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart

(Video frame is too large, editing its size does nothing. See link below.)

For years I just sort of assumed that cells were self-reproducing blobs of protein. Maybe you did too. Turns out they’re way smarter than that. You will be amazed at this video. Dr. Bonnie Bassler from Princeton University presents a beautiful TED talk on how bacteria communicate with each other by forming words out of simple molecules.
She also explains…

How bacteria strategize together on how to ‘take down’ their host
Elegant systems of bioluminescence
Symbiotic relationships between organisms
Cells speak multiple languages

Enjoy this remarkable presentation. And a sincere thanks to Patrik Beno for sharing it with me.
Perry Marshall
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/intelligent-bacteria/

This is really incredible. Where did the proposed bacterial molecular codes come from?

2010-10-27T12:30:00.006-04:00

Regarding Angelic Direction

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in angelic direction in their ministry per Revelation 14:6, 7, and have stories to back it up. It looks like Mormons do too, only it seems to focus more on the spirit guiding them to searching individuals.[1] Obviously, angels and the holy spirit cannot be guiding searching individuals both to two radically different belief systems.[2] Instead, perhaps we could visualize two agents observing searching individuals. God and Satan. God and his son Jesus send forth their angels to guide their evangelizers, and Satan sends forth his demons to guide his evangelizers. (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) This is very sobering. Are we in a race to reach searching people before Satan's evangelizers do?

eye art by m. c. escher

Footnotes:
[1] Based on an inquiry to Mormons on Yahoo! Answers: "Mormons, do you believe your missionaries have angelic direction?"
[2] Mormonism unwittingly denies Christ's ransom, as it inevitably holds, by logical deduction, that his blood is the product of Adam's transgression in Eden. Therefore, angels and the holy spirit cannot be guiding searching individuals to this anathematic religion.

2010-10-27T12:00:00.017-04:00

Is Satan Lucifer?

From True Peace and Security (1986) page 51

How can this be, since Lucifer is Latin? This linguistic paradox comes from the King James Version (KJV) and the Douay-Rheims translation (DR) of Isaiah 14:12, which reads:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? (DR)

Lucifer is the translation of the Hebrew word helel, "shining one." Helel refers to the "boastful position taken by Babylon's dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar [the Neo-Babylonian dynasty]. (Isa 14:4-21)"[1] Isaiah 14:4 confirms this, saying that verse 12 refers to "the king of Babylon," not Satan. Even the DR above acknowledges this in a footnote, which reads:

"O Lucifer"... O day star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God.

(It seems it would have been more logical to not use "Lucifer" as the name for the "prince of devils," but to use the more common name Satan, as the footnote identifies Lucifer as the historical king of Babylon and as a "day star," not a name.)

A number of Bible translations now though translate the Hebrew word more literally, breaking from the KJV. For instance:

New World Translation (NWT):
O how you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who were disabling the nations!

New English Translation (NET):
Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of the nations!
The footnote for "shining one, son of the dawn" reads in part: "This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler."

New International Version (NIV):
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

New American Standard Bible (NASB):
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

There are a few other Bible translations that do the same in accords with progressive Bible scholarship and more-focused reading comprehension. The name Lucifer must die, and these more accurate translations have helped the cause of truth in this regard.

However, by way of comparison, it should be noted that "this error is compounded in Mormon theology, with Lucifer appearing as a character in the endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple."[2] Indeed, it should also be noted that the LDS or Mormon scriptures have "Lucifer," once in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 24:12, which derives from Isaiah 14:12 KJV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible reads the same.) The last occurrence is in the Doctrine and Covenants 76:26: "And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning." Lastly, the LDS Church version of the KJV has this footnote for Isaiah 14:12 regarding "Lucifer": "HEB morning star, son of dawn. The ruler of the wicked world (Babylon) is spoken of as Lucifer, the ruler of all wickedness." Then it has a "Topical Guide" reference to "Devil."[3] So this is not just a translation issue with the LDS, it is fossilized in their scriptures as divine revelation that Satan has a Latin name Lucifer.[4] The justification for this connection seen in the footnote fails to take into account that Isaiah 14:4-21 refers to "Babylon's dynasty of kings" 'which is clearly depicted as human rulers.' This is not referring to a spiritual Babylon, but to the literal, historical Babylon. A true latter-day revelation from God would not continue a translation mistake and breath life into centuries-old confusion. As Jesus said about God's word: "your word is truth." (John 17:17; Psalm 119:160) It does not preserve mistaken notions. This is more serious than the LDS realize, for it is a damning problem for Mormonism. How can it not be? Instead of "Truth Restored" as they declare, this amounts to "Error Sustained." What a sad, pathetic situation this truly is, for it cannot be corrected without serious ramifications.

Satan surrounds himself in a web of lies.

Can it be said though that Isaiah 14:12 has a spiritual application to Satan? Yes. "Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, its 'king' reflected Satan's own ambitious desire."[1] The subject of Isaiah 14:12 reflected Satan's ambitious desire, but was not Satan. The subject of Isaiah 14:12 is the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. It's that simple.

Footnotes:
[1] Insight on the Scriptures-2, "Satan" p. 868.
[2] Mormon Think. "Joseph's Translation of the Bible: The name Lucifer." http://www.mormonthink.com/jst.htm
See also: Packham, Richard. "Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism." http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#LUCIFER
[3] http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/14/12c

[4] Ironically, the author of the Book of Mormon said there was no Latin in the original manuscripts he allegedly translated from, but "reformed Egyptian." While "Lucifer" could have been written in this alleged "reformed Egyptian," it is impossible that this later Latin translation of helel would have been known by the scribes in the Book of Mormon story.—Smith, Joseph. "Times and Seasons." "Correspondence," Vol. 4, No. 13 [May 15, 1843]: 194. Refer to this scanned page for verification:

(A less-comprehensive version of this was posted on Yahoo! Answers on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, but it was deemed too abusive "per" the terms of use and deleted the same day. Who took exception to this? Was it Mormons? I don't know. I just wanted some feedback on this issue. Other more offensive questions survive there just fine.)

2010-10-15T10:08:00.032-04:00

The Laws of Physics, Scripture, and Things that are Impossible for God.

“All things are possible with God” said Jesus. (Mark 10:27; Matthew 19:26) At the same time, it is “impossible for God to lie.” (Hebrews 6:18; see also Romans 3:4) Clearly then, Jesus meant this hyperbolically. For instance, not only is it impossible for God to lie, and by extension create lies and deceptions, it is also impossible for him to create a god that is more almighty than he is. That is absurd and laughable, yet it illustrates that Jesus’ declaration has reasonable limits to its application. Considering how he used a certain phrase and his descriptions of nature will demonstrate this.

The phrase “flesh and blood” is found three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The first use of it is by Jesus in Matthew 16:17, where he said: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.” By this contrast, we learn that “flesh and blood” refers to human nature, which is not found in heaven. If his Father, God, was flesh and blood as well, that would make his contrast quite defective. This observation would refute the Mormon position that God has a physical body and spirit blood, for such a doctrine would dilute the force of Jesus’ contrast and consequently make him a very poor teacher.

The other two occurrences of this phrase are used by Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:50 and in Galatians 1:16. Both are used in the same sense, referring to human nature. Notice how this is applied in 1 Corinthians 15:50: “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” Regarding this contrast and the meaning of the phrase “flesh and blood,” Adam Clarke’s Commentary states:

This is a Hebrew periphrasis for man, and man in his present state of infirmity and decay. Man, in his present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; his nature is not suited to that place; he could not, in his present weak state, endure an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory. Therefore, it is necessary that he should die, or be changed; that he should have a celestial body suited to the celestial state. The apostle is certainly not speaking of flesh and blood in a moral sense, to signify corruption of mind and heart; but in a natural sense; as such, flesh and blood cannot inherit glory, for the reasons already assigned. (italics original)

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=015

This agrees well with another description of Jesus, found in John 8:21, 23: “I am going away. … Where I am going YOU cannot come. YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world.” Or, as the Bible in Basic English renders the last part: “You are of the earth; I am from heaven: you are of this world; I am not of this world.” Thus, Jesus here was declaring the same principle Paul later declared in 1 Corinthians 15:50, human nature is restricted to the earthly realm. Consequently, when he said “I,” he was referring to his being, his soul, not his physical body.[1] After his resurrection when he appeared with a human body, he was now being controlled by his spirit being, his physical body being a manifestation for teaching. This is seen in the account where he appeared suddenly in a room without entering through a door, which was locked. (John 20:19) During his ascension when “a cloud caught him up from their vision” (Acts 1:9), his physical body was then discarded, like he had done before entering the room.[2]

Regarding Jesus’ human body, Jesus himself explained to his disciples what would happen to it. This account is recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Without going into detail as to what he said exactly, both versions of this event merely say that Jesus would die and then be raised three days later. Matthew’s version though quotes Peter rebuking Jesus, saying in verse 22: “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this [destiny] at all.” With that, both versions have Jesus responding with a swift, stinging counter-rebuke, “Get behind me, Satan, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Mark 8:33) Now, did Jesus believe that his human, physical body would be retained after his ascension? Since Jesus said his physical body belonged to the lower earthly realm, he must have known such a thing is impossible. (See also Psalm 115:16, which Jesus must have read, that declares that human nature can only live on earth, not in the spirit realm.) This agrees with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:50, and Adam Clarke’s comment that ‘human nature is not suited to that place.’ God cannot create contradictions and lies. He cannot create square circles or freezing infernos. He cannot make a physical body inhabit the spirit realm. This axiomatic observation refutes the Trinitarian Hypostatic Union and the Catholic Assumption of Mary[3] doctrines. Regarding the former, a very embarrassing and negative situation exists. Trinitarianism is like Peter rebuking Jesus, “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this destiny at all: you will retain your handsome physical body and it will not be forever mangled or executed!” Jesus’ counter-rebuke would be the same: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Matthew 16:23) This rebuke from Jesus to Trintarianism is unavoidable.

Thus, in review, we can clearly see that both Mormon and Trinitarian theology, along with the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, runs counter to the Laws of Physics that Scripture agrees with. These (the Laws of Physics and Scripture) are two witnesses that rise and refute those doctrines. A third witness is Jesus, who reveals them to be stumbling blocks and thoughts of men alienated from God.—2 Corinthians 13:1.

Footnotes:
[1] In the Bible, the soul is the person, as Adam was a soul and did not have a soul. (Genesis 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:45) Since Jesus however was from heaven and after his resurrection existed as a spirit creature, his soul is more expanded than with ours in that his life or being was not restricted to physical human life. Simply stated, our body is our soul because this is our life.

[2] To assert that Jesus retained his physical human body would be to contradict his earlier teaching in John 8:21, 23. It would also introduce an absurdity and an abstraction, like a two-dimensional being ascending to three-dimensional space and retaining his two-dimensional body. It is absurd and impossible.

[3] This doctrine teaches that after Mary “completed the course of her earthly life, [she] was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” (Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus. November 1, 1950. Paragraph 44. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html) Again, this is analogous to a two-dimensional being ascending to three-dimensional space and retaining his two-dimensional body. It is absurd and impossible.

2010-09-14T11:14:00.000-04:00

Jehovah’s Witnesses release first complete Bible in Ossetian

September 6, 2010
VLADIKAVKAZ, Russia—Saturday August 21, 2010, will be a day long remembered by the Ossetian people who attended the 2010 “Remain Close to Jehovah!” District Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses that was held in Vladikavkaz, Ossetia, where the first complete translation of the Bible into Ossetian was announced. Many of the almost 2,000 in attendance could not hold back tears of joy when they received their free, personal copy of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in Ossetian. Previously, only parts of the Holy Scriptures had been translated into that language.

The literary value of this translation is realized by noting that in February 2009 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) included Ossetian on its list of disappearing languages. The translators feel that the Bible will be of great help to many in Ossetia who desire to see their language continue to be spoken by future generations. Of greater importance is that the translation into modern-day Ossetian will contribute to a deeper understanding of the excelling wisdom of that ancient book.

To date, more than 165,000,000 copies of the New World Translation have been printed, the whole or in part, in 83 languages.
http://www.jw-media.org/rus/20100906.htm

Link to Ossetian: http://www.watchtower.org/oss/index.html

2010-09-03T13:16:00.007-04:00

Verses that seem to prove the Trinity
These explicitly declare that 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God', eternally!

They read:

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Where are these scriptures from? Surprisingly, the first two are from the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 31:21 and Mormon 7:7 respectively, and the third is from the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.

Yet, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) identify the Trinity (or Godhead) as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but with a different intention than the Nicene faith. They regard these three as individual members of a heavenly triumvirate, completely united with one another in purpose—each member of the Godhead being a distinct being of physical form (God the Father, Jesus Christ) or spiritual form (The Holy Ghost.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Non-orthodox_Trinitarianism

A Mormon apostle even declared: "We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings." (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign, Nov 2007, 40–42 link)

So, Trinitarianism rightly rejects Mormonism, but the most explicit expressions of Trinitarianism are Mormon, and Mormonism rejects Trinitarianism.

As my friend Solomon Landers said,

Strange that to find an explicit declaration of the Trinity in a holy book, one has to go, not to the Bible, but to a "heretical" scripture.

2010-09-02T15:26:00.006-04:00

Coptic John 1:1 and the New World Translation
Video made from the audio version and printed edition of the November 1, 2008 issue of The Watchtower, pages 24-25. Both (the printed and audio editions) are published by the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses. This video, however, was done by one of Jehovah's Witnesses and not by the said publishing arm.

Recommended reading: Translating "the Word was a god," 1700 Years Ago (http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/09/translating-word-was-god-1700-years-ago.html)

2010-08-20T13:32:00.003-04:00

Stephen Meyer speaks on Intelligent Design

See this previous post, Does Science Point To A Creator? Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer Debate, for a typical example of Steve being as cool as a cucumber under fire.

There are other videos of him speaking on what he's best known for, Intelligent Design, but the following video is simply a must see, regardless of one's position:

Stephen Meyer vs Peter Ward

While it's a long one, an hour and forty minutes (so get some popcorn and soda ready), it's certainly worth the time to watch. This is amazing!

Lastly, while I usually respect Dan Abrams' opinions, here he fails completely to be objective and fair on his show The Abrams Report. It's very sad and frustrating to watch, yet important to see to be aware of the obstacles that surround a skeptic's heart:

Eugenie Scott vs Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design

2010-08-18T13:05:00.032-04:00

Mormonism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Mormonism expresses much interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This presentation will explain why. First, it must be stated that this interest has made possible the production of a noteworthy, invaluable contribution to the advancement of Dead Sea Scrolls study and scholarship, a CD-ROM known as The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library. This program features actual photographs of the scrolls alongside their translation into standard Hebrew.

“Prepared by the [Mormon] Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, under the editorship of [non-Mormon] Emanuel Tov. …

This third volume of the DSS CD-ROM gives a more complete coverage of all of the published non-biblical DSS materials, including scrolls identified in 2004 and 2005.

Anyone using the CD-ROM will be able to access texts, images, and reference materials quickly and efficiently. The combination of a powerful text search engine and sophisticated image-manipulating software will enable scholars and students unparalleled research possibilities.” http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=25695

Perhaps a future edition of this fine resource will include the biblical DSS materials.

We will now review an article from the above Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship explaining why Mormonism is attracted to the Dead Sea Scrolls. My comments are noted.

Article Review:

“Why the Scrolls Interest People of all Religions?

Around the time of Jesus, the lands of Judea and Galilee were home to a variety of Jews. One group of Jews known as the Essenes (the name in Hebrew means “Saints”) was critical of the temple in Jerusalem, believing it to be operated by an illegitimate priesthood and in need of purification.”

ME: Such an etymology for “Essenes” is far from conclusive and appears to be self-serving, possibly to connect them to the Latter-day Saints by name, as other alleged similarities between them are presented below. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives a compelling etymology, comparing the Essenes to their “kindred sect in Egypt,” the Therapeutae mentioned by Philo. After clarifying that the final “n” in Essene “is due to the desire to render the word suitable for Greek accidence,” it states:

We may say that to us the two most likely derivations are `asiya', “doers” or 'aciya', “healers.” Our preference is for the latter, as one of the characteristics of the Essenes dwelt upon by Josephus is the fact that they were healers by means of herbs and incantations (BJ, II, viii, 6).
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3211

See also the Jewish Encyclopedia on page 224 under “Essenes,” which says, “etymology doubtful.”
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=478&letter=E&pid=0

“They withdrew into the desert and, according to most scholars, settled at Qumran, where they collected, copied, wrote, and eventually hid the writings that later became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Seeing themselves as the only true covenant Israel, the Essenes waited on the Messiah to establish a new kingdom of God in holiness. (As a group they did not accept Jesus Christ as that Messiah.)

In A.D. 68 the Romans destroyed the community at Qumran—but not before its inhabitants concealed their scrolls, which contained important biblical manuscripts and other texts, in 11 nearby caves. In 1947 the first cache of what turned out to be a massive collection of scrolls and scroll fragments was discovered.

Several parallels naturally attract members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes known as Mormons) to the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls and to some of their teachings, even though these two religious groups are not linked with each other directly.

Like the community at Qumran, the Latter-day Saints also strive to live holy lives.”

ME: Unfortunately, and quite ironically, being dishonest over the meaning of Essenes runs contrary to leading a holy life. By dishonest I mean being self-servingly selective and ignoring and not presenting other legitimate possibilities that run counter to one’s agenda.

“At odds with 19th-century American culture, they were persecuted and sought sanctuary in the desert.

Further, one of the Latter-day Saints' sacred books—The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (translated from a record that had been buried in the earth for more than a millennium)—begins with the history of a group of Jews who opposed the rulers in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. and fled into the Arabian desert.”

ME: But this is only based on Mormonism’s claim that Mormonism is true, therefore this is circular reasoning.

“Translated by Mormonism's founding prophet, Joseph Smith, and then published in New York in 1830, the Book of Mormon speaks of additional books prophesied to come forth in the last days to further establish God's truth. Other LDS scripture and teachings reinforce this belief in sacred books yet to be revealed.”

ME: Aside from the circular reasoning of Smith being a translator and prophet, it must be known that Smith was actively expanding the Mormon canon, including his embarrassing partial translation in 1843 of the Kinderhook Plates hoax. Related to this is the Mormon belief that the lost 116 Book of Mormon manuscript pages, otherwise known as the Book of Lehi, will be restored.

“Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon restores the writings of prophets who ministered among the peoples of ancient America. They also believe that the Pearl of Great Price, another book in their sacred canon, contains the writings of Abraham and portions from the book of Moses. They look forward to the coming forth of other ancient texts as well, including those authored by Adam, Enoch, and Joseph.”

ME: Ironically, Joseph Smith claimed he did have the Book of Joseph, but did not translate it. This, along with the Book of Abraham, were claimed to be written on Egyptian papyri in what was later dated to the first-century CE and containing hieratic text (a later cursive version of hieroglyphics)—thus exposing the Book of Abraham as fraudulent. Aside from that, the later-day Mormon prophets have not taken the time to produce the Book of Joseph from the remaining first-century CE hieratic text. Yet, the Mormon intellectuals responsible for this website “look forward to the coming forth” of the impossible-to-produce Book of Joseph. This is incredible irony! Additionally, clearly they must be aware of the pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch also represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. No mention of this?

“It is no wonder, then, that many Latter-day Saints have developed a serious interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

ME: Actually, the existence of a manuscript trail for the Bible is devastating for Mormonism, as it totally lacks one in comparison. The only manuscript trail it has is for the Book of Abraham. But those manuscripts are of no help as the Egyptian papyri post-date both Abraham and Joseph by a ridiculous amount of time!

“Like the Book of Mormon, the scrolls acquaint the world with a people lost to history—a people whose recovered writings, buried in the earth for centuries, now enables them to “speak out of the ground” and “whisper out of the dust” (Isaiah 29:4).”

ME: Of course, this comparison is based on Mormon claims being true about itself, which is circular reasoning.

“Although the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the lost records the Latter-day Saints await,”

ME: Like the Lost 116 Pages/Book of Lehi.

“they are of great interest to LDS scholars and others. The scrolls provide not only new information about the transmission of the Old Testament but also greater evidence for the variety of beliefs and practices within Judaism shortly before and after the time of Jesus Christ.

More generally, the Latter-day Saints view the scrolls' discovery as part of a wider pattern of increasing knowledge about the Bible lands and their people that the Lord is making available for study in this day.”

ME: Thus widening the gap between Mormonism and the Bible. How ironic then that “the Lord” is responsible for making this available for study!

“Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscript finds (e.g., the Nag Hammadi library from Egypt and scrolls from ancient Herculaneum and Petra) augur well for discoveries of religious import in the near future. For the LDS faithful, such manuscript finds are a significant part of the fulfillment of prophecy, even if the finds are but prelude to greater discoveries and revelations to come.”
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/dss/interest.html

The February 2006 Ensign Magazine

This official LDS magazine carried the article on page 44, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Later-Day Truth.” On page 46 it displayed a popular illustration of the beardless Jew Moroni burying the golden plates in a New York State hill, with this caption:

The discovery of a copper scroll at Qumran gives significant credibility to Joseph Smith’s claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from metal plates engraved by Moroni.

(This is repeated in the text on page 47.) This copper scroll is codified as 3Q15, and is popularly known simply as “the Copper Scroll.” However, contrary to the above Mormon claim, it most certainly adds little or nothing to the credibility of Joseph Smith’s claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from engraved metal plates. Four reasons for this are:

Detailed histories were never recorded on metal sheets like the alleged Book of Mormon gold plates.
3Q15 is a treasure map, and likely a fictional one at that.
3Q15 is composed of three copper sheets riveted together and rolled into a scroll, not bound into a book by rings like the alleged Mormon gold plates. (Refer to figure 1.)
Even if 3Q15 was a lengthy history, how in the world would that add credibility to Joseph Smith’s claim to have translated the Book of Mormon?

Figure 1

A portion of the Copper Scroll 3Q15 (top) and a Mormon restoration of the alleged Mormon gold plates (bottom).

The “Gold Plates” from: “A Model of the Plates,” New Era, July 2007, 32.

This is a wildly sensational claim, and it can only hurt the credibility of the ones responsible for the production of this magazine article. Perhaps then it is not surprising that the article, while accurate in places, also falls victim to circular reasoning so typical of Mormonism. The same page declares:

Joseph Smith’s experience with ancient buried records is exemplified by the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as well as the Book of Abraham.

There is actually no independent verification or substantiation for the alleged discovery of a golden archive in a hill in New York State. Secondly, the surviving papyri associated with the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with Abraham, both textually and chronologically. Yet, these two books are used in comparison with the factual, documented discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Amazing. Why is Mormonism so resistant to lucid thought?

An Alma Scroll?
From June 29, 2007 to January 6, 2008 the Natural History Museum of San Diego, California sponsored a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition. This exhibition also displayed related collections, such as the Bar Kokhba scrolls of the Second Jewish Revolt. Regarding one scroll from this later collection, there is a curious mention of Mormonism in its museum description in the last paragraph:

8. Papyrus Bar Kokhba 44—the Alma Scroll
5/6Heb 44
Scroll type: Simple deed
Date: 28 Marheshvan, Year 3 of Revolt (134 CE)
Language: Hebrew
Discovered: Cave of the Letters, Nahal Hever, 1961

This scroll demonstrates that people outside the Qumran community also hid scrolls in the mudstone caves. It is a lease agreement, which dates to 134 CE, after the destruction of the Qumran settlement by Roman soldiers. It describes a transaction for land previously owned by the government of Simeon Bar Kosiba (Bar Kokhba); leader of the second Jewish Revolt against the Romans (132-135 CE). The document mentions Bar Kokhba by name and as the “Prince of Israel,” a historical reference to his brief tenure as leader in this period.

Latter-day Saints find this scroll of particular interest, because it specifies “Alma son of Judah” as one of the people involved in the agreement on the fourth line and at the bottom of the document. This text contains the oldest known occurrence of the name “Alma” outside of the Book of Mormon.
http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html

One Mormon explained further why the second-century “Alma Scroll” is important for them:

For over a hundred years the name Alma in the Book of Mormon has been used as “proof” that the Book was a fraud because Alma is of Latin origin and female in gender. Bar Kokhba 44 shows early semitic [sic] and male use for Alma which completely counters the argument.
“Fe2O3” at http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2007/07/dead-sea-scrolls-and-logical-fallacy-of.html (July 20, 2007)

Unfortunately, it appears the Natural History Museum of San Diego was using a marketing ploy to attract Mormons to its manuscript exhibition, as the translation of “Alma” is not as secure as Mormons would like it to be. Three months after “Fe2O3” provided that explanation, the following critique of the exhibition was published:

Norman Golb
The University of Chicago
22 October 2007
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AS TREATED IN A RECENTLY PUBLISHED CATALOGUE

(Page 17) The catalogue calls this interesting autograph deed “The ‘Alma’ Scroll,” offering the curious, but hardly scientific, explanation that it is of special interest to Mormons because one of the names mentioned in it is “Alma son of Judah,” which is “the oldest known occurrence of this name that is also found in the Book of Mormon.” While Yigael Yadin spelled the name this way in a 1962 publication, the scientific edition of the Nahal Hever papyri (Jerusalem 2002, p. 45) transcribes the term as Allima, indicating (p. 47) that while the vocalization is uncertain, the name may reflect the Aramaic term meaning “the strong one.” Indeed, the catalogue’s author used the 2002 publication for the translation of the second text (Papyrus Bar Kokhba 46, pp. 36-37), and could thus hardly have avoided noticing how the same work’s translation of the first papyrus differed from Yadin’s pioneering, but only tentative, effort of forty years earlier. Instead of the misleading no-holds-barred method by which the Mormon-Alma theme is introduced, the author could surely have found a reasonable way, particularly given the sumptuous amount of blank space, to inform readers of the difference of opinion.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/dss_review_sandiego_catalogue_2007.pdf

Thus, the ones responsible for this Mormon-attracting description should have been more cautious and less sensational, less interested in marketing for Mormons and more interested in intellectual integrity. Additionally, Bar Kokhba 44 does not show early Semitic and male use for Alma, therefore the argument has not been completely countered and remains intact.

In summary, Mormonism has produced the invaluable Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library of the non-biblical texts. However, the article by the same institution that produced this work ignored the fact that there is no manuscript trail for Mormonism like there is for the Bible. Additionally, it has been shown that (1) 3Q15, while composed of text engraved on copper sheets rolled into a scroll, offers no credibility to the Mormon claim of having a lengthly history engraved on golden sheets bound by three rings. (2) The non-DSS Papyrus Bar Kokhba 44 in fact offers only disputed support for the historicity of the male name Alma. Thus, the Mormon interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls is appreciated on one hand, and ironic on the other.

2010-08-17T09:13:00.005-04:00

Does Science Point To A Creator? Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer Debate

Excellent exchange.
Introduced, moderated, and concluded by Lee Strobel.

Regarding the "who created the creator" dilemma, I would like to point out that a proposed "universal designer," a personal Prime Reality, must operate on a level where our rules may not apply. Therefore, that dilemma is premature. One commentator said regarding this:

Here [the atheist] ignores the possibility that God is a very different sort of being than brains and computers. His argument for God’s complexity either assumes that God is material or, at least, that God is complex in the same general way that material things are (having many parts related in complicated ways to one another).
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?ref=opinion

But, that is an unsafe assumption, and may just be a distraction from the "heavy commitment" of believing in a universal designer.

Also mentioned, not by name, is the 'god of the gaps' issue. That is, attributing a divine cause to something before science can give a perfectly rational natural explanation for it. Thus, 'god' rules over our gaps in knowledge. This is applicable for many things. For instance, we do not attribute divine causality to lightning or earthquakes. But its applicability has limits, specifically, on the cause of information. Information is specified complexity. Mount Rushmore contains specified complexity of recognizable men's faces. Biological information is no different. This is an axiom that will survive the heated and fiery controversy over life's origins.

2010-08-13T13:55:00.018-04:00

Carl Sagan on belief

In 1986, the late Carl Sagan (1934-1996) published these comments in his national bestseller book, Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science:

Page 332
Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those that make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions.

But not always. One prominent American religion [clearly referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses] confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and—while the events of that year were certainly of some importance—the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, “Oh, did we say ‘1914’? So sorry, we meant ‘2014.’ A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren’t inconvenienced in any way.” But they did not. They could have said, “Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth.” But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn’t noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or (page 333) they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.

Let’s break this down:

One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914.

It was calculated that the ‘seven Gentile Times’ would end in 1914. How that would effect the world was not completely understood. For instance, The Watch Tower issue of October 15, 1913 stated on page 307: “We think of October, 1914, as, in round numbers, the ending of the Gentile Times. …We say that according to the best chronological reckoning of which we are capable, it is approximately that time—whether it be October, 1914, or later. Without dogmatizing, we are looking for certain events: (1) The termination of the Gentile Times—Gentile supremacy in the world—and (2) For the inauguration of Messiah’s Kingdom in the world.” (italics original)

This modesty was expressed early in 1914, as seen in The Bible Students Monthly (Volume VI, No. 1, published early in 1914). There, the one taking the lead, Charles Russell, wrote: “If we have the correct date and chronology, Gentile Times will end this year—1914. What of it? We do not surely know. Our expectation is that the active rule of Messiah will begin about the time of the ending of the lease of power to the Gentiles. Our expectation, true or false, is that there will be wonderful manifestations of Divine judgments against all unrighteousness, and that this will mean the breaking up of many institutions of the present time, if not all.” He emphasized that he did not expect the “end of the world” in 1914 and that the earth abides forever, but that the present order of things, of which Satan is ruler, is to pass away. (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 635.)

Notice also what Russell announced on Friday morning, October 2, 1914, as he strode into the dining room at Bethel in Brooklyn, New York: “The Gentile times have ended; their kings have had their day.” It was not, “the world will now end,” or something to that effect. (The Watchtower, November 1, 2007, page 24.)

Well, 1914 has come and gone, and—while the events of that year were certainly of some importance

That’s an understatement! The pre-1914 world, with its romantic ideals of the future, came to a crashing halt. “The events that took place from and after the year 1914 C.E. are well-known history to all, beginning with the great war that erupted, the first world war in mankind’s history and the first to be fought over the issue, not of the domination of Europe alone, nor of Africa, nor of Asia, but of the domination of the world.” (Insight on the Scriptures, “Appointed Times of the Nations,” page 135.) (italics original)

the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended.

Depends on which world you’re talking about. Russell never meant planet earth, rather he meant the termination of “Gentile supremacy in the world.” (See the 1913 Watch Tower above.) However, related to this prediction was a hope of entering heaven. It is this hope that was premature and that did not materialize.

They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn’t noticed, that was our lookout.

Does this claim match with history? On the contrary, The Watch Tower of April 15, 1916, stated on page 127: “We believe that Gentile Times have ended, and that God is now allowing the Gentile Governments to destroy themselves, in order to prepare the way for Messiah’s Kingdom. The Lord did not say that the Church would all be glorified by 1914. We merely inferred it and, evidently, erred.” This sums up the post-1914 reaction perfectly. Mr. Sagan is thus guilty of misrepresentation.

It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all.

Based on the above, it becomes rather transparent that Mr. Sagan has, intentionally or unintentionally, constructed a straw man. While his description of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 1914 is sensational and easy to drink down, it simply does not square with reality, specifically, with the total gravity of World War I starting in 1914 that he willfully ignored. It was also quite myopic to focus on the hopes of 1914 alone in a vacuum. Obviously there were other teachings of this religion that carried its members through the disappointment of not entering heaven. Did he take the time to research those? If he pondered them, then his sensationalism would have settled down and he would not have found it as “astonishing” that the faith survived.

It must be noted that Mr. Sagan was evidently agnostic. Agnosticism is unsure if information comes from a mind or not. That is patently absurd, as is atheism, the belief that information does not have to come from a mind. It is agnosticism and atheism that produce transparent evasions to the truth that information has to come from a mind; therefore it is astonishing that those have any adherents at all.

Regarding his introductory challenge, “doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those that make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions,” we have seen that the prediction of the world changing in 1914 was correct. Likewise, we have seen that the predictions of agnosticism and atheism have proven false—as information can only come from an intelligent source, a mind. By way of comparison, deism can make no predictions, theism has made correct predictions, and agnosticism and atheism have made false predictions. Therefore, theism is more compelling.

religions are tough.

This is correct. This applies also to agnosticism and atheism. Some belief systems have been completely dismantled and refuted, like Mormonism, Trinitarianism, even agnosticism and atheism. Yet, these are tough-minded systems that continue to flourish.

Disbelief is easier than belief, until the disbelief becomes a belief. Atheism is a disbelief that has become a belief. It has become as tough-minded as refuted religious systems like Mormonism and Trinitarianism.

near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.

Again, this is also true of the belief system of disbelief, agnosticism and atheism. It is also true of the unscientific religions of Mormonism and Trinitarianism. But it is not true of the scientific theism of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who place scholarly, scientific readings of the Bible over loyalties to the fallible doctrines of man.

This presentation has not only exposed the contentions in Broca’s Brain as less-than-cerebral, but it has also turned the tables on it, using its arguments against agnosticism and atheism, and vindicating theism in the process.

<<<<<>>>>>
Answering a fool in harmony with or “according to his foolishness” in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool’s unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, we are counseled by the proverb: “Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness.” On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial.

(Insight on the Scriptures, “Fool”)

Additional reading:

The Problem with “False Prophecy” Polemics
http://jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html
The Test of a Prophet
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-of-prophet-god-provided-means-of.html
False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/false-prophecy-or-misguided.html

2010-07-22T16:27:00.003-04:00

The Philistines Enter Canaan: Were They Egyptian Lackeys or Invading Conquerors?
by Bryant G. Wood PhD
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/07/12/The-Philistines-Enter-Canaan-Were-They-Egyptian-Lackeys-or-Invading-Conquerors.aspx

Fascinating!

2010-07-21T16:08:00.019-04:00

Does The Trinity Make Sense?

My comments.

In this two-part debate between Trinitarian Dr. William Lane Craig and Rabbi Tovia Singer, moderated by Trinitarian Lee Strobel, Dr. Craig says that the holy spirit is "separate and distinct" as a person (in Part 2 at 3:48-50), something that some Trinitarians would disagree with and specify that it is only distinct as a person and not a separate person. He also said that the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, but that it's important to Trinitarians because the Trinity it true (in Part 1). I'm sorry Dr. Craig but this is no place for circular reasoning. The rabbi was all over him for admitting that about the OT. How could Abraham and Daniel, God's friends, not know about the Trinity? How could mankind be ignorant of the Trinity for thousands of years until the church councils? And now people have to believe in it or they will burn in hell? While it is true that Jesus' ransom is retroactive, that is, it applies to people who died before the ransom, Rabbi Singer was not asking that. Dr. Craig did not address his actual question of how OT people could not know about the Trinity and still be God's friends. What kind of friend fails to tell you who he really is? Therefore the Trinity teaching dishonors God. The rabbi was right that it also dishonors Jesus. They could have learned from him.

Strobel concluded the debate by dismissively and confidently telling Rabbi Singer to go read his book on why he still believes in the Trinity. You can tell that Rabbi Singer had them both in the hot seat.

Concerning Dr. Craig's use of John 20:28-29, I would like to point out that he did not include verse 31, where John himself tells us what Thomas' famous expression "My Lord and my God!" meant, namely, "that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." So, to repeat, Thomas' exclamation informs us that Jesus is the Son of God, not God himself. He functioned as "God" to Thomas, like Moses functioned as God to others, but Thomas still believed that Jesus was the agent representing God in God's behalf. If Thomas literally believed that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense, then he would have been more accurate to declare, "My Lord and my God as the second person of the Godhead with human and divine natures in hypostatic union!" Did Thomas believe that? Or did he believe that Jesus was God's agent with OT precedent? Not to mention the complete convoluted mess the Trinity makes with soteriology. (See Reasoning From the Scriptures page 213.)

Addendum:
Dr. William Lane Craig, to his credit, also said this in a debate with Christopher Hitchens on April 4, 2009: "I'm sure that there are views that I hold that are probably false. But I'm trying my best to get my theology straight, trying to do the best job..." (This statement was found in a full-length video posted on YouTube, seen on February 1, 2011, appearing at 1:31:57.) I can only hope that he truly applies his humble admission and rejects Trinitarianism like he rejects Reformed Theology as "false preaching," as he said in the debate. (This debate may be purchased here on DVD: http://wisdom.biola.edu/admin/cart/apol2/checkout_step0.cfm?Products=617)

Link to Part 1
Link to Part 2

2010-07-21T15:20:00.005-04:00

Does The Trinity Make Sense? (2of2) Rabbi Tovia Singer vs William Lane Craig Debate

Link to Part 1
Link to My Comments

2010-07-21T15:19:00.003-04:00

Does The Trinity Make Sense? (1of2) Rabbi Tovia Singer vs William Lane Craig Debate

Link to Part 2
Link to My Comments

2010-06-29T10:45:00.003-04:00

Is Mormonism right that Jesus visited the Americas after his ascension? Part 2

In my earlier post here, we read Acts 3:20-21 in the JST and how this teaches that Jesus did not leave heaven after his ascension, thus he did not come to the Americas and the Book of Mormon contradicts the JST on this pivotal point.

Now we will consider some supporting scriptures, the first being John 14:19. This says in the JST:

"Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also."

This reads the same as the KJV. Other translations offer clearer readings, like the NASB:

"After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also."

The NWT (New World Translation) reads similarly:

"A little longer and the world will behold me no more, but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live."

Jesus uttered these words before his sacrificial death. What did he mean? Simply put, Jesus will be in the spirit realm where no human can peer into. Additionally, Jesus will appear to them in human form after his resurrection, but before his ascension 40 days later (Acts 1:9), and at the appointed time he will resurrect them to life with him in heaven as fellow spirit creatures.

Thus, there is no time for Jesus to return to earth after his ascension before his apostles are in heaven. Again, the JST agrees with this, maintaining this conspicuous contradiction within the Mormon canon.

Another event that seems to support this is recorded in the Synoptics (Matthew 26:29 [JST 26:26], Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18), where Jesus said "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall come and drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom," in Matthew, or in Luke: "For I say unto you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." The point seems clear, and is harmonious with John 14:19, that there is no time for Jesus to return to earth after his ascension before his apostles are in heaven.

Apparently, when Joseph Smith prepared his new inspired translation, he did not think these scriptures through to their logical conclusion, and unintentionally contradicted himself on this defining point.

2010-06-25T12:19:00.009-04:00

Is Mormonism right that Jesus visited the Americas after his ascension?

A popular depiction of the Mormon teaching of Jesus appearing to Americans. Does this harmonize with Bible teaching that Joseph Smith agreed with? Or is there an unsolvable contradiction?

Acts 3:20-21 in the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) says about Jesus:

"20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom ye have crucified; 21 Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

This reads the same as the KJV for verse 21:

"Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

Thus, Joseph Smith unintentionally preserved the teaching that Jesus must remain in the heavens until all Bible promises are fulfilled, and consequently, unintentionally contradicted himself.

The NIV: "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything."

Additional points to consider are in Part 2: http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-mormonism-right-that-jesus-visited_29.html

2010-06-08T12:04:00.008-04:00

Recently here I have been blogging on Trinitarian symbology and mechanics:

To recap, the Trinitarian apologist may say:

'in terms of what God is, God is one and only one divine being. But in terms of who God is, God is three distinct persons: one what and three whos.'

This line of reasoning may be extended further to Jesus, the second 'who' of the 'what,' or second person of the Trinity godhead. It may be applied this way: 'in terms of who Jesus is, Jesus is one and only one person. But in terms of what Jesus is, Jesus is two natures, the human (outside of earth's atmosphere) and divine, in hypostatic union. Question: does Jesus have to micromanage his human nature to keep it intact? He must since it is in a place it was not designed for, being outside of the atmosphere. Why then retain it? He never had it before his earthly sojourn. So now, upon his return to heaven, he has additional work of micromanaging his human nature? That pushes credulity beyond the breaking point. The term "hypostatic union" is just a band-aid to cover this absurdity, making it appear more believable. As such, it fits perfectly with the warning in 2 Peter 2:3 of πλαστοῖς λόγοις (plastois logois), "made-up words."

Consider too, in Revelation 3:12 the risin Jesus in heaven says "my God" four times. Is this his human nature being micromanaged by the second who (Jesus) praising the first who (the Father), or praising the godhead 'what'?

Which is more believable, that or this: Jesus has a God. Two different individuals are in view, just as in Daniel 7:13 where the son of man and the Ancient of Days are two different individuals. It's as clear as day!

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html (The scriptural reasoning there is all flawed, but it is included here for additional explanation of the hypostatic union. Pointedly, it states: "The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works." This is weak-minded, uncritical thinking. In a word, unconvincing!)

2010-05-25T16:56:00.003-04:00

Eye of Providence

"A Christian [Trinitarian] version of the Eye of Providence, emphasizing the triangle representing the Trinity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

The Eye must represent God as a united person, the three sides representing the three persons of God: the Father, the Son in Hypostatic Union with his Human and Divine natures, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches "the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinity

This Trinity Triangle Eye has been used in art as well. See the above Wikipedia article.

2010-05-01T06:57:00.002-04:00

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures

This interlinear Bible is (still) available for ordering. It's a Special Request item still, and that's all I know.

2010-04-14T15:10:00.002-04:00

From the latest Nature magazine:
(Nature 15 April 2010 Volume 464 Number 7291 pp957-1094)

Phosphate oxygen isotopic evidence for a temperate and biologically active Archaean ocean p1029

It has been thought that ocean temperatures during the early Palaeoarchaean era (around 3.5 billion years ago) were 55–85 °C. But a recent study indicated that the temperatures might be no higher than 40 °C. Here, studies are reported of the oxygen isotope compositions of phosphates in sediments from the 3.2–3.5-billion-year-old Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa. The findings indicate a well-developed phosphorus cycle and evolved biological activity in an Archaean ocean with temperatures of 26–35 °C.

Ruth E. Blake, Sae Jung Chang and Aivo Lepland

Amazing how they can determine all of these things. (Just mentally replace "evolved" with "developed" if you have a problem with that. Thanks.)

2010-04-13T15:11:00.006-04:00

Trinity Modeling Kit!
Make your own model of the Trinity as a three-sided pyramid!
http://www.sundayschoolkids.com/activities-trinity-god/0-pyramid-1activity.htm

It can also be modified to reflect the structure and teachings of the "Shield of the Trinity":

Designate a capstone and label it "God." This label can appear on all three sides.
Under the capstone designate a belt to be labeled "Is" on all three sides.
Along the three edges add a parallel line about an inch away from the edge, and label this "Is Not." One option is to have "Is" on one side and "Not" on the joining side. Or, "Is Not" could be written on each side to appear twice along each edge.
Label the remaining three sides "Son" or "Jesus," "Father," and "Holy Ghost."

Now we have a three-dimensional pyramidal model of the Trinity! How easy it is now to visualize how the Son is not the Father but is God like the Father is not the Son and is not the Holy Ghost but is God!

For further accuracy, you can add more vital information on the side labeled "Son" or "Jesus." Since Jesus has two natures, the divine and physical or human, you can draw a line from "Is Not" to "Is Not," dividing it roughly in half. Then, divide the lower space in half vertically. With the top portion labeled "Son" or "Jesus," label the lower portions "Human Nature" and "Divine Nature" however you wish. Have a vertical label in between the lower two portions labeled "Is Not," perhaps adding "(Hypostatic Union)." Then have a horizontal label on the horizontal division labeled "Is." For further clarification, you may add in parentheses under "Human Nature" "(Outside of Earth's atmosphere)" as Jesus' human nature is in hypostatic union with his divine nature in the heavenly realm and not on earth. How clearly this illustrates Jesus' Dual Nature of the hypostatic union! Be sure to show your neighbors your Trinity Pyramid! But be careful not to worship it, as that would be idolatry!

2010-04-07T14:19:00.008-04:00

What a tangled web we weave...

Handcolored woodcut, ca. 1500, origin unknown

This is the Shield of the Trinity.^[1] What is the Trinity? Trinitarian Kenneth Samples, in typical Trinitarian apologetic fashion, defines it like this:

Unlike traditional Judaism and Islam, the God of Christianity possesses a unique and mysterious plurality of personhood within its single divine essence. In other words, while God is one in being, he nevertheless exists as three distinct persons (or centers of consciousness). One way of expressing this special monotheism is to say that God is "one what and three whos." That is, in terms of what God is, God is one and only one divine being. But in terms of who God is, God is three distinct persons.^[2]

What? Such a description tends to turn God into a cold abstraction. The truth is, God is one and only one divine being. He alone is almighty. His Chief Agent^[3] though is a separate person, and manifested himself on earth as Jesus. This is very simple and has the ring of truth, unlike the Trinitarian explanation above. The Shield of the Trinity therefore has gaping holes large enough for the spear of truth to pass unhindered.

Footnotes:
^[1] Also known as the Scutum Fidei, meaning "Shield of the Faith."
^[2]What Makes the Christian God Unique? http://www.reasons.org/what-makes-christian-god-unique (italics original)
^[3] Greek arkhegon found in Acts 3:15; 5:31 and Hebrews 2:10; 12:2.

2010-03-05T12:57:00.001-05:00

Mormonism teaches nonsense about Adam and Eve. What its Adam lost Jesus couldn't give. Therefore, there is no salvation in Mormonism.

2010-02-08T11:16:00.002-05:00

Why my website is gone

As can be seen by visiting http://geocities.yahoo.com/, GeoCities closed all of its free websites. This occured on Monday October 26, 2009.

2010-02-05T14:55:00.001-05:00

The Trinitarians who use the erroneous John 8:58-Exodus 3:14 connection are forced into maintaining a very unchristian and narrow circle of reasoning that is simply ludicrous and self-damning.

"Before Abraham was, I am." To see how silly this translation is, replace "I am" with another designation, like "almighty" or "God": "Before Abraham was, almighty" "Before Abraham was, God." Yet, Trinitarian apologists maintain this ludicrous and self-damning translation and then accuse other more readable translations of being insulting to Jesus when in fact their preferred translation makes Jesus a babbling fool.

2010-01-05T19:36:00.012-05:00

JEHOVAH'S LOVING KINDNESS!
This talk is wonderful. It's given in an enthusiastic manner in the recording I have.

I tell you now we are going to talk about something ....

You know very little about if you will ever........ understand it.. We are going to talk about Jehovah's loving kindness!

He [Daniel Sydlik - Governing Body member] said: There is a new king in Israel and it's king David.. Now usually whenever there is a new king, it's a joyful time for the new king and a horrible time for the old king because all the boys in the family of the old king would be wiped out for fear they would come back for revenge or reprisal. But it's a new king in Israel. And David did something that was shocking. No other king had done this before. It's unprecedented.

Turn to second Samuel chapter 9. Look at verse 1. This is what David said and he is picturing Jehovah God. "and David proceeded to say is there anyone left over from the house of Saul that I may exercise loving kindness to him for the sake of Jonathan?"

He is looking for someone of that household to show loving kindness to.

Next verse: "Now the house of Saul had a servant whose name was Ziba. So they called him to David, and the king then said to him: 'Are you Ziba?' to which he said: 'I am your servant.'

Now what Ziba is telling him is: I am your man. I have served in a house of royalty. I know what goes on in the house of a king. I know how to run the house of a king. I know who belongs here.

Vs. 3 'Is there nobody of the house of Saul anymore, that I may exercise toward him the loving-kindness of God?' (You see it's Jehovah's loving kindness)

At this Ziba said to the king: 'There is yet a son of Jonathan, lame in the feet.'

Vs 4 Then the king said to him: 'Where is he?' So Ziba said to the king: 'Look! He is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel at Lo-debar.' ...

Brother Sidlik said: Lodebar! that was the ghetto... No one but cripples and undesirables live there. No one else wanted to live there. Zi'ba is saying: Now hold on king! Don't go too far! I know what belongs in the house of royalty. The only one who's left of the house of Jonathan is his son. He's a cripple, he doesn't belong here. In fact he lives in Lodebar.

David said: That's the man that I am looking for. You go and get him and you bring him to this house. That's who I'm looking for to show loving kindness to. It's the loving kindness of God. Me·phibo·sheth was crippled because his nurse dropped him accidentally and from then on he was lame in both of his feet. The king is telling Zi'ba 'that's the man, go and get him because that's the man I am looking for.'

Next brother Sydlik picks up a bell and says 'dinner time in David's house.'

At dinner time at David's house who would you expect to see? Who dines at the table of a king? It would be David and all of his children.

Now beauty ran in David's family. His son Absalom was so good looking that they cut his hair only once a year and his hair alone weighed 5lbs. The Bible says that no man was as beautiful as Absalom. And he was sitting at David's table and it's dinner time at the king's table.

He had a sister named Tamar. The Bible says she was so good looking that her own brother raped her and beautiful Tamar was also at David's table.

Who else was at David's table? There was wise Solomon probably reading a book. There were David's 2 nephews Abishi and Joab, mighty warriors, courageous men. The Bible says Joab was cute! And they both take their seat at the table.

Then the next person comes in. It's a cripple! IN WALKS A CRIPPLE! With all of this beauty at the table, in walks a cripple!!!

That's when brother Sydlik lowered the boom on us... no one will ever forget that talk because it demonstrated Jehovah's loving kindness.

He told us we are all crippled brothers. Adam and Eve dropped every one of us... we are all crippled......... We are all messed up.

We have frailties and infirmities we don't want anyone to know. We make it hard on each other to stay at the table because we look at each other and say 'he doesn't belong at this table.' We are hard on each other. We make it hard to sit at the table. We say things like 'I know he's not coming to the table". "She needs to quit ". We look at a brother and say 'he's not gonna make it'. You see we are hard on each other at that table. And we live in Lodebar. No mater how much you pay for your mortgage, we are living in a filthy world. It's beneath Jehovah. It's the ghetto.

Now Mephibosheth, he couldn't understand how the king wanted him to sit at his table.

Isn't that the way we are? We can't appreciate Jehovah's loving kindness. We can't understand it. There are things about us we don't want anyone to know. We compromised. We capitulated. We went back at times and we don't want anybody to know that. We don't understand Jehovah's loving kindness.

We tell people 'there are things about me you just don't know'. And when we receive commendation we tell people 'if you really knew how I was you wouldn't say that, so now I feel worse.'

Did you know that there are some people who serve God yet pray that they can just die?

We feel we are not worthy to be at Jehovah's table... We can't understand Jehovah's loving kindness. Mephibosheth, he couldn't understand it and many times he would look around the table and say to David 'let me leave, I can't measure up'.

And David would say 'stay at the table'. Mephibosheth looked at Tamar's beauty and asked to leave the table and David said 'stay at the table'. He looked at wise Solomon and said 'let me leave the table' and David said 'stay at the table'.

He looked at mighty Joab and felt unworthy and asked to leave but David said 'stay at the table'.

Now in Israel, one of the "worst" things was to be a dog. Mephibosheth said at second Samuel chap 9 vs.. 8 'And he said what is your servant that you have turned your face to the dead dog! Such as I am. I am not even a dog. I am a dead dog... why are you showing loving kindness to me?'

Do you ever feel that way? You see, if you only knew the love that Jehovah has for us, if you could only understand the work and effort and appreciation the faithful slave has for you, If you could only appreciate that it's not just a group of men printing literature in a building, they recognize the loving kindness of God.

Sure, you have done wrong and you have been disciplined. You have had hard times. Regardless of what you have done, regardless of how you feel... just stay at Jehovah table. Jehovah is not limited. He's not like humans...

As humans we remember things and we will never let you live it down. We say things like, 'I know what he did in 1983 and I knew him back in the day'. Girl... .. Jehovah's not that way. Manasseh did what was bad on a grand scale. He sinned against Jehovah. Jehovah not only restored him, he forgave him and made him king again. That's the God we serve! Jehovah says: 'don't be mindful of what these humans keep against you.' Jehovah says: 'I am not that way....' A struggling person is not a bad person ... We are just struggling. That's all. You are not bad.. Just remain faithful and stay at Jehovah's table.

40,000 a year become inactive. They leave Jehovah's table. Are we making it hard for them to stay at Jehovah's table? Many try to come back. At the Memorial, are we making it hard for them to stay at God's table? Are we making them feel like a dead dog? You see we are all crippled brothers ... Adam and Eve dropped everyone of us. Let's make it comforting and encouraging to stay at Jehovah's table. Regardless of what you've done, regardless of how you feel never think Jehovah won't forgive you, because Jehovah is actively looking for people like us to show loving kindness to.

Now the thing about this table is they would usually have these long skirts like table cloths and the skirt would cover everything below the table. It would cover everybody's legs. When Mephibosheth as a cripple sat at the table it would cover his legs and he would be just like everyone else. All his frailties and infirmities were covered as long as he stayed at Jehovah's table!!

That skirt pictures the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ .... Jehovah's telling us that I have you covered at this table. Don't leave, just stay at the table. You have all the covering... You have all you need .... I don't even see your frailties. I have been looking for people like you to show loving kindness to.

2nd Samuel chap 9 vs.. 11: very encouraging, 'So Ziba said to the king: 'In accord with all that my lord the king commands for his servant is the way that your servant will do; but Mephibosheth is eating at my table like one of the sons of the king.' It was Jehovah loving kindess.

VS 13 'And Mephibosheth himself was dwelling in Jerusalem, for it was constantly at the table of the king that he was eating; and he was lame in both of his feet.'

Mephibosheth stayed at that table. He stayed at God's table. Mephibosheth said 'sure: I have had hard times and I am a cripple and I don't even understand this loving kindness, but he said I'll never leave this table.'

And the Bible says he never left the table although he was lame in both of his feet. You see the skirt covered his legs. It covered his problems, covered all of his sins.

Lovers of God, don't leave. We are almost home. Jehovah says 'you are covered at this table. I love you. Don't ever doubt it....' Jehovah says 'why have you ended a sentence with a question mark when I have ended it with a period?' He's telling us that his son died for us and he's been looking for people like us to show loving kindness to.

Always stay at Jehovah's table.

2009-12-24T13:35:00.002-05:00

The Known Universe by AMNH

2009-11-20T13:01:00.003-05:00

Alice In Chains: Would?

Know Me Broken By My Master
Teach Thee On Child Of Love Hereafter

Into The Flood Again
Same Old Trip It Was Back Then
So I Made A Big Mistake
Try To See It Once My Way

Drifting Body Its Sole Desertion
Flying Not Yet Quite The Notion

Into The Flood Again
Same Old Trip It Was Back Then
So I Made A Big Mistake
Try To See It Once My Way

Am I Wrong?
Have I Run Too Far To Get Home?
Am I Gone?
And Left You Here Alone

If I Would Could You?

2007-12-20T11:00:00.000-05:00

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
The Super Trailer

2007-11-03T21:15:00.000-04:00

Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Intelligent Design

2007-11-02T22:43:00.000-04:00

Ben Stein is EXPELLED: http://expelledthemovie.com/

2007-10-30T08:42:00.001-04:00

Beautiful Nauvoo: Where Joseph Smith is the Superstar

Joseph Smith the Translator

2007-10-22T09:41:00.001-04:00

2006-12-22T09:29:00.000-05:00

Knocking documentary PBS (Jehovah's Witnesses): Q&A session

Knocking is a fantastic presentation on Jehovah's Witnesses. Visit knocking.org. This video is not on the DVD.

2006-12-02T16:51:00.002-05:00

UPDATE: See the entire episode here: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-the-mormons

Download this from: opposingdigits.com

See on Google Video.

See http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2006/10/south-park-all-about-mormons-condensed.html below for description.
After the parody of the Lost 116 Pages is an interesting exchange. Here is the transcript starting at 7:20:
Stan: Wait, Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?
Mormon:Well sure, the story proves it, doesn’t it?
Stan: No, it proves he did make it all up! Are you blind?
Mormon:Well Stan, it’s all a matter of faith.
Stan: No, it’s a matter of logic. If you’re gunna say things that have been proven wrong like the first man and woman lived in Missouri and that Native Americans came from Jerusalem, then you better have something to back it up. All you’ve got are a bunch of stories about some a$$wipe who read plates nobody ever saw out of a hat and then couldn’t do it again when the translations were hidden!

2006-10-06T08:56:00.000-04:00

I'm reading about Mormonism now, and found these videos to be instructive, interesting, or humerous.

2006-10-05T12:28:00.000-04:00

Seminary video -- an overview of the Book of Mormon

This shows the approximate timeline and concordance of events and peoples in the Book of Mormon.

Do you know your Mulekite from your Lamanite? How about your Jeredite from your Nephite? Or when Lehi sailed the ocean blue? If not, check out this color-coded three-dimensional chronological bookmark! It's the BoM in a nutshell.

Sadly, this is currently no longer available. It was a fine way of introducing people to BoM's complex story line. For a printable version of this bookmark, go here (a PDF file).

2006-10-05T12:22:00.002-04:00

South Park- All About Mormons

Condensed version of South Park's parody on Mormonism's Lost 116 Pages. See: Lost 116 Pages on Wikipedia.
The gold plates in this parody are shown as 4 seperate plates, when they were actually claimed to be a stack bound with 3 gold rings. Also, the gold plates were always covered or in a box. Some, as in the "Three Witnesses," claimed to see them in "vision" only. (The experience of the "Eight Witnesses" was "visionary" as well. Furthermore, all of the Eight were members of either the family of Joseph Smith Jr., including his father, or the family of one of the Three Witnesses' father, David Whitmer.) Others claimed to handle them while covered, indicating that Joseph had something rectangular on display, that if uncovered, would expose his charlatanism. In reality, there never were any real gold plates. This parody also has the townsfolk in 1820 talking of Joseph's "First Vision" of seeing the Heavenly Father and Jesus. However, this is anachronistic since no one in 1820 knew of it like that, as it was first dictated by Joseph in 1838, and no published source mentions it until 1842. See: New Light on Joseph Smith's First Vision.

It's gone now. Go here instead to see still frames of it.

UPDATE: See the entire episode here: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-the-mormons

History the LDS Church Does Not Want You to Know

2006-10-05T11:56:00.000-04:00


This is the history of the Mormon church that most Mormons don't know about. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormon Church) has a rather shocking history that has been "tampered with" and significantly altered over the past 170+ years.

(None of this text is mine.)

2006-08-07T08:39:00.000-04:00

temp testing testing
testing testing 123