Category Archives: Christianity

I was going to call this ‘Theology’ but Christianity is a better descriptor. I deal herein with the message and doctrines – including some alternatives to the traditional – of Christianity. It is based on Biblical text and concepts. The views herein are from a Christian perspective.

Set back for the Christian Community

Today is Monday, 6th February 2017. A well known radio preacher made a fool of himself on the air. Not only that, but he demonstrated a huge ignorance of claims made by Christian preachers in the past. Your humble correspondent does not know if the glaringly erroneous statements were made in complete ignorance of the prior claims, or if the speaker assumed no one would ever check.

A little research would have turned up the past claims; and to assume ignorance and blind acceptance on the part of the audience is both insulting and puerile.

The thought upon which he was expounding is valid. Essentially, he was saying the Bible makes no claims counter to that of modern science, and never conformed to the science – mistaken in the macro and sometimes in the micro – of the past.

There is an underlying assumption here that the scientific understanding of 2017 will never be altered. That ‘we’ are at the pinnacle of scientific understand. That in another three hundred years, or one hundred years, or fifty years or twenty minutes, discoveries will be made that alter the current views.

Probably not completely over rule current understanding, but alter it in the sense of expanding understanding and possibly altering the context of certain understanding. Much like how Dr. Einstein’s concept of Relativity expanded and contextualized Sir Issac Newton’s laws of gravity.

The speaker – who your servant hesitates to name – spoke about how the Bible never supported the Earth being flat. This would come as a shock to nearly all students of Theology and Biblical studies until sometime AFTER the age of Copernicus, Galileo, and the like.

Isaiah 40:22 (In the King James Version AND in the original Hebrew) reads that the Lord sits “… on the circle of the Earth…” and was held to be ‘literal’ – meaning as the reader understood it, not as the writer intended it – and indicated a two-dimentional shape (as understood later in Pythagorean or plane geometry). Therefore, the Bible implied the Earth is flat.

I’m not sure if the speaker mentioned it – I turned the station selector in disgust – but there are three passages of the Old Testament – two describing the same event – wherein the Bible implies the Sun stopped or reversed direction of travel, causing the day to be extended. (Joshua 10:12 to 14, 2nd Kings 20:1 to 11 and Isaiah 38:1 to 8) THEREFORE, the Bible says the Sun rotates around the Earth and the geocentric theory of the Universe is proved – according to the ‘science is bunk’ faction which lasted at least into the 19th Century. I notice it is not mentioned much currently.

I have no doubt of the extension of the days in question. Nor do I have any great scientific theory to explain it. The occurrences may well be miracles in the unexplained things of God sense. However, the heliocentric nature of the solar system is reasonably secure. Nor does the Bible anywhere claim otherwise; it does however record reports by eyewitnesses of what they observed. Which may or may not explicable in simple or familiar terms.

I wonder what repercussions this speaking session portend for the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) movement? The entire YEC theory is based on a ‘literal’ understanding of the King James Version of the Bible. Which this speaker denies.

One can conclude Christianity is not as monolithic as sometimes claimed. Then again, God is a very big God.

2 Comments

Filed under Bible, Christianity, Flat Earth, religion, science

A Decent Human Being with a Gun

24 January 2017. Thomas Yoxall, age 43, tattooed and pierced, was driving West on Interstate 10 near Tonopah, Arizona. He saw a man (later identified as Leonard Penneles-Escobar) ‘savagely’ beating an Arizona State Trooper (Edward Andersson). Mr. Yoxall could not ignore the situation and stopped.

He called to the man beating the trooper, presumably to stop beating the trooper. The man kept beating the trooper and Mr. Yoxall fired his personally owned sidearm at the attacker, stopping the attack. While tending the trooper, Mr. Penneles resumed the attack on Trooper Andersson; Mr. Yoxall fired one more round, incapacitating Mr. Penneles permanently; Penneles died later from his wounds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thomas-yoxall-citizen-who-killed-man-assaulting-trooper-edward-andersson-i-was-put-there-by-god/

Ladies and Gentlemen, Girls and Boys; Mr. Thomas Yoxall is the sort of man to be admired and encouraged. Seeing a serious problem, he acted swiftly and surely. Victorious in the conflict, he declines the title ‘hero’ and says the aftermath of killing another human is difficult mentally and emotionally.

A telling comment, Mr. Yoxall says he was “…put there by God.” A good man clinging to his guns and his God.

Not much else to say.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civilization, Crime, Firearms and their use, God, Heroes and Heroism

Trey Pearson, the Homosexual, Christian Rock Singer. And?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/06/16/christian-rocker-trey-pearson-reflects-on-life-after-coming-out.html?intcmp=hpff

Trey Pearson has publicly announced he is ‘gay’. So what? What possible meaning does this have for the world at large? What does it change in broad (no pun intended) terms? Not much.

It seems to be signaling the end of his heterosexual marriage, but his wife and he remain on good terms, it seems. It may quite possibly end the Christian music career he has been following. It may quite possibly cause broken connections between Mr. Pearson and some in the Christian community.

Frankly, I had not heard of Trey Pearson prior to this article appearing in Fox News. I do not follow ‘Christian music’ as I find most ‘Christian musicians’ are poor musicians in general and could not cut it in the regular music world. Sorry, but that’s my observation. (Feel free to disagree, but it’s a question of taste and not overly subject to rules of logic.)

Having said all that, I want to make a couple things clear.

I do not hate Mr. Pearson. I don’t even know him. He may be a prince of a fellow or he may be a rotten skunk; I simply do not know. I do know he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. In that regard he is my brother and I am obliged – ordered, expected – to love him as a Christian brother and also as a human being.

Anyone who fails to grasp that last paragraph doesn’t understand the Bible much, nor the English language.

Do I fully endorse his lifestyle or his actions in some regards? No. As I mentioned, I’m not fond of ‘Christian music’ and homosexual conduct is prohibited in the New Testament. Then again, I don’t fully endorse my – hopefully past – lifestyle or actions in all regards. I’ve never engaged in homosexual behavior, but I have been bitterly angry with others, coveted others property, engaged in petty theft, been derelict in my duties – both secular and Sacred – and chased women. (Not to be indelicate, I caught several.) So my life as a Christian is not unsullied and perfect, EXCEPT as God has forgiven me and credited Jesus’ perfection and atonement to my account.

The same conditions apply to all persons. The exception applies to all persons who have agreed – contracted – with Jesus as followers and protected persons of Jesus. That – as far as I can tell – applies to Mr. Pearson.

So; I will pray for Mr. Pearson, his soon to be ex-wife – and I don’t agree with them divorcing – his family, his future and his service toward God. I would pray and expect he will at some point end his homosexual life-style. Not to satisfy my feelings, or those of any preacher, pastor, or holy man; but in response to God’s extant statement on the subject.

I find this whole matter sad. But it is a sad world, ever since man decided to ignore God’s directions and make up his own. No doubt most of us will survive and even grow stronger in Christ.

Except for those who choose to further alienate themselves from God.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bible, Christianity, God, homosexuality

Rights? What Rights?

North Carolina has passed a state law prohibiting the use of gender specific rest room by people of a gender not identified on the bathroom.

In common terms, men may not use women’s rest rooms and vice-versa.

The Federal Government, specifically the Obama Administration and politically appointed positions of the Obama Administration, has ordered gender specific rest rooms to open to anyone who chooses to use them; regardless of who is already using the rest room.

Note this does not apply only to those persons who have had extensive surgery to remove extraneous sexual organs and features, additionally cosmetically adding the appearance of the desired sexual organs and features; but applies to anyone ‘identifying’ as a member of a sex. So a physically complete, functional female can enter a male rest room at will. Conversely, a physically complete and fully functional male can enter a female rest room at will.

According to the Obama Administration – and a group of supporters presumably and announced as members of the self-proclaimed “GBLT community” (“GBLT” is identified as Gay – Bi sexual – Lesbian – Transvestite or Trans sexual) demand this; as anything less intrudes on their ‘right’ to relieve themselves.

There are several inconsistent and somewhat incoherent thoughts in this.

One: From where does the ‘right’ to use a rest room of the other sex derive? The U. S. Constitution lists no such right along with speedy trials, possessing and carrying arms, security in property and papers, and the ability to criticize the government; probably some others I haven’t mentioned.

The Declaration of Independence – if not the structure of our nation and government as the Constitution, is the spirit of our nation and government – cites ‘inalienable rights’ ‘endowed by our Creator’ as the source of individual rights. I hear no argument nor can I cite such such ‘rights’ as endowed by the Creator. Nor has anyone else heretofore. Ever.

Two: Presuming such rights – and I do not, I speak only for sake of argument – why and how do the rights of ‘this group’ overrule the rights of ‘that group’? In common speech and thought, how does the claimed ‘right’ of a physical male who ‘self-identifies’ as a female, over rule the right of physical females who feel threatened and humiliated by the presence of a physical male in their rest room?

Why is allowing ‘other sex’ people to invade the rest rooms of ‘regular sex’ people so important?

Three: How many of those people who might be considered “LBGT” really want to use the rest room of the other sex? How many Lesbians want to use rest room facilities with men? (Either as the invader or the invadee?) (I see from my spell check I’ve invented another word.) Conversely, how many homosexually inclined men want to use rest room facilities with women? (Again, as invader or invadee?) From my own knowledge derived from the men and women I know to be homosexual, none of them have suggested – to me anyway – they really feel deprived not being allowed in the ‘other’ rest room.

Four: The incidence of homosexuality – including lesbianism – in this country (or among humans world wide) is a very slim minority. There are varying estimates on the percentage. All the scientific surveys and estimates I can find start by saying, “No one really knows” and then proceeds with their best guess. I find it not surprising that most answers tend to support the views of the parent organization or agency. (Non-gay organizations tend to be lower in estimates than gay activist organizations.) However, all groups seem to find the homosexual (male and female) incidence rates are distinct minorities. The rates range from less than four percent to approaching twenty percent.

Therefore, by any count, the number of persons supporting and expecting some form of benefit from the dictate to ‘open the rest rooms’ to any is a rather small minority. What is the desire of the Obama Administration in discomfiting the
majority for the supposed benefit of a distinct minority?

By the way, we are not suggesting – nor does the North Carolina law, nor anyone else – denial of public restrooms to anyone. There is no question of “You have to go home to go”. Unless of course, the ‘open rest room’ faction succeeds; in which case the majority of people will be forced to share facilities with those who want to embarrass and possibly harm them.

Five: President Obama is now threatening to penalize North Carolina and other local governmental agencies if they do not comply with his dictates. All schools receiving federal funds – and of course, ALL public schools have been mandated to receive federal funds – or in the common tongue, individual citizen’s tax money – and therefore, ALL public schools are subject to the extortion by command, to open all restrooms to anyone who feels like it.

What is the purpose of all this? Other than the progressive goal of destroying all morals and values, one does not know. One understands this will expose all school age children – in a very vulnerable state – to the visual review of anyone and everyone. This is desired by the progressive faction of society, but I’m not sure it is desired by many others.

One other thing: If the United States elects a Democrat, either Democrat, to the Presidency everyone may rest assured this attack will continue. The reader may vote as the reader pleases. If getting more money and ‘benefits’ is more important than your children, feel free to vote Democrat.

If one’s children are important, one must consider doing otherwise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Christianity, Civilization, Crime, Idiot Politicians, Nation, Political Correctness

Some Random Observations Regarding God

Following is a rather unconnected and rambling list of thoughts. They are all based on statements or questions presented by non-believers – and a few believers in some cases – and have demanded my explanation. Some of these items have been addressed before in this blog. Perhaps not in exactly the same manner, but hopefully with the same mindset and arguments.

Giving the same old answer to the same old question is to be expected. Asking the same old question after the answer has been provided – and explained, ad infinitum – is rather childish.

1. Dying isn’t the worst thing that can happen.

The stimulus for this is typically a complaint along the lines of someone dying when the speaker didn’t want them to die. The speaker/complainer feels rather victimized because someone – a child, one’s parent or other relation, one’s dog, a favorite actor or singer – has died. Not only has the someone died, but in the opinion of the speaker/complainer, at the improper time or instant. “Why did the little girl (or boy) die because a drunk ran them over? Why didn’t God – obviously God’s fault – stop it?”

In some cases, the dead person died far away and possibly long ago. For instance, “Why did all the various Christians die in the Roman circuses?” Or “Why did God allow the [pick an evil group] to kill such and such a Christian?”

Where I cannot clearly answer all details of all questions, I do have some basic information about the phenomenon.

First, everyone dies. It’s a rule. Not only everyone, but everything. Horses, trees, governments, ideas (perhaps not all ideas, but the ‘fad’ ones anyway), and so on. So even if Uncle Cletus had survived the automobile accident, the cancer would have killed him anyway. Or his age. Or his lifestyle (drank whisky like a fish and smoked like a steam engine). Perhaps an angry husband. But die he would have.

Every so often – less currently – the attack of 11 September, 2001 is mentioned. God is berated for the death of around 3,000 people. Sometimes Moslem terrorists are mentioned in passing, sometimes not. Allow me to point out, had that not happened, would those people have lived forever? Probably not. Dying is often a tragedy and nearly alway inconvenient. But it happens to everyone, sooner or later.

When one accepts the concept of God’s sovereignty and omniscience together, one understands it is God who determines when everyone – anyone – dies; and when it happens, it was the ‘right time’. Just to be sure everyone has a chance to get this, it was the ‘right time’ as far as God was concerned. It may not be the ‘right time’ for the grieving survivor – including me – but it was the right time in God’s plan. If one of the survivors don’t agree, it makes little difference in the long run. One might as well be mad Rembrandt didn’t ‘lighten up’ the painting “Man with a Golden Helmet”. It is decided and done.

Not to mention we haven’t mentioned the sometimes imbecilic decisions which preceded the death. Why blame God when a child is never taught not to run out in the street? Why blame God when a relative abuses his health for years? Why blame God for being God? Some of this thought will be further discussed in section five.

2. Denying God’s existence will not make Him go away.

Many of the non-believers which whom I have discussed the matter justify ignoring God by the simple and circular reasoning of “I just don’t believe it”. One gets the feeling because what I have said does not convince the non-believer on the spot, it is not valid.

I haven’t been convinced of many things, but neither my ego nor faith is enough to convince me they cannot exist simply because I’m not convinced. It seems the non-believer’s faith is great enough to convince them they are the ultimate arbitrator of validity in the known universe.

It really isn’t, of course. It is the near ultimate form of denial. As long as one keeps repeating “Not real…” to themselves, they are safe from any consequence of the entity to be avoided. No doubt someone will post a reply to this essay, denying what I just said. Which proves they really don’t believe and they’re safe from God.

By the way, this denial doesn’t work with many other things in life. The death of a loved one, a diagnosis of cancer, a deadline, insufficient balance in the checking account or a flat tire. Nothing in reality ‘leaves’ just because one is not thinking about it or even honestly unaware of it.

3. The significant difference between ‘love’ and ‘approval’.

“Does God love homosexuals?” Variously, this is phrased as “Does God love [fill in blank of a person or group in opposition to God]?” Examples coming to mind are: Adolf Hitler, NAZIS in general, abortionists, women who abort babies, telephone salesmen, ‘sinners’ (non-specific) and so forth.

It is a ‘trap’ question. If one answers ‘no’, the questioner immediately pounces and announces, “Aha! So God doesn’t really ‘love’ everyone!”

If one answers ‘yes’, the clever questioner immediately pounces and claims, “Aha! Since God loves them, you must be wrong in condemning them as sinners!”

It’s the old ‘heads-I-win, tails-you-lose’, ‘unanswerable question’ gag. Much on the order of ‘Have you quit beating your wife (or husband, I suppose) yet?’

I have provided the answer on several occasions. Yes, God loves everyone, even ‘them’; however, that does not equate to approving or endorsing their actions. This of course is a ‘weasel out’ answer; it doesn’t play into their ‘gotcha’ game. They pretend the answer is artificial and doesn’t make sense, or they don’t quite understand it.

The mistake is in assuming evidence and definitions not given in Holy Writ. Nothing in the Bible suggests that one who rejects God can also ‘claim’ God’s protection.

4. The distinction between a moral code and peer group consensus.

God presents a code of ethics for His followers. In the Mosaic Law, it was seemingly formulated and specific. In Christianity, it is fairly loose in specifics and instead a general set of principles rather than a list of “do and don’t” articles. In fact, the Mosaic Law – the Ten Commandments and associated instructions for living life – was fairly general until the Holy Men of the Rabbinic league decided to specify what everything meant and issued – over a period of time – what everything meant.

This is not to point fingers at the traditional Jewish Rabbis. They did their work with great trepidation and with little monetary gain. Most of them did not get any pay as such for working as a rabbi. The great bulk of them served the Creator to the best of their knowledge and attempted to make others aware of what the Creator – The Name as usually used – wanted everyone to know.

So it has been in Christianity. Since the time of Christ, there have been people who claimed to speak for the Lord, as representatives of Christ and/or the Creator who further defined what Jesus instructed His followers to do. Rather than the formalized teachings of Mishnah and Gemara (look them up), Christianity has issued various documents of instruction in various forms and levels of authority.

The formal, organized, orthodox groups have demanded attendance at certain church functions during the year. Certain dress codes were published, especially for church attendance.

Protestant – as they are called – groups also issued ‘group specific’ rules of conduct and decorum. When I was a young man, a proper Christian was not to drink, smoke (cigarettes), dance, go to movies or engage in any form of sexual conduct with the ‘opposite’ sex. (Hardly anyone really knew if they were the ‘opposite’ sex or the other person was.) Card playing was usually forbidden; whether stud poker or bridge.

Other groups – church denominations – had either more strict or lax sets of rules. Some were very specific and demanding – like no female of any age could use make up or color their hair – and some allowed most everything. This is a whole study in itself and I won’t try to get more specific, other than to say Christianity as a whole has no less ‘commentary’ on what the Bible says than Judaism. It might be mentioned here that Judaism has a few distinctions between ‘groups’ as well. They range from the very Orthodox Jewish to essentially a ethnic, social society.

In the past one hundred years – more or less, it’s been a rather creeping process – many non-believers have set up a parallel belief system to Christianity, but one largely without Christ. The main thrust of the concept is “Christ doesn’t really matter, what He TAUGHT is what matters.” Except for the part about Christ being God, a relationship with Him as the key to salvation, miracles and that sort of thing.

For instance, Christ did teach about helping the poor. Therefore, in the Christianity without Christ religion, ‘giving to the poor’ is of greater significance than knowing and recognizing Christ as God. This ‘giving to the poor’ is also attached to various political systems who claim to assist the poor. For this reason, socialism is deemed to be more friendly to the poor than capitalism. Even if empirical, historic data shows otherwise.

This leads to the view that everyone should be removed from and protected from the results of their actions. “Freedom” is construed as action without limits or constraint. Therefore, birth control and abortion must be available to all women and at public expense. By the same token, medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases – which could be easily prevented by ‘chastity’, the ‘old fashioned’ idea of only engaging in sex with one’s own and single partner – should now be provided to all at public expense. Recognizing a person brought some disaster – either legal, economic or medical – on themselves by their own choices – misdeeds in most cases – is considered ‘judgmental’ and forbidden.

On the same line, ‘environmentalism’ is a holy and required view; espousing ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is far more important than other considerations. This is now to the point where evaluating ‘climate change’ and realizing the claims made are insubstantial and non-substantiable is considered heresy. Seemingly punishable by burning at the stake or at least a total and complete excommunication from society.

All these things – and many other associated – are now ‘assumed’ to have equal – indeed, preferential – standing with the moral code promulgated by God. Therefore, ‘free’ (public funded) abortions are now more important than celibacy or chastity and ‘environmentalism’ is more important than ‘thou shall not steal’.

In this logic, the God who said “Thou shall not steal” is wrong and the pretend god who who said ‘Gaia is the Earth Mother’ is right. Consequently, anyone who recognizes the Creator of the Universe is, at best, out of date and in error.

5. The significant difference between ‘holy’ and ‘happy’.

God commanded His people to be Holy, as He was Holy. This is recorded in the Mosaic Law and re-stated by Christ in the New Testament teaching of Christ. Whereas there are writings and poems or songs in the Old Testament book of Psalms about wealth and prosperity, the record of both Old and New Testament writings demonstrate God does NOT guarantee His followers with health, wealth, prosperity and “a rose garden” at all times. The story of Job, the history of the nation Israel and the deaths of Jesus and many of His followers demonstrate this concept.

What it – the message of God – does teach and guarantee is God keeps His followers in a positive state of mind through bad times. The Bible teaches those who rely on God will be ultimately rewarded in eternity, not immediately.

If it hasn’t been mentioned before, or no one has noticed, one is not issued a Rolls-Royce, a mansion in Beverly Hills and a wardrobe from the most fashionable designer immediately upon becoming a Christian.

Nor have I been protected from injury or illness due to my belief in God. I have to admit, I thought I was dead a couple of times, but God has preserved me. I expect to die at some point. All my grandparents – both sides – and my parents have died. Most of them were better Christians and probably better people than me. I have to replace the tires and oil in my car periodically. My dog got old and had to be put down.

The idea God makes life perfect for His followers is simply NOT part of Christian (or Jewish as I can tell) doctrine. Those who expect all their wishes fulfilled and a perfect life are confusing Christianity with a 1960 television show with Barbara Eden or a Disney movie.

6. “I don’t like it!” is not a valid criticism.

When dealing with those non-believers who justify their non-belief on what God ‘fails’ to do or does wrong, I’ve noticed a commonality. All of them are upset that God doesn’t do things they would do, or not in the way they would do them.

The conversation invariably comes around to ‘God shouldn’t do [such and such] – or allow [fill in the black here] to happen’. In other words, God didn’t follow this person’s wishes and is therefore wrong.

Not only that, but the person objecting demands God comply with their wishes in order to gain the objector’s favor.

So, just exactly is God in this case? Or more properly, who assumes they are God? If I had a nickel for every time some nitwit with a runny nose and no kleenex told me God was in error – I’d have a bunch of nickels.

So what is to be done?

God is going to win. I read the book all the way to the end. God wins. (Go figure.)

For those intellectually honest, admit to yourself God is really God and ask Him to show you the reality. Then have the intellectual honesty to understand God is telling you the reality and listen.

You will NOT have to start dressing like me, or get rid of everything you have. You won’t have to make any ‘specific’ changes prior to becoming a follower of Jesus. You won’t have to exile your girlfriend or boyfriend (regardless of participant’s sex). You won’t have to divest yourself of all your worldly possessions and become a monk or nun and live in a cave or anything.

You may have to make some changes in your life. However, you will not have to change anything until after you become a believer – and only then when God instructs you to do so. You will not have to change anything to placate me. Nor to placate the local pastor or priest. Placating your Mom is up to you and her. I would expect most everyone to change something in their life; but not everyone the same thing. Mostly what a follower of God needs to change are the things which stand between the follower and God.

If one does not believe God exists and continues in that belief; go ahead. No lightning bolt will strike – usually. In eternity – after you die – God will demand some explanations. It is up to you, obviously. I will still talk with you, share with you and even like you – depending, on how we ‘mesh’; there are some Christians with whom I don’t really get along. If you don’t shower often and never change your socks I may not ‘hang around’ as much.

1 Comment

Filed under Civilization, God, religion

The Argument for the Triune God

The concept of Trinity is an accepted tenet of Christianity. The concept is widely accepted among almost all groups of Christianity. It is supported by the Bible – normally accepted by all those groups of Christianity. Christians accepting this concept are lumped into the heading of Trinitarians.

The opposition to this concept is the doctrine of Arianism. This should not be confused with Aryanism – the racial theory behind the NAZI ethnic purity belief. Arianism stems from the teachings of Arius; a Christian living about A. D. 250-336. This belief teaches Jesus, called the Christ, was not a person of the God-head, but a created being. (The same teaching dismisses the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost in similar manner.)

The conflict between the Trinitarian and Arian or Non-Trinitarian faction of Christianity is long and detailed in various records. I shall not pursue it further other than to acknowledge the conflict.

The term ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible. Not in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. It is a term later adopted by the aggregate followers of Christ to describe a number of concepts described in the Bible. This is seized upon by the non-trinitarian faction as ‘evidence’ supporting their position.

For clarity, the concept of the Trinity does NOT assert or imply more than One Single God. In actual fact, the Trinity states there is only One God. However, Trinitarians recognize God in Three “Persons”.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit (Ghost in the King James Version).

All three are God in God’s entirety; yet they are individual in perception and function to some degree. (I refer those who do not grasp this or find it contradictory to the modern physics problem of the photon’s nature; is the photon a particle or a wave form?)

I personally have a problem with the term ‘persons’. In modern English (which may be the problem) ‘persons’ implies three different beings, people or entities. Assuredly a superficial view agrees with this implication. (As is the case with Islam and many other of the non-trinitarian views on the subject.) But it is the accepted term and I’m not going to change it here. The usage has a long tradition behind it and probably no other word fits, either. “Facets” or “parts” are even more likely to imply separate existences.

Christians recognize the Bible – in its entirety – to be the message (‘word’) of God to mankind. Therefore, the entire Bible is to be considered in determining the validity of the Trinity. Any faction, denomination or sect refusing to accept the entirety of the Bible are suspect in terms of Christian adherence.

Starting with the Creation account recorded in Genesis, one finds:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning  God*  created the heavens and the earth.
This frequently used Hebrew word – God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is plural. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural use in Hebrew does NOT indicate either a committee of gods, or God and angels, nor does it indicate the Trinity. The plural form indicates majesty much the same as various secular Kings and Queens use the “royal ‘we’ “.

Then in Genesis 1:2 …but the Spirit of God* was moving over the surface of the water.
Yes, I did take only a selected part of the verse using the phrase “Spirit of God”. Those desiring to check, please read Genesis 1:2 in situ and note the meaning is not changed nor altered.
Spirit of God is a much discussed phrase. The word in Hebrew translated ‘spirit’ in many translations of the Bible, in Hebrew also can be translated ‘wind’ or ‘breath’. In some translations this phrase is translated into English as “wind from God” (the Jerusalem Publication Society in their 1985 translation of the Tanakh – the traditional Jewish rendering of what is termed the “Old Testament” in English language use Christianity – translates the phrase in this manner. But a footnote indicates other translations render the same phrase “Spirit of God”.) Of value in this difference of translation is to be seen in other parts of the Hebrew Tanakh where the same Hebrew word (transliterated ‘ruwach’) refers consistently to the divine spirit that empowers and energizes individuals (see Gen 41:38; Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; Ezek 11:24; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20).

Here now, there is a problem. In the first two verses of the Bible, “God” creates “…the heavens and the earth” (which is no stretch to consider the entire Universe), BUT, the “Spirit of God” is moving over the surface of the earth. The wording suggests, implies, two entities. But Christians and Jews at least superficially agree the God of Creation is One.

In Genesis 3:8, (please read the entire section, Genesis 3:8-19) the “Lord God” walks in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Not only does the “Lord God” walk, but He makes noise – evidenced by Adam and Eve hearing movement of the “Lord God”. A conversation (rather uncomfortable for Adam and Eve) transpires.

Which indicates God was present with Adam and Eve in a physical form. God uttered sounds – it seems – which registered on Adam and Eve as conversation and words.

This record of God is surely not the ‘Spirit of God’ mentioned other places in the Bible. Nor does it seem to be the Creator God who created the Universe.

Switch attention to John 4:23-24 Jesus, in speaking the Samaritan woman, tells her (23) But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. (24) God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
The full account is from verse 4 to 24; at least verse 19-26 to avoid charges of taking the quotation out of context.

Jesus states God – the Father, the first Person of the Trinity – is a Spirit. Not physical. Which is problematic for those who claim God appears in person in various sections of the Old Testament. (See following.)

Genesis 32:24-30 recounts the incident of Jacob (son of Isaac, son of Abraham) ‘wrestling’ with “…a man”. The word in the text (verse 24) leaves no doubt; Jacob and ‘the man’ (as Jacob thought at the time) were in fact flopping about on the ground, pushing each other around and getting sweaty and dirty. When Jacob’s adversary in this decided to leave, ‘the man’ dislocated Jacob’s hip, putting Jacob out of serious action. But Jacob will not let go. Jacob refuses to allow ‘the man’ go free. Jacob demands a blessing.

‘The man’ tells Jacob his name (Jacob’s) name is changed to Israel. The name is a play on words in Hebrew and means – at least in one form – “Strives with God”. At this point, Jacob demands to know ‘the man’s’ name; One could interpret this question of Jacob as “Who (in the world) ARE you?”

‘The man’ refuses to give his name – other than the above- but does bless Jacob and leaves. Jacob names the place of the encounter “Penuel” literally meaning “Face of God”, and explained “Certainly I have seen God face to face and have survived.”

So either Jacob met God face to face (and hand to hand), or ‘the man’ lied to Jacob and Jacob was in error. Or the Bible was made up much later and fraudulent. Take your pick.

As a Christian, one must presume the Bible is correct and accurate in the records of what participants saw, did and understood.

However, this appearance of God does not agree with the appearance of God in Genesis 1:1. This was apparently a man. A human being. (The text gives no hint of Jacob wrestling and talking with anything else.) However, this cannot be the First Person of the Trinity according to Jesus’ statement in the Gospel of John.

This also applies to several other sections of the Old Testament. Specifically Judges 13, where the ‘messenger of the Lord’ appears to Manoah and wife. The messenger announces the birth of Samson (not yet identified by name) to the yet infertile couple. Later, Manoah tells his wife (Judges 13:22) “We will certainly die, because we have seen a supernatural being!” This verse is translated And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. This from the KJV. The word translated ‘God’ is ‘elohim’ and can be translated into English in various ways, all dealing with supernatural beings; most commonly “God”.

One is reminded of the statement made to Moses on the mountain in Exodus 33:20 “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” Other passages that teach this are Deut 4:33, 5:24, 26; Judg 6:22, 13:22, and Isa 6:5. Manoah has the idea that he will die, having seen God.

Probably the over-riding teaching of the idea of the Trinity is Jesus claiming to be God. Either Jesus is telling the truth, or He is not.

If Jesus is telling the truth, the discussion is over.

If Jesus is not telling the truth, then Jesus is in the same category as those who claim to be Napoleon or a chocolate cream pie. Or the text is so contaminated by additions, edits and fabrications the whole fabric of Scripture is useless.

On a sidenote, but related, those who claim to worship God yet question the authenticity of the Bible are very curious. Claiming to believe in God, an Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient being and simultaneously thinking He fails or is incompetent to preserve His message to mankind is self-contradictory. Either God keeps what He claims to be His message as He intended, or He is less than omnipotent and omniscient.

John 10 (22-39) Jesus claims to be God. In a confrontation with the Jewish leaders, Jesus announces (verse 30) “…The Father and I  are one.” The NET has a foot note on this verse and word ‘one’ as follows: The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so 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 (unity of essence). (Provided by bible.org)

This is NOT one single person, not the same person, not the same purpose or goal, but the same essence. To spell it out, the essence is Divinity.

In John 8:57-59 Jesus is hounded by the Judeans (Jewish people in Jerusalem at the time), challenging Jesus’ claim of elating Abraham by stating Jesus is too young; Jesus replies “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am! “ The term “I am” is a direct quote from Exodus 3:14 and is therefore Jesus statement He is God. If anyone doubts this, the next verse removes all doubt: Then they [the Judeans] picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area.

The Judeans took Jesus’ statement as claim to Godhood and were going to stone Jesus for blasphemy. Please note Jesus ‘hid himself’, while speaking to a group of people who were in the process of stoning Him to death. Harry Houdini couldn’t do that without some preparation and equipment.

In Matthew 16 (verses 13 to 20) Jesus asks His disciples their opinion or belief as to Jesus’ true identity. Peter answered (verse 16) You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Rather than deny or correct Peter’s bold statement, Jesus tells Peter You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

Note in Hebrew usage, the term “… son of …” was an idiomatic phrase meaning ‘the same as’ (similar to the modern English idiom of ‘chip off the old block’) and does not denote family or genetic relationship. The missionary and partner of Paul “Barnabas” means “son of Encouragement”. Not that Barnabas’ daddy was named ‘Encouragement’, but that Barnabas was a great encouragement to other Christians. When Peter identified Jesus as ‘Son of the Living God’ Peter is saying Jesus IS the Living God.

It is interesting to note that while Jesus is accepting Peter’s recognition of Jesus as God, Jesus is simultaneously speaking of ‘my Father’. Either Jesus has multiple personalities or Jesus is speaking of the Father as the First Person of the Trinity, with Jesus being the Second Person.

I leave out much. However, what I have presented here is enough information to show the reasoning behind the Trinitarian view of God.

2 Comments

Filed under Bible, Christianity, God

Interesting Statement, this…

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/05/20/john-glenn-evolution-should-be-taught-in-schools/?intcmp=trending

At first glance, this seems obvious as to meaning and will be sneered at by many in the ‘religion’ business. However, all people – Christian believers or not – should read the small print and determine what Senator Glenn really thinks on the matter.

Among other statements of Sen Glenn, he said “to look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible” (‘this kind of creation’ is space in this context). However, he also thinks science and discoveries should be taught, including ‘evolution’.

Yes, there are those in the religion business – not to be confused with God’s believers known as Christians – who will lose income if their message is removed. That sole message being the evil of evolution, evolutionists and science in general. That sole message being ignorance and willful denial of reality is key to pleasing God. Too bad if they lose income. God directs no one to lie or cater to prejudice in order to get rich.

The ‘good news’ – the Greek word translated ‘gospel’ – is Almighty God through the sacrifice of God (Jesus Christ) has provided a way to forgive humans for sin and rebellion. The ‘good news’ is this forgiveness is available to any and all who will ask God for it. The ‘good news’ is Almighty God loves without stinting and renews life to those who seek it.

The ‘good news’ is that Christians do not have to be ignorant or stupid in order to please God. A Christian pleases God by listening to God and following His will. Not by obeying a list of ‘shall’ and ‘shall not’ items invented by some ‘religious person’. No one has to please the Pope, or the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Dali Lama, or Billy Graham or Billy Sunday or me or anyone, in order to obey God. (Some of us probably get some of the concepts right from time to time, but the key is to obey God.)

Do anti-God and anti-Christian people use some aspects of science (in the large and vague sense) to attempt to discredit God? Most certainly. One notes anti-God and anti-Christian people use some aspects of politics, social concern and religion attempting to discredit God as well. So what?

It is the duty of all Christian people to be well informed about all of God’s nature and all of God’s creation. In doing so, we can better serve God in whatever manner He sees fit. We can also separate the wheat from chaff in other fields – like science (in the large and vague sense) and politics and social concerns. Ignorance is NOT a strength.

Except for dictators. See the quote about ignorance and strength in the novel 1984, by George Orwell. That is NOT what God commands.

2 Comments

Filed under Christianity, God, religion