Jeremiah 31:31-34 --
31 "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."
Does anyone see a hint of Jesus in this passage?
God will write his laws on their hearts and in their minds. He will forgive them their wickedness and remembers sins no more.
There is no reason to come to Earth to die on a cross whatsoever. He said he is simply going to forgive them and write his laws on their hearts.
Why would he write his "restrictive" laws on their hearts if is real plan was to abolish those laws and replace them with grace? It seems according to Jeremiah 31, he still expects his people to follow his laws to the letter, but he is going to help them follow the laws by burning them into their minds and hearts.
Where is Jesus in all this again?
When did Judaism get hijacked by Christianity?
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Salvation for all?
Is there a plan for salvation for gentiles in the OT... without Jesus?
Isaiah 56:3-8 --
Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree."
4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."
8 The Sovereign LORD declares— he who gathers the exiles of Israel: "I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered."
Despite the OT being basically about Israel and how God chose them to save, here we see that God has also included the gentiles for salvation. And all without sending Jesus. The sole stipulation is that these foreignors keep God's sabbaths holy and keep from evil, two things Christians can't seem to do.
Where in the OT does God indicate that he is planning to send his only son to die for the sins of mankind?
Can someone point me to the passage where God indicates that he is going to come to Earth himself as a human being?
If his plan all along was to send Jesus then why all this nonsense about giving salvation to anyone and everyone who worships him and offers sacrifices on his holy mountain?
Why are keeping his sabbaths so important to him if he knew he was just going to superseded all that by sending Jesus?
Isaiah 56:3-8 --
Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree."
4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."
8 The Sovereign LORD declares— he who gathers the exiles of Israel: "I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered."
Despite the OT being basically about Israel and how God chose them to save, here we see that God has also included the gentiles for salvation. And all without sending Jesus. The sole stipulation is that these foreignors keep God's sabbaths holy and keep from evil, two things Christians can't seem to do.
Where in the OT does God indicate that he is planning to send his only son to die for the sins of mankind?
Can someone point me to the passage where God indicates that he is going to come to Earth himself as a human being?
If his plan all along was to send Jesus then why all this nonsense about giving salvation to anyone and everyone who worships him and offers sacrifices on his holy mountain?
Why are keeping his sabbaths so important to him if he knew he was just going to superseded all that by sending Jesus?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Articles on the Historical vs Mythical Jesus
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)