Here are a couple of articles on the Jesus Myth hypothesis:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#6
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_followup.htm
For a more detailed look into the Jesus Myth, check out The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, who has written a book and has a website dedicated to his hypothesis.
The book is called The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Mythical-Christ/dp/0968601405
The book is an easy read and a real eye-opener. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the latest debates over the historical Jesus.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The Gospel of Mark, why was it written?
It is generally believed among scholars that the gospel of Mark was the first written gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source to create their own accounts. Mark is generally dated toward the end of the first century, around AD 70.
It is my belief that Mark was written by someone, probably in Rome, about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. The gospel was written to explain that what happened to Israel was prophesied in the OT. I tend to believe Jesus was a mystical/spiritual being as the subject of Paul's gospel message. Jesus lived and spoke from the scriptures of the OT. But that is another discussion.
Below is a well-written article from a friend from IIDB that I found fascinating. It is a good read and well worth your time.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm
Happy Holidays,
Jay
It is my belief that Mark was written by someone, probably in Rome, about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. The gospel was written to explain that what happened to Israel was prophesied in the OT. I tend to believe Jesus was a mystical/spiritual being as the subject of Paul's gospel message. Jesus lived and spoke from the scriptures of the OT. But that is another discussion.
Below is a well-written article from a friend from IIDB that I found fascinating. It is a good read and well worth your time.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm
Happy Holidays,
Jay
Happy Holidays
It's been a while since the last post as life and work keep us all busy these days. I hope to spend more time with random thoughts as time permits.
Happy New Year!
J
Happy New Year!
J
Friday, June 29, 2007
RE: The Implausibility of Satan
I would add to the questions below the question of the origin of sin.
Where did sin begin and how did it enter the world?
According to the NT, sin entered the world as the result of Adam's disobedience. But according to the same NT, the serpent in the Garden that tempted Eve was Satan in disguise. Was Satan not a sinner prior to Adam's disobedience?
If Satan was a sinner prior to creation then where did his sin originate? In heaven? How can that be with a glorified God? How could sin originate in the very presence of God?
Where did sin begin and how did it enter the world?
According to the NT, sin entered the world as the result of Adam's disobedience. But according to the same NT, the serpent in the Garden that tempted Eve was Satan in disguise. Was Satan not a sinner prior to Adam's disobedience?
If Satan was a sinner prior to creation then where did his sin originate? In heaven? How can that be with a glorified God? How could sin originate in the very presence of God?
The Implausibility of Satan
Orininally posted by: Paul Doland
I often hear Christians talk about Satan, "The Great Deceiver." When I tell them that I don't believe in such a being, they ask me how can I know? This article explains why I find the existence of such a being to be extremely implausible.
Who is Satan? Satan is supposedly a powerful, supernatural being created by God. God intended Satan to be good. Yet Satan turned evil.
Many Questions--No Good Answers
How is it possible that God--from whom only good things come--created a supernatural being that turned evil? Right off the proverbial bat, this seems to make the idea of Satan hard to believe. Note that Matthew 7:18 says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit." How could the "bad fruit" of Satan have come from the "good tree" of God?"
Say that God did create this supernatural being that turned evil. How is it possible that an omniscient God would not know that Satan would turn evil? Actually, some have argued that God did know it would happen, so let's look at the question from both angles. If God did know Satan would turn evil, why would God have created Satan? If I made proverbial widgets, and I could tell that one of my widgets wasn't going to meet my needs, wouldn't I be a fool to make it anyway? If God knew his creation would turn evil, and created Satan anyway, doesn't that mean God wanted Satan to turn evil or that He was at least ambivalent about it?
Some have said that Satan's turning evil was known, and taken into account in God's long-term plan. But why would an all-good God need an evil Satan in His long-term plan? One would think that an all-good God would be able to enact whatever plans He has without need of an evil super-being.
What if God didn't know that Satan would turn evil? Wouldn't that mean that God is not omniscient? Some argue that because of free will, God's omniscience does not give God the ability to know what decisions will be made by His creations. So perhaps, by giving Satan free will, God did not know what Satan would do. But shouldn't a perfect God at least have considered the possibility and made some sort of contingency plan?
Let's move on and assume that somehow Satan did turn evil--whether or not God knew it would happen. Why did God not immediately destroy Satan? Or, if God doesn't want to destroy his own creations, why did God at least not immediately contain Satan, perhaps lock him up in hell? Or take away his supernatural powers? I think that Christians say that God will do this at the time of judgment. Why wait? Why let Satan do evil in the meantime? If God can stop Satan now, and doesn't, isn't God guilty of allowing evil? Isn't God acting as an accomplice to evil?
Now let's assume that there is some explanation for this. So we have Satan, a powerful being, who is intent on corrupting man. Why does Satan only do things surreptitiously? For example, why doesn't Satan shoot intense pain through every human on Earth until they confess their allegiance to him? I know that Christians say God acts as a "hidden God" because He wants to see if we will freely choose Him. But it seems unlikely that Satan, a pure evil being, would have any such motivation. So why doesn't Satan just come on down and kill everybody or do whatever evil he feels like?
Maybe God wouldn't allow Satan to act so boldly? Then why does God let Satan operate surreptitiously? God allows Satan to do surreptitious evil? This doesn't seem to make any sense.
One explanation, offered by apologist Dr. Hugh Ross, is that Satan is not allowed to tempt us more than we are capable of withstanding. So I suppose that means that nobody is ever successfully tempted by Satan, right? If they are, then by definition, they have been tempted more than they can withstand, right?
I suppose Dr. Ross is saying that Satan is only allowed to tempt us to the extent that God expects us to be able to withstand. But how could this really work? If Dr. Ross is right and God limits Satan's evil, then is Satan constantly asking God, "Hey God, can I, like, shoot massive pain through Joe's body and see if that turns Joe against you?" And God says, "No, Satan, you may not." And then Satan asks, "Well--can I, like, kill Joe's baby and see if that turns him against you?" And then God says, "Oh, okay, Satan, I guess you can do that." You might think I'm being sacrilegious but the point is that, although some theologies may sound logical when you read them in a book, when you try to take them off the pages of the book and see how they work in actual practice they are exposed as just being pat answers that have no real value.
[Note: If you think my pretend conversation between God and Satan is sacrilegious, a very similar conversation is depicted in the book of Job where Satan convinces God to allow him to kill Job's family and servants. So, if someone close to you dies, it might be because Satan convinced God to let him kill them.]
It seems to me, then, that either option, Satan self-limits his evil for some reason or God limits Satan's evil, isn't very believable. But say I'm wrong, say that one or the other of these explains why Satan's evil is at least somewhat constrained. However, if Satan does anything at all to influence man, how can man be said to have free will given that Satan has supernatural powers and we don't? How can God really expect us mere mortals to be able to withstand any temptation by a supernatural evil being? If Satan can use supernatural powers--even "a little bit" against us mere mortal humans--how can we truly have free will?
At least a few Christians believe, for example, that Satan placed fossils on Earth to mislead man into believing in evolution. If true, this would mean that we cannot believe anything we see, or any of what our senses tell us--they could be just the conduit for satanic delusions. How can we have free will if there is nothing that we can know with certainty? Thus I say again, if Satan can use any of his supernatural powers against us, then free will does not exist.
Does Satan not know that God is omnipotent? How dumb could Satan be to think that he could possibly win out against the omnipotent Creator, the Creator of everything including even himself? Some Christians say that Satan does know he will eventually loose, but that he just wants to take as many people down to hell with him as he can. But how could Satan have ever been dumb enough to even consider revolting against God, knowing full-well that he could not possibly win? And how could have a third of God's angels have been dumb enough to join Satan, as they too should have known from the beginning that they have no real chance to win?
What is the reason for God not revealing Himself to us in obvious ways? When a skeptic asks that question, Christians will often answer that God feels that if we were to have absolute proof of His existence, we wouldn't have the free will to reject Him. Yet Satan, even though he had proof-positive of God's existence, was still able to choose to disobey God. Thus, if Satan could have proof-positive of God and still have free will to disobey God, then so should we.
Finally, if Satan could become evil because of free will, how will God ever solve the problem of evil? Couldn't tomorrow, some other creation of God use its free will to turn evil? Couldn't this continue to happen for all eternity? How can heaven be any better than Earth if it is subject to the same problem of free will allowing beings to choose evil?
Summary
Let me summarize. I don't believe an all-good God could have created a powerful, supernatural being that turned evil. But even if I am wrong, I don't believe an omniscient God could not have known it would happen, or at least make contingency plans. If somehow this evil Satan did come to exist, I don't think that an all-good God would let Satan continue to do evil. But if God did let Satan continue to do evil, I don't think an all-evil super-being would be restrained or act surreptitiously--he would use his supernatural powers openly. But even if this evil being were for some reason at least somewhat restrained, the fact that he, having supernatural powers, could have influence over us mere mortals would mean that we don't truly have free will. So, from start to finish, the concept of an all-evil, super-being Satan is untenable.
I often hear Christians talk about Satan, "The Great Deceiver." When I tell them that I don't believe in such a being, they ask me how can I know? This article explains why I find the existence of such a being to be extremely implausible.
Who is Satan? Satan is supposedly a powerful, supernatural being created by God. God intended Satan to be good. Yet Satan turned evil.
Many Questions--No Good Answers
How is it possible that God--from whom only good things come--created a supernatural being that turned evil? Right off the proverbial bat, this seems to make the idea of Satan hard to believe. Note that Matthew 7:18 says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit." How could the "bad fruit" of Satan have come from the "good tree" of God?"
Say that God did create this supernatural being that turned evil. How is it possible that an omniscient God would not know that Satan would turn evil? Actually, some have argued that God did know it would happen, so let's look at the question from both angles. If God did know Satan would turn evil, why would God have created Satan? If I made proverbial widgets, and I could tell that one of my widgets wasn't going to meet my needs, wouldn't I be a fool to make it anyway? If God knew his creation would turn evil, and created Satan anyway, doesn't that mean God wanted Satan to turn evil or that He was at least ambivalent about it?
Some have said that Satan's turning evil was known, and taken into account in God's long-term plan. But why would an all-good God need an evil Satan in His long-term plan? One would think that an all-good God would be able to enact whatever plans He has without need of an evil super-being.
What if God didn't know that Satan would turn evil? Wouldn't that mean that God is not omniscient? Some argue that because of free will, God's omniscience does not give God the ability to know what decisions will be made by His creations. So perhaps, by giving Satan free will, God did not know what Satan would do. But shouldn't a perfect God at least have considered the possibility and made some sort of contingency plan?
Let's move on and assume that somehow Satan did turn evil--whether or not God knew it would happen. Why did God not immediately destroy Satan? Or, if God doesn't want to destroy his own creations, why did God at least not immediately contain Satan, perhaps lock him up in hell? Or take away his supernatural powers? I think that Christians say that God will do this at the time of judgment. Why wait? Why let Satan do evil in the meantime? If God can stop Satan now, and doesn't, isn't God guilty of allowing evil? Isn't God acting as an accomplice to evil?
Now let's assume that there is some explanation for this. So we have Satan, a powerful being, who is intent on corrupting man. Why does Satan only do things surreptitiously? For example, why doesn't Satan shoot intense pain through every human on Earth until they confess their allegiance to him? I know that Christians say God acts as a "hidden God" because He wants to see if we will freely choose Him. But it seems unlikely that Satan, a pure evil being, would have any such motivation. So why doesn't Satan just come on down and kill everybody or do whatever evil he feels like?
Maybe God wouldn't allow Satan to act so boldly? Then why does God let Satan operate surreptitiously? God allows Satan to do surreptitious evil? This doesn't seem to make any sense.
One explanation, offered by apologist Dr. Hugh Ross, is that Satan is not allowed to tempt us more than we are capable of withstanding. So I suppose that means that nobody is ever successfully tempted by Satan, right? If they are, then by definition, they have been tempted more than they can withstand, right?
I suppose Dr. Ross is saying that Satan is only allowed to tempt us to the extent that God expects us to be able to withstand. But how could this really work? If Dr. Ross is right and God limits Satan's evil, then is Satan constantly asking God, "Hey God, can I, like, shoot massive pain through Joe's body and see if that turns Joe against you?" And God says, "No, Satan, you may not." And then Satan asks, "Well--can I, like, kill Joe's baby and see if that turns him against you?" And then God says, "Oh, okay, Satan, I guess you can do that." You might think I'm being sacrilegious but the point is that, although some theologies may sound logical when you read them in a book, when you try to take them off the pages of the book and see how they work in actual practice they are exposed as just being pat answers that have no real value.
[Note: If you think my pretend conversation between God and Satan is sacrilegious, a very similar conversation is depicted in the book of Job where Satan convinces God to allow him to kill Job's family and servants. So, if someone close to you dies, it might be because Satan convinced God to let him kill them.]
It seems to me, then, that either option, Satan self-limits his evil for some reason or God limits Satan's evil, isn't very believable. But say I'm wrong, say that one or the other of these explains why Satan's evil is at least somewhat constrained. However, if Satan does anything at all to influence man, how can man be said to have free will given that Satan has supernatural powers and we don't? How can God really expect us mere mortals to be able to withstand any temptation by a supernatural evil being? If Satan can use supernatural powers--even "a little bit" against us mere mortal humans--how can we truly have free will?
At least a few Christians believe, for example, that Satan placed fossils on Earth to mislead man into believing in evolution. If true, this would mean that we cannot believe anything we see, or any of what our senses tell us--they could be just the conduit for satanic delusions. How can we have free will if there is nothing that we can know with certainty? Thus I say again, if Satan can use any of his supernatural powers against us, then free will does not exist.
Does Satan not know that God is omnipotent? How dumb could Satan be to think that he could possibly win out against the omnipotent Creator, the Creator of everything including even himself? Some Christians say that Satan does know he will eventually loose, but that he just wants to take as many people down to hell with him as he can. But how could Satan have ever been dumb enough to even consider revolting against God, knowing full-well that he could not possibly win? And how could have a third of God's angels have been dumb enough to join Satan, as they too should have known from the beginning that they have no real chance to win?
What is the reason for God not revealing Himself to us in obvious ways? When a skeptic asks that question, Christians will often answer that God feels that if we were to have absolute proof of His existence, we wouldn't have the free will to reject Him. Yet Satan, even though he had proof-positive of God's existence, was still able to choose to disobey God. Thus, if Satan could have proof-positive of God and still have free will to disobey God, then so should we.
Finally, if Satan could become evil because of free will, how will God ever solve the problem of evil? Couldn't tomorrow, some other creation of God use its free will to turn evil? Couldn't this continue to happen for all eternity? How can heaven be any better than Earth if it is subject to the same problem of free will allowing beings to choose evil?
Summary
Let me summarize. I don't believe an all-good God could have created a powerful, supernatural being that turned evil. But even if I am wrong, I don't believe an omniscient God could not have known it would happen, or at least make contingency plans. If somehow this evil Satan did come to exist, I don't think that an all-good God would let Satan continue to do evil. But if God did let Satan continue to do evil, I don't think an all-evil super-being would be restrained or act surreptitiously--he would use his supernatural powers openly. But even if this evil being were for some reason at least somewhat restrained, the fact that he, having supernatural powers, could have influence over us mere mortals would mean that we don't truly have free will. So, from start to finish, the concept of an all-evil, super-being Satan is untenable.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Pascal's Wager
Blaise Pascal, a French Philosopher, argued that it is a better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.
Pascal's wager has actually evolved from its original structure over the years, but the basic premise is this:
If you believe in God and you are right, you have gained everything (eternal life) and have lost nothing. If you are wrong, you have gained nothing and lost nothing.
If you do not believe in God and you are right, you've gained nothing and lost nothing. But if you are wrong, you have gained nothing and lost everything (eternal damnation?)
So the safe bet, according to Pascal, is to believe in God... just in case.
But to proceed with the safe odds in this wager raises a few questions.
1. This wager assumes that the Christian God is the only God or the one true God. What if Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true God.
Would Allah be more upset if you were a Christian and worshipped the wrong God or if you didn't believe at all? That's another wager you'd have to take. Some call this the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.
2. Is this type of belief in God what he really wants? Is this just an insurance policy for the believer... a "just in case" get out of jail free type card? Will God look favorably on a person if they stood before his judgment seat and only really believed because he or she was afraid not to?
3. What if you are a good person and really want to believe, but simply cannot bring yourself to believing in miracles and other events in the Bible? Is belief in something a choice? Would God really condemn someone to eternal torment for simply not being able to believe in the message?
If someone presented me with the ultimatum of either believing in God or don't believe and face the consequences, would I be saved from eternal punishment if I just said "yes"? The point is a person just can't simply believe in something ad hoc. If God exists and wants people to believe, he isn't going to be happy if you are just a shadow believer... one that only believes because of idea that it is a safer bet than to not believe. It seems that you would have to have genuine belief for it to work. Isn't the old saying "God knows your heart"?
Pascal's wager has actually evolved from its original structure over the years, but the basic premise is this:
If you believe in God and you are right, you have gained everything (eternal life) and have lost nothing. If you are wrong, you have gained nothing and lost nothing.
If you do not believe in God and you are right, you've gained nothing and lost nothing. But if you are wrong, you have gained nothing and lost everything (eternal damnation?)
So the safe bet, according to Pascal, is to believe in God... just in case.
But to proceed with the safe odds in this wager raises a few questions.
1. This wager assumes that the Christian God is the only God or the one true God. What if Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true God.
Would Allah be more upset if you were a Christian and worshipped the wrong God or if you didn't believe at all? That's another wager you'd have to take. Some call this the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.
2. Is this type of belief in God what he really wants? Is this just an insurance policy for the believer... a "just in case" get out of jail free type card? Will God look favorably on a person if they stood before his judgment seat and only really believed because he or she was afraid not to?
3. What if you are a good person and really want to believe, but simply cannot bring yourself to believing in miracles and other events in the Bible? Is belief in something a choice? Would God really condemn someone to eternal torment for simply not being able to believe in the message?
If someone presented me with the ultimatum of either believing in God or don't believe and face the consequences, would I be saved from eternal punishment if I just said "yes"? The point is a person just can't simply believe in something ad hoc. If God exists and wants people to believe, he isn't going to be happy if you are just a shadow believer... one that only believes because of idea that it is a safer bet than to not believe. It seems that you would have to have genuine belief for it to work. Isn't the old saying "God knows your heart"?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
John Hagee et al
It's interesting that Pastors like John Hagee have written books on the end days. He views the occurences in the middle east as fulfillment of the prophecies in the Book of Ezekiel.
He is quick to mention that Israel becoming a state in 1948 is the direct fulfillment of God's promise to regather the Israelites back to Jerusalem. He has spilled lots of ink carving out his view of prophecy fulfillment.
But why does he stop at the regathering of Israel? Why doesn't he comment on the rest of Ezekiel and what happens next? According to Ezekiel (36:15), once God regathers the Israelites back to Israel, they will no longer hear the taunts of the nations around them.
People are quick to conclude that Ezekiel was fulfilled with the events in 1948, yet how do they explain the fact that 36:15 was left unfulfilled? Israel is still surrounded by nations that hate them. They still hear the taunts of Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. It's a case of people who write books picking and choosing what is fulfilled in scripture and what isn't.
And of course Hagee may need to explain how Ezekiel 39 through the end of the book is to be reconciled with Christianity. In God's "New Jerusalem" he is going to require daily sin sacrifices from the Israelites and other offerings.
If Jesus replaced the sacrificial system and man no longer has to sacrifice for sin atonement for belief in Jesus, why does God require animal sacrifices for sin atonement in heaven?
Ezekiel is one book that is not normally taught in Church or Sunday School.
He is quick to mention that Israel becoming a state in 1948 is the direct fulfillment of God's promise to regather the Israelites back to Jerusalem. He has spilled lots of ink carving out his view of prophecy fulfillment.
But why does he stop at the regathering of Israel? Why doesn't he comment on the rest of Ezekiel and what happens next? According to Ezekiel (36:15), once God regathers the Israelites back to Israel, they will no longer hear the taunts of the nations around them.
People are quick to conclude that Ezekiel was fulfilled with the events in 1948, yet how do they explain the fact that 36:15 was left unfulfilled? Israel is still surrounded by nations that hate them. They still hear the taunts of Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. It's a case of people who write books picking and choosing what is fulfilled in scripture and what isn't.
And of course Hagee may need to explain how Ezekiel 39 through the end of the book is to be reconciled with Christianity. In God's "New Jerusalem" he is going to require daily sin sacrifices from the Israelites and other offerings.
If Jesus replaced the sacrificial system and man no longer has to sacrifice for sin atonement for belief in Jesus, why does God require animal sacrifices for sin atonement in heaven?
Ezekiel is one book that is not normally taught in Church or Sunday School.
A New Covenant
Because of the gospels, we have always assumed the new covenant was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. But is this really the case?
Jeremiah 31:31-34 -- "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
In the books of the Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the running theme is the Jewish exile. The premise is the same in both books: Israel and Judah have turned their backs on God and set up worship to Baal and other gods with idols. They've erected altars to these other gods in the Temple. This angered God so much that he decided to use the King of Babylon to ransack Jerusalem and exile the Israelites. This basic story is littered throughout both those books.
In his anger, God scatters the Jews. But in the end he promises to regather them back to Jerusalem and forgive their sins and he vows to let them no longer be the scorn of the nations surrounding them.
But notice the promise of the "New Covenant" in Jeremiah 31. "I will write my laws in their hearts." Notice this is the same basic premise in Ezekiel 36, in the last blog entry. God promises he will give the Jews a new heart of flesh after removing their heart of stone. He will write his laws on their hearts so that they will be able to follow his laws and decrees, and be able to do them. Note that they will be able to "DO THEM".
In Christiandom, the new covenant is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Paul teaches that Jesus canceled the laws and decrees of the Mosaic Laws. But I ask anyone to show me where in Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 36 where God said in the new covenant his people will no longer have to follow his laws. If Jesus fulfilled the laws, how does that constitute the Jews from no longer having to observe them?
Jeremiah 31 states that the laws will be written on their hearts, not on some scroll like when they were given to Moses. If they are on the hearts of the Jews, would they not still be required to follow them?
Folks, the "New Covenant" is the same when spoken about in Jeremiah and in Ezekiel. When the Jews are regathered from exile and God rebuilds Jerusalem after he punished them. He will begin a new covenant with them where he will put his spirit in them. He will cleanse them of their sins and put a new heart and fill the heart with his spirit so that they can now, at last, be able to concentrate on God and follow his required Laws and Decrees.
This is the new covenant. This new covenant is talked about at length in Ezekiel. In other words, with the state of Israel the way it currently is, this "New Covenant" is still yet to be fulfilled. It is still in the future sometime, if it is coming at all.
With Paul and the gospels, Christianity rewrote the interpretations of the books of the Prophets for new agendas and new times.
But does this really jive with the promises of God in the Old Testament?
Jeremiah 31:31-34 -- "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
In the books of the Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the running theme is the Jewish exile. The premise is the same in both books: Israel and Judah have turned their backs on God and set up worship to Baal and other gods with idols. They've erected altars to these other gods in the Temple. This angered God so much that he decided to use the King of Babylon to ransack Jerusalem and exile the Israelites. This basic story is littered throughout both those books.
In his anger, God scatters the Jews. But in the end he promises to regather them back to Jerusalem and forgive their sins and he vows to let them no longer be the scorn of the nations surrounding them.
But notice the promise of the "New Covenant" in Jeremiah 31. "I will write my laws in their hearts." Notice this is the same basic premise in Ezekiel 36, in the last blog entry. God promises he will give the Jews a new heart of flesh after removing their heart of stone. He will write his laws on their hearts so that they will be able to follow his laws and decrees, and be able to do them. Note that they will be able to "DO THEM".
In Christiandom, the new covenant is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Paul teaches that Jesus canceled the laws and decrees of the Mosaic Laws. But I ask anyone to show me where in Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 36 where God said in the new covenant his people will no longer have to follow his laws. If Jesus fulfilled the laws, how does that constitute the Jews from no longer having to observe them?
Jeremiah 31 states that the laws will be written on their hearts, not on some scroll like when they were given to Moses. If they are on the hearts of the Jews, would they not still be required to follow them?
Folks, the "New Covenant" is the same when spoken about in Jeremiah and in Ezekiel. When the Jews are regathered from exile and God rebuilds Jerusalem after he punished them. He will begin a new covenant with them where he will put his spirit in them. He will cleanse them of their sins and put a new heart and fill the heart with his spirit so that they can now, at last, be able to concentrate on God and follow his required Laws and Decrees.
This is the new covenant. This new covenant is talked about at length in Ezekiel. In other words, with the state of Israel the way it currently is, this "New Covenant" is still yet to be fulfilled. It is still in the future sometime, if it is coming at all.
With Paul and the gospels, Christianity rewrote the interpretations of the books of the Prophets for new agendas and new times.
But does this really jive with the promises of God in the Old Testament?
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Ezekiel's Prophetic Verses
Ezekiel 36:25-27 -- 25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (King James Version)
God will regather his people, sprinkle water on them and cleanse them from their iniquities... Then give them a new heart and will put his (God's) spirit within them, which will cause them to walk righteously in his statues and be able to keep his judgments (laws/commandments).
Verse 36 -- .... I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.
Question - If it is possible and even God's plan (in writing) to cleanse the Israelites, and put his own spirit in them to allow them to be able to follow his laws properly, why didn't he do it?
1. Why the need to send Jesus at all? If God was going to fix it where they were righteous and could keep his laws, isn't that what he wanted the whole time?
2. If the laws were too difficult to keep and only pointed out man's sin, as Paul taught, why would God make a false promise (or sense of hope) like that to the Jews?
3. And if he did follow through on his promise to put his spirit in them to cause them to keep his laws, how would that not violate their free will?
27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (King James Version)
God will regather his people, sprinkle water on them and cleanse them from their iniquities... Then give them a new heart and will put his (God's) spirit within them, which will cause them to walk righteously in his statues and be able to keep his judgments (laws/commandments).
Verse 36 -- .... I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.
Question - If it is possible and even God's plan (in writing) to cleanse the Israelites, and put his own spirit in them to allow them to be able to follow his laws properly, why didn't he do it?
1. Why the need to send Jesus at all? If God was going to fix it where they were righteous and could keep his laws, isn't that what he wanted the whole time?
2. If the laws were too difficult to keep and only pointed out man's sin, as Paul taught, why would God make a false promise (or sense of hope) like that to the Jews?
3. And if he did follow through on his promise to put his spirit in them to cause them to keep his laws, how would that not violate their free will?
A Conversation between God and Adam
My journey for the last few years has been a long one. I've spent a great deal of time questioning my faith. While reading the Bible I seem to come up with more questions than the answers I've received. What follows is a quick illustration of sort of the overview I have regarding the Old and New Testaments.
I can imagine Adam asking God a few questions with onlookers:
God - "Adam, you have free will to choose right from wrong.. but be advised, if you choose wrong just once.. you are doomed to eternal damnation in hell".. "but know that I love you and want/require for you to obey me"
Adam – “Huh? If I don’t know what wrong is, how do I have free will to make a ‘wrong’ choice?... you didn’t create us with knowledge of right/wrong, so how do we have free will to even have a chance to choose wrong?”
"God, is it possible for me to not sin?"
God - "well, no.. it's not possible to not sin.. You will sin eventually because you aren't perfect"
Adam – “So then it is not possible for me to always choose not to sin with my ‘free will’?”
God – “No, because you have a sinful nature now and will choose wrong… No one can always choose to do right.”
Adam – “So free will always fails?.. How can man have free will to choose between right and wrong (sin and not to sin) if it isn’t possible to always choose not to sin (right)?... It’s only free for a time? Does that mean I don’t have the freedom to choose not to sin all the time?”
God – “You have the freedom to choose right all the time, but not the ability.”
Adam – “Not even with your help.. if I asked for it?”
God – “No, remember, you will sin eventually because you aren’t perfect.”
Adam - "but I thought I was made in your image and your creation was 'good'.. why aren't I perfect?"
God - "Because you did what I told you not to do, so now everyone that comes after you is eternally damned"
Adam - "I'm so sorry God.. I didn't realize that eating that fruit would affect not only me and Eve, but all generations forever after me".. "you told me that if I eat it, I will surely die (whatever that means).. but you never said anything about all future human generations will die because of it.."
"Can you please forgive me and give me another chance? I promise I'll do better.. I don't want any of my sons to have any chance of ending up in an eternal burning hell"...
God - "Oh, it's too late for that.. the wheels are irreversibly set in motion now, thanks to your sin.. I can't change that"
Adam - "huh? **thinks to himself, I thought you were God**.. I promise Lord, if you would have explained the consequences to me for all mankind, I would have never eaten of it.. I promise I'll do better, please give man another chance"
God - "No, man is forever corrupt and is now in need of a savior"
Adam - "A savior?.. A savior from what, Lord?"God - "A savior from the hell place I created for you"
Adam - "I understand that I am to be punished.. but what have my grandchildren done?"
God - "They are corrupt with sin because of what you did in the garden"
Adam - "Cain, Seth, et al... I'm so sorry... I didn't know"
God - "the whole earth is corrupt, I am going to destroy it.. I'll save Noah and his sons/family because he is the only righteous man on earth"
Noah - "Thank you Lord, but am I not a descendent from Adam? I thought all mankind was corrupt since he ate the fruit?"
God - DOH! "Well, I'm saving you anyway.. do your best and sin no more"..
Noah - "huh?.. I'm already corrupt and incapable of abstaining from sin.. what shall I do?"
God - "yes, that's why I'm going to send a savior.. to redeem all mankind from his corrupt and sinful self"
Noah - "Great news, Lord! but I sorta wish you'd thought about that last year.. maybe you could have sent the savior while the rest of my family and friends were still alive.. and given them a chance to avoid hell?"
“I’m not sure what was accomplished by the flood if my family, who you charged to replenish the earth, is still corrupt from Adam’s sin?”
God - "well.. Never mind that.. I can see the world is still corrupt even after I purged everything in it except your family"
Noah - "I'm sorry, Lord.. It's all Adam's fault!"
Ezekiel - "Lord, if I may interrupt here for a moment.. in my book, chapter 18 verses 1-9, you told me to tell the Israelites that if a man keeps your decrees and does good and judges fairly between man and man, he will be considered righteous and he will surely live..""When you told Adam he will surely die, you meant the start of a chain reaction leading man to eternal punishment.. so by 'surely live' do you mean that man can avoid this eternal punishment?"
God - "Hi Ezekiel.. Yes, If I said that, then yes, that man will avoid punishment"
Ezekiel - "So then that righteous man doesn't need a savior to pay for his sins?"
God - "Uh.. well yes, he still needs a savior because of Adam's fateful sin"
Ezekiel - "I'm confused, Lord.. You told me in my book, chapter 18 verse 19 and 20: "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him...
"If the son doesn't share the guilt of the father, then how come all mankind is doomed because of what Adam did?"
"you also said: "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live."
God - "Hmmm... but that was the laws I gave Moses.. you know it is impossible to keep those strict laws.. I only gave you those laws to reveal the sin in you.. Didn't you read Paul's letters?"
Ezekiel - "who is Paul? ..... At any rate, you said if we keep these laws and decrees that we will not die.. When you gave the laws to Moses, you never mentioned that they were temporary or just a warm-up to any savior you were planning on sending.. you said your laws were perfect and everlasting"
God - "Yes, but man still needs a savior and the laws weren't designed to save them from hell... also, these laws were only meant to make you aware of your sinful nature.. they weren't designed for you to follow them perfectly.. no one can.. read Paul's epistles and Acts of the Apostles"
Moses - "forgive me for butting in, Lord.. but you told me to tell the people that these laws were not too difficult for them or out of their reach, and that they can obey them (Deu 30:11-14)"
God - "Yes, well.. the sacrificial system I put in place served its purpose for awhile.. I decided to replace it with my son, the savior of the world and atoner of the sins of all mankind, because of Adam's disobedience to me.. so the law and the sacrificial system is no longer in effect"
Ezekiel - "Lord, I have another question.. if the sacrificial system and the mosaic laws are no longer in effect, why did you describe to me the new temple in the new Jerusalem where you will sit on your throne (after Armageddon) and accept daily sin atoning sacrifices?"
"I read the letters from the Paul character, and he said that your laws and decrees were abolished and canceled when the Jesus fellow died on the cross.. if this is true, then why are you restarting the sacrificial system of sin atonement in the new Jerusalem?"
God - "In the new Jerusalem, when I sit on my throne, I will require and accept pure sin, fellowship, grain, etc.. offerings from the priests and the gentiles (if they keep my sabbaths and obey my commandments for them)"
Paul – “Um.. forgive me Lord, but I took the liberty to tell my readers that it didn’t matter to you which day is kept as holy.. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5).. Was I wrong in teaching this?
God – “You did what??”
Ezekiel - "One final question, Lord, if I may... If you sent 'Jesus' to die on a cross for the once and for all sin atonement for all mankind's sins, thus replacing the mosaic laws/sacrificial system... why do men have to continue to offer sacrifices to you for atonement of their sins?"
"I thought you (Or was it Paul?) said 'Jesus' was the ultimate sacrifice? Ultimate means last or final.. Why are we still required to offer sin atonement in the new Jerusalem?.. and lastly, why is there even sin in the new Jerusalem?.. I also read the book "Revelation", and it was eerily similar to my book, but I digress.. at any rate, it said that there would be no more sin in the new heavens and new earth because the devil (whoever that is) and all sinners would be tossed into a lake of fire (whatever that is).. so why must men atone for sins in the new Jerusalem?"
God - "... I changed my mind since I dictated to you in your book, so shut up and color"
Adam – “You changed your mind, Lord?... But you said things were set in motion and you couldn’t change that.. now I’m confused too”
Ezekiel - "You changed your mind? Well, does that mean the Old Testament is obsolete, since it's superseded?"
Paul - "Yes!"
Ezekiel – “Hey, you must be Paul… I noticed in your letters that you often quote the Old Testament in your teachings as references for your readers… Why didn’t you ever quote Jesus?
I mean, isn’t he the one who came to change everything and the center of your ministry? Surely you would have used his many quotes, miracles, etc.. to use as a point of reference when dealing with issues in your church, right?”
Paul – “huh? Well uh.. I taught Christ resurrected..”
Ezekiel – “You had issues with Marriage/divorce, what to do with unclean foods and jews/gentiles at the same dinner table… among other things in the church… Why didn’t you teach what Jesus taught regarding those things?”
Paul – “I received my gospel from no man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ”
Ezekiel – “So in other words, you didn’t know what Jesus taught while on earth, did you? The other gospels weren’t written until well after your ministry… and since you never met Jesus, you don’t know what he said… but Peter knew Jesus and you knew Peter, why didn’t you ask him about Jesus’ earthly ministry?”
Paul – “I received my gospel from no man…”
Ezekiel – “that’s right, you only got your information from visions, etc… I wonder why Jesus never mentioned that he was going to send a different apostle to the gentiles while he was with his disciples.”
Oh well… sorry for that sidebar Lord…
Ezekiel - "Lord, if the Old Testament is superseded, does that make me a false prophet (based on your definition of a false prophet in Deu 18)?... I mean, if what I prophesied isn’t going to take place, what does that make me?"
God - ".............."
Ezekiel – “Lord?… anyone?”
Moses – “Shake it off Zeke.. I’m confused too”
John the Baptist - “You think you’re confused? Take a look at the resurrection accounts!”
I can imagine Adam asking God a few questions with onlookers:
God - "Adam, you have free will to choose right from wrong.. but be advised, if you choose wrong just once.. you are doomed to eternal damnation in hell".. "but know that I love you and want/require for you to obey me"
Adam – “Huh? If I don’t know what wrong is, how do I have free will to make a ‘wrong’ choice?... you didn’t create us with knowledge of right/wrong, so how do we have free will to even have a chance to choose wrong?”
"God, is it possible for me to not sin?"
God - "well, no.. it's not possible to not sin.. You will sin eventually because you aren't perfect"
Adam – “So then it is not possible for me to always choose not to sin with my ‘free will’?”
God – “No, because you have a sinful nature now and will choose wrong… No one can always choose to do right.”
Adam – “So free will always fails?.. How can man have free will to choose between right and wrong (sin and not to sin) if it isn’t possible to always choose not to sin (right)?... It’s only free for a time? Does that mean I don’t have the freedom to choose not to sin all the time?”
God – “You have the freedom to choose right all the time, but not the ability.”
Adam – “Not even with your help.. if I asked for it?”
God – “No, remember, you will sin eventually because you aren’t perfect.”
Adam - "but I thought I was made in your image and your creation was 'good'.. why aren't I perfect?"
God - "Because you did what I told you not to do, so now everyone that comes after you is eternally damned"
Adam - "I'm so sorry God.. I didn't realize that eating that fruit would affect not only me and Eve, but all generations forever after me".. "you told me that if I eat it, I will surely die (whatever that means).. but you never said anything about all future human generations will die because of it.."
"Can you please forgive me and give me another chance? I promise I'll do better.. I don't want any of my sons to have any chance of ending up in an eternal burning hell"...
God - "Oh, it's too late for that.. the wheels are irreversibly set in motion now, thanks to your sin.. I can't change that"
Adam - "huh? **thinks to himself, I thought you were God**.. I promise Lord, if you would have explained the consequences to me for all mankind, I would have never eaten of it.. I promise I'll do better, please give man another chance"
God - "No, man is forever corrupt and is now in need of a savior"
Adam - "A savior?.. A savior from what, Lord?"God - "A savior from the hell place I created for you"
Adam - "I understand that I am to be punished.. but what have my grandchildren done?"
God - "They are corrupt with sin because of what you did in the garden"
Adam - "Cain, Seth, et al... I'm so sorry... I didn't know"
God - "the whole earth is corrupt, I am going to destroy it.. I'll save Noah and his sons/family because he is the only righteous man on earth"
Noah - "Thank you Lord, but am I not a descendent from Adam? I thought all mankind was corrupt since he ate the fruit?"
God - DOH! "Well, I'm saving you anyway.. do your best and sin no more"..
Noah - "huh?.. I'm already corrupt and incapable of abstaining from sin.. what shall I do?"
God - "yes, that's why I'm going to send a savior.. to redeem all mankind from his corrupt and sinful self"
Noah - "Great news, Lord! but I sorta wish you'd thought about that last year.. maybe you could have sent the savior while the rest of my family and friends were still alive.. and given them a chance to avoid hell?"
“I’m not sure what was accomplished by the flood if my family, who you charged to replenish the earth, is still corrupt from Adam’s sin?”
God - "well.. Never mind that.. I can see the world is still corrupt even after I purged everything in it except your family"
Noah - "I'm sorry, Lord.. It's all Adam's fault!"
Ezekiel - "Lord, if I may interrupt here for a moment.. in my book, chapter 18 verses 1-9, you told me to tell the Israelites that if a man keeps your decrees and does good and judges fairly between man and man, he will be considered righteous and he will surely live..""When you told Adam he will surely die, you meant the start of a chain reaction leading man to eternal punishment.. so by 'surely live' do you mean that man can avoid this eternal punishment?"
God - "Hi Ezekiel.. Yes, If I said that, then yes, that man will avoid punishment"
Ezekiel - "So then that righteous man doesn't need a savior to pay for his sins?"
God - "Uh.. well yes, he still needs a savior because of Adam's fateful sin"
Ezekiel - "I'm confused, Lord.. You told me in my book, chapter 18 verse 19 and 20: "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him...
"If the son doesn't share the guilt of the father, then how come all mankind is doomed because of what Adam did?"
"you also said: "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live."
God - "Hmmm... but that was the laws I gave Moses.. you know it is impossible to keep those strict laws.. I only gave you those laws to reveal the sin in you.. Didn't you read Paul's letters?"
Ezekiel - "who is Paul? ..... At any rate, you said if we keep these laws and decrees that we will not die.. When you gave the laws to Moses, you never mentioned that they were temporary or just a warm-up to any savior you were planning on sending.. you said your laws were perfect and everlasting"
God - "Yes, but man still needs a savior and the laws weren't designed to save them from hell... also, these laws were only meant to make you aware of your sinful nature.. they weren't designed for you to follow them perfectly.. no one can.. read Paul's epistles and Acts of the Apostles"
Moses - "forgive me for butting in, Lord.. but you told me to tell the people that these laws were not too difficult for them or out of their reach, and that they can obey them (Deu 30:11-14)"
God - "Yes, well.. the sacrificial system I put in place served its purpose for awhile.. I decided to replace it with my son, the savior of the world and atoner of the sins of all mankind, because of Adam's disobedience to me.. so the law and the sacrificial system is no longer in effect"
Ezekiel - "Lord, I have another question.. if the sacrificial system and the mosaic laws are no longer in effect, why did you describe to me the new temple in the new Jerusalem where you will sit on your throne (after Armageddon) and accept daily sin atoning sacrifices?"
"I read the letters from the Paul character, and he said that your laws and decrees were abolished and canceled when the Jesus fellow died on the cross.. if this is true, then why are you restarting the sacrificial system of sin atonement in the new Jerusalem?"
God - "In the new Jerusalem, when I sit on my throne, I will require and accept pure sin, fellowship, grain, etc.. offerings from the priests and the gentiles (if they keep my sabbaths and obey my commandments for them)"
Paul – “Um.. forgive me Lord, but I took the liberty to tell my readers that it didn’t matter to you which day is kept as holy.. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5).. Was I wrong in teaching this?
God – “You did what??”
Ezekiel - "One final question, Lord, if I may... If you sent 'Jesus' to die on a cross for the once and for all sin atonement for all mankind's sins, thus replacing the mosaic laws/sacrificial system... why do men have to continue to offer sacrifices to you for atonement of their sins?"
"I thought you (Or was it Paul?) said 'Jesus' was the ultimate sacrifice? Ultimate means last or final.. Why are we still required to offer sin atonement in the new Jerusalem?.. and lastly, why is there even sin in the new Jerusalem?.. I also read the book "Revelation", and it was eerily similar to my book, but I digress.. at any rate, it said that there would be no more sin in the new heavens and new earth because the devil (whoever that is) and all sinners would be tossed into a lake of fire (whatever that is).. so why must men atone for sins in the new Jerusalem?"
God - "... I changed my mind since I dictated to you in your book, so shut up and color"
Adam – “You changed your mind, Lord?... But you said things were set in motion and you couldn’t change that.. now I’m confused too”
Ezekiel - "You changed your mind? Well, does that mean the Old Testament is obsolete, since it's superseded?"
Paul - "Yes!"
Ezekiel – “Hey, you must be Paul… I noticed in your letters that you often quote the Old Testament in your teachings as references for your readers… Why didn’t you ever quote Jesus?
I mean, isn’t he the one who came to change everything and the center of your ministry? Surely you would have used his many quotes, miracles, etc.. to use as a point of reference when dealing with issues in your church, right?”
Paul – “huh? Well uh.. I taught Christ resurrected..”
Ezekiel – “You had issues with Marriage/divorce, what to do with unclean foods and jews/gentiles at the same dinner table… among other things in the church… Why didn’t you teach what Jesus taught regarding those things?”
Paul – “I received my gospel from no man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ”
Ezekiel – “So in other words, you didn’t know what Jesus taught while on earth, did you? The other gospels weren’t written until well after your ministry… and since you never met Jesus, you don’t know what he said… but Peter knew Jesus and you knew Peter, why didn’t you ask him about Jesus’ earthly ministry?”
Paul – “I received my gospel from no man…”
Ezekiel – “that’s right, you only got your information from visions, etc… I wonder why Jesus never mentioned that he was going to send a different apostle to the gentiles while he was with his disciples.”
Oh well… sorry for that sidebar Lord…
Ezekiel - "Lord, if the Old Testament is superseded, does that make me a false prophet (based on your definition of a false prophet in Deu 18)?... I mean, if what I prophesied isn’t going to take place, what does that make me?"
God - ".............."
Ezekiel – “Lord?… anyone?”
Moses – “Shake it off Zeke.. I’m confused too”
John the Baptist - “You think you’re confused? Take a look at the resurrection accounts!”
Welcome
Welcome to my first installment in my first attempt at blogging. Yeah, too much time on my hands. We'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)