I believe I am called to write about this particular subject for several reasons, but none greater than the fact that I have a friend in Apologetics whose family is aligned with this cult. At any rate, once again it will be important to begin with the background of this particular faith movement.
This particular group was started up by a Persian by the name of Siyyid Ali Muhammad in 1844 when he declared that he had Divine Revelation. Similar to what the Muslims teach about Yeshua ushering in an age of peace in the form of the future so-called prophet Muhammad, Siyyid Ali Muhammad or "Bab" believed that there would be a second messenger greater than he whom would usher in an age of peace and justice. His portrayal is also extremely similar to John the Baptist's role and his understanding of Yeshua. This messenger of God was known as Baha'u'llah, whom bears the role of the same understanding of Yeshua in Messianic Judaism. He was born to a wealthy family and desired to help the poor. He declared that he received a vision from God in 1852.
Unlike the other popular cults we have seen, this religion advocates a degree of pluralism as we will see. Of course with our previous article on logic, self refuting claims can not be applied to reality. What the Bahai' cult actually teaches is a form of religious pluralism which falls into a self refuting trap, since all religions can not be true, since they contradict each other. This will be important to keep in mind. The prophets in this particular religion are Moses, Abraham, Yeshua, Krishna, Muhammad and Buddha, whom it is said by those of the Bahai' cult were sent to show everyone how to worship God. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned for 40 years and wrote over 100 volumes of information still utilized by the Bahai' community today. Baha'u'llah died in exile in 1892...and has not seen a resurrection since.
I believe that it will be extremely crucial to recognize what the Bahai' cult actually teaches in order to gain a grasp on this understanding, and this will be a great lead-in to our understanding on faith systems as we dive into Eastern religions. Let us look directly at what the Bahai' faith understands given the writings of Baha'u'llah. "All-praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?" http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-12.html
As with most religions that copy off of Christian/Messianic understandings, this faith indeed contains some of the same qualities. The Lord is incomparable and the all-glorious Ruler of the universe who created the world. Of this we can not disagree with, and we see the same thing written in Romans 1:20 " 20For (A)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (B)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. " This seems to infer a uniformity of God's nature between most religions, that God is in unity.
However, there is a problem with the Bahai's understanding. That God is centered around a Oneness doctrine. Of course, this does not adhere with Deuteronomy 6:4 which infers a plurality of God's nature with its understanding in Adonai Echad, plurality of unity. This already is enough to contradict the core message of religious pluralism endorsed within its viewpoints, but we shall continue forward in spite of this. Is the Bahai's faith self consistent? "Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. "
This is problematic within its structure. What we have here is the revelation of God to Baha'u'llah from God. However, as he states, that the Unseen can in no wise reveal his essence unto men...it is questioned why this attempt to do so if it can not be done? That is self refuting logically. Nonetheless we continue ""Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise."
In this way we would once again see no problem with this understanding of God. One of the problematic structures we would see is that Krishna supported a different God than this in Hinduism...for example there are about 330 gods in the Hinduistic faith. Whereas, Muhammad speaks of there being only one God in unity. Thus it would appear problematic for those in support of the understanding of the Bahai' cult to support all of these aforestated gentlemen as prophets of God. This needs to be seen as a contradiction. Secondly, the other contradiction is that Baha'u'llah has already stated that God can not reveal himself to man. But here, God is indeed revealing himself to man. For anybody able to see logically through theological claims, this should be seen as being problematic to the structure of the Bahai's understanding.
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-12.html
Does this Eastern religious influence cease to be seen as we continue along? No, we can see that the Bahai' cult does not seem to care much about refuting itself. It should be thought of logically to proclaim the Bahai' cult as being ad hoc for this reason. "The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness. Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol." Here we see a supporting structure of all of what they refer to as the "divinely revealed" scriptures, which we see above is in support of religious pluralism. There is a huge problem with this understanding however. The books that it is drawing from...in its context, anybody whom has had divinely revealed revelation, all contradict one another. New Age understanding often draws to these conclusions...and I've noticed this understanding a bit with the Catholic church today especially. What becomes a problem is when we look at something simply as basic as Yeshua. I have already written articles about Judaism and the Muslim faith, and Christian understanding discoursing some of the differences between their understandings about Yeshua. If this be the case, what we can logically deduce is that not all of these faiths may be true at the same time in the same sense.
We shall continue with the understanding of the human soul in the Bahai' faith. The human soul is described here "Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When it leaveth the body, however, it will evince such ascendancy, and reveal such influence as no force on earth can equal. Every pure, every refined and sanctified soul will be endowed with tremendous power, and shall rejoice with exceeding gladness. " This is a fairly universal explanation of the soul made by most religions today. One of the issues with that there is no signs of actual sin which can affect the soul and its connection to God. Man is seen as essentially good in nature, whereas in the Bible it is declared that all have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). However, a major issue becomes here "And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty." Essentially the teaching espoused within this particular doctrine is that man will become as equal to God. This we have seen also in many New Age teachings today. The Bible declares that man's soul will become married to God, but we will not actually become God and his attributes...especially that of infinite, since we each had a beginning. One is also compelled to ask which road one must take in order to reach God, since this particular religion encompasses so many different religions and roads to take. http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-25.html
We continue further with what man will do when he dies. Especially this is of concern regarding Yeshua's resurrection. Do the Bahai' believe this was a physical resurrection? It becomes impossible with their theological understanding "“The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things.” There would be liberal Christians today whom would agree with the same. However Rav Shaul states in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” How it must be asked may this be reconciled with a nonliteral resurrection, being that the disciples saw an empty tomb and the risen Lord, as did 500 other witnesses? It certainly baffles the mind if these divine manifestations are not of the body as to what the talmidim and Rav Shaul were seeing and are teaching in these regards. Seeing the risen Lord, and attempting to combine that with these teachings above also serve as a contradiction within the Bahai' faith.
In reply to those who believe in the Bahai' cult, I believe it important to state that the logic within this understanding is certainly lacking. The religion should be seen as an ad hoc expression of faith, one that is made up and certainly can not be applied to logic given its self refuting nature. For this reason, I encourage those to seek out a true way of repentence that can not be found in many ways to God, but as Yeshua states in John 14:6- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." It would therefore be encouraged to the Bahai' proponents that they seek out the truth in Yeshua, and come to understand where true salvation may be found, as Moses, one of their prophets also declares in Leviticus 17:11, that atonement can only be had through a blood sacrifice. It is once again stretched to those seeking for truth in other areas...necessary to declare that truth may not be found in any other theological understanding than the one that we have in Yeshua's teachings, whom is BOTH God and man.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Nature of Truth: A Biblical viewpoint
We have looked at some overwhelming evidential support to demonstrate the validity of Messianic Judaism/Christianity from a Historical and Sociological perspective up to this point. We have demonstrated a very crude understanding to Biblical Exegesis and Hermeneutics, taking the Bible at face value, and have demonstrated how to let Scripture interpret Scripture. However, in our postmodern age, what we see from many people (and this is often arbitrarily done by many) is an attack on the nature of Truth. This directly affects our understanding of the Bible. Thus, its important to set things straight. What I want to discuss with people today is a subject that many Christian Apologists touch on and I think EXTREMELY well. What I think is important, is that we encourage and commend these Christian Philosophers..the Presuppositional Apologists. They are actually correct to make the claims that they do. This is not Aristetolian Logic...it is in fact Biblically based logic because it was created by God first. Aristotle merely is credited with the discovery and in fact refuted his own reasoning.
I need to make the point that I used to have a strong fascination with Philosophers for many years while still a Christian Apologist, and have studied the minds of Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Hume, Kant...amongst others, but also Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and the early church fathers. I do not intend on spending a lot of time on Philosophy, as my intention is more to look at Biblically related subjects, and reconcile the Jews and the Christians. I may decide to bring some of my Philosophical arguments from my former site to here, but I do not feel called to do so at this time. It must be understood at the same time, this understanding is extremely useful when you are engaged in a debate, and it is extremely effective for Presuppositional Apologetics. First lets touch base on what logic actually is. Most people recognize that there are different principles of logic that are valuable to all of our areas of study. Metaphysics is an underlying reality for all studies and disciplines that we have. Regardless of whether people recognize the principles as being valuable or not, they are utilized by ALL people within the world today. Let us take a look at some important foundational principles. The Principle of Excluded Middle states that it must either be one thing, or the opposite, but it can not be both. Logically this is expressed as Either a or non-a, not both. The Principle of Identity states that something is what it is. Its very simple. A wall that I am touching, is in fact the wall that I am touching. Logically, this is expressed as a = a. The final principle of logic that I want to look at today is the Principle of noncontradiction. This states that something can not both be and not be at the same time in the same sense. IOW, one can not say of something that it is and is not at the same time in the same sense. In otherwords a is not = to non-a. Also, causality is at the central core to most Scientific arguments and Christian/Messianic Jewish Apologetics. Causality states that for every effect, there must be a cause. Its important that we get an accurate cause, or else we are committing the fallacy of False Cause and Effect. We will touch base on a few aspects of Science later...as we will actually have a guess writer, a Doctorate in Pharmacy..with a background of Biology discuss with us the importance of Creation Science vs. Evolution. I'm excited about the two topics he will be writing about. He will be discussing Irreducible Complexity and the Genetic Code, two subjects which while he was going to school for his Scientific education that he believes actually refutes Evolution, instead of supports it. He does not see a way to compromise the two.
Anything which goes against the principles of logic is what is known as a contradiction. This is because all of the Principles of logic are deducible to the Principle of Contradiction. This is the central principle to logical understanding, and nothing makes sense without it. When people do not utilize them, we see what are known as self stultified arguments. A self stultified argument is defined by Dr. Glenn Miller at www.christian-thinktank.com/stult2.html. He defines it as an argument which undercuts itself, the case that it advances as proof, the presuppositions inherent in the subject matter being discussed, or the presuppositions inherent within the speech act. IOW, this black horse is not black, is a contradiction. A statement such as, this horse is black only half of the time is another example. Thus the contradiction is reflective of what does not correspond to reality, since it serves to undercut itself. Given the principles of logic that we have, this would infer that the opposite is true (although, if one feels necessary to do so, it may be necessary for someone else to actually go about and prove the opposite to be true). Essentially, that which is logical corresponds to reality. This is known as the Correspondence Theory of Truth and is the foundational structure according to logic that truth is centered around. All other theories of truth, including the Coherence and Intentionalist utilize this Theory in their formation of their understanding of truth.
The Correspondence Theory of truth is centered around an understanding which is known as Absolute Truth..truth that corresponds to reality for all places and at all times. In recent years, due to the Philosophical understandings of several movements which we will be discussing soon, including Postmodernism, Modernistic understandings from David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and Mysticism, Absolute truth has been under question. As we look into these movements later, we will discover from these Philosophical movements is not only are they self refuting, but they are not centrally based on sound Metaphysics centered around the Principles of Noncontradiction. They also do not do anything to discourage the central principles of logic, which should encourage Christians of all understandings around the world today!
The attacks on Absolute truth are centrally based around a Philosophical understanding known as Relativism, but also coming from the likes of Postmodernists and Existentialists, and we will look at this understanding in detail. This understanding comes CENTRALLY from a Greek understanding. The Stoics and Epicureans were masters at utilizing this type of understanding, and even the beginnings of Atheism may be seen in Protagoras. Socrates in an exchange with Protagoras, made the statement that there is no truth. We see this understanding quite frequently from Relativists today. Socrates successfully refuted Protagoras, demonstrating how his statement was false. Protagoras, in turn, conceded his argument to Socrates understanding the flaw that he had made. It is within the Christian hope today that we may see some of the same progress made within the understandings of people whom advocate these types of arguments against Absolute Truth today, so that the may begin to see what truth really is, and answer that all important question which Pilate asked Yeshua before being crucified. Yeshua states "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." in John 14:6. This statement alone gives an indication of absolute truth, and anything contrary to this understanding is against the Bible. Let us take a look at statements frequently given by people whom are in disagreement with truth today (even from some of the most brilliant people....don't let this startle you however. They might be smart in certain areas, but not in the area of Philosophy).
A relativist may make the claim "There is no absolute truth." However, there is a problem within this claim. This statement is being made in an absolute manner. If there is no absolute truth, this means that the statement that there is no absolute truth, would be an absolute truth in and of itself. If we wish to make the claim that the statement is not true..then of course its not true that there is no absolute truth. Thus this is a self stultifying argument that does not correspond to reality.
Other statements made frequently which are illogical include "Everything is relative" and "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." Also "Truth is based on perspective." The famous, Friedrich Nietzsche was quoted as stating, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Others are "all sentences are meaningless" and "Logic does not correspond to reality." Also "You can't be certain about anything."
Lets take a look at these claims in turn. Everything is relative is a statement that is meant to be expressed in an absolute manner, since it encompasses Everything. This is a sweeping generalization and is also self refuting. If it is not absolute, then the statement everything is relative becomes something logically impossible, known as a infinite regress, since it would then be centered around an understanding encompassing that it must be relative to Sam. If its absolutely true for Sam, then its not relative, and we have successfully refuted Relativism. This cycle would continue to absurdity, thus we note that this is an argument which is a reductio ad absurdum.
The statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me" may be seen to be obvious. If this statement is true for you that what I"m believing is also true for you and for me...then what I am believing is not true. Thus it is not really true for me, and this statement and understanding is centered around fallacious logic.
"All sentences are meaningless" is a claim which begs the question.."Including this one?" Thus in order for this to be true, "all sentences are meaningless." is in fact a sentence that is meaningless..thus providing meaning to sentences.
"There are no facts, only interpretations" contains the same error. This statement being made is a statement of fact, thus must be seen as counter intuitive to an interpretation. This statement if not factual in its content allows for facts to actually exist, and if it is indeed true, becomes a fact itself, thus it is self refuting.
"You can't be certain about anything" is a claim that is centered around skeptical arguments, such as one particular Philosopher we will be looking at, David Hume, the leader of the skepticism of today's society. This statement commits the problematic structure within its outlook that if you can't be certain about anything, how can the skeptic be certain of this claim? If he can't be certain that we can't be certain about anything, then is self refuting as it violates the principle of noncontradiction. You can at least be certain of that. Augustine, as we will find out later, discovered this problem many centuries before David Hume came to this conclusion.
"Logic does not correspond to reality" is the final one we will look at for right now. I would encourage those who are interested in learning more about Epistemology and Metayphysics to take a peek at Dr. Glenn Miller's article. What can be seen from this sentence? It is a statement that is attempting to accord something to reality, thus it is an attempt to have something correspond to reality. What is this sentence utilizing? Since its coming to a conclusion, and is making a statement of "is" as opposed to "is not" it is implicitly utilizing the law of noncontradiction within the claim. What this statement is actually doing is implicitly arguing that the logic that it is utilizing does not correspond to reality. Thus, since this statement is utilizing logic, that would include the statement being made about reality. Hence, it is self refuting to make this claim.
This is the beginning of self stultifying claims. We will investigate how this applies to worldviews as we go into the understandings of different Philosophers in some articles to come. Also, be on the lookout for some interesting writings from an actual Scientist who is working in the field of Pharmacy (incidentally, having much to do with Pharmacology) in the weeks to come! Shalom and blessings.
I need to make the point that I used to have a strong fascination with Philosophers for many years while still a Christian Apologist, and have studied the minds of Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Hume, Kant...amongst others, but also Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and the early church fathers. I do not intend on spending a lot of time on Philosophy, as my intention is more to look at Biblically related subjects, and reconcile the Jews and the Christians. I may decide to bring some of my Philosophical arguments from my former site to here, but I do not feel called to do so at this time. It must be understood at the same time, this understanding is extremely useful when you are engaged in a debate, and it is extremely effective for Presuppositional Apologetics. First lets touch base on what logic actually is. Most people recognize that there are different principles of logic that are valuable to all of our areas of study. Metaphysics is an underlying reality for all studies and disciplines that we have. Regardless of whether people recognize the principles as being valuable or not, they are utilized by ALL people within the world today. Let us take a look at some important foundational principles. The Principle of Excluded Middle states that it must either be one thing, or the opposite, but it can not be both. Logically this is expressed as Either a or non-a, not both. The Principle of Identity states that something is what it is. Its very simple. A wall that I am touching, is in fact the wall that I am touching. Logically, this is expressed as a = a. The final principle of logic that I want to look at today is the Principle of noncontradiction. This states that something can not both be and not be at the same time in the same sense. IOW, one can not say of something that it is and is not at the same time in the same sense. In otherwords a is not = to non-a. Also, causality is at the central core to most Scientific arguments and Christian/Messianic Jewish Apologetics. Causality states that for every effect, there must be a cause. Its important that we get an accurate cause, or else we are committing the fallacy of False Cause and Effect. We will touch base on a few aspects of Science later...as we will actually have a guess writer, a Doctorate in Pharmacy..with a background of Biology discuss with us the importance of Creation Science vs. Evolution. I'm excited about the two topics he will be writing about. He will be discussing Irreducible Complexity and the Genetic Code, two subjects which while he was going to school for his Scientific education that he believes actually refutes Evolution, instead of supports it. He does not see a way to compromise the two.
Anything which goes against the principles of logic is what is known as a contradiction. This is because all of the Principles of logic are deducible to the Principle of Contradiction. This is the central principle to logical understanding, and nothing makes sense without it. When people do not utilize them, we see what are known as self stultified arguments. A self stultified argument is defined by Dr. Glenn Miller at www.christian-thinktank.com/stult2.html. He defines it as an argument which undercuts itself, the case that it advances as proof, the presuppositions inherent in the subject matter being discussed, or the presuppositions inherent within the speech act. IOW, this black horse is not black, is a contradiction. A statement such as, this horse is black only half of the time is another example. Thus the contradiction is reflective of what does not correspond to reality, since it serves to undercut itself. Given the principles of logic that we have, this would infer that the opposite is true (although, if one feels necessary to do so, it may be necessary for someone else to actually go about and prove the opposite to be true). Essentially, that which is logical corresponds to reality. This is known as the Correspondence Theory of Truth and is the foundational structure according to logic that truth is centered around. All other theories of truth, including the Coherence and Intentionalist utilize this Theory in their formation of their understanding of truth.
The Correspondence Theory of truth is centered around an understanding which is known as Absolute Truth..truth that corresponds to reality for all places and at all times. In recent years, due to the Philosophical understandings of several movements which we will be discussing soon, including Postmodernism, Modernistic understandings from David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and Mysticism, Absolute truth has been under question. As we look into these movements later, we will discover from these Philosophical movements is not only are they self refuting, but they are not centrally based on sound Metaphysics centered around the Principles of Noncontradiction. They also do not do anything to discourage the central principles of logic, which should encourage Christians of all understandings around the world today!
The attacks on Absolute truth are centrally based around a Philosophical understanding known as Relativism, but also coming from the likes of Postmodernists and Existentialists, and we will look at this understanding in detail. This understanding comes CENTRALLY from a Greek understanding. The Stoics and Epicureans were masters at utilizing this type of understanding, and even the beginnings of Atheism may be seen in Protagoras. Socrates in an exchange with Protagoras, made the statement that there is no truth. We see this understanding quite frequently from Relativists today. Socrates successfully refuted Protagoras, demonstrating how his statement was false. Protagoras, in turn, conceded his argument to Socrates understanding the flaw that he had made. It is within the Christian hope today that we may see some of the same progress made within the understandings of people whom advocate these types of arguments against Absolute Truth today, so that the may begin to see what truth really is, and answer that all important question which Pilate asked Yeshua before being crucified. Yeshua states "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." in John 14:6. This statement alone gives an indication of absolute truth, and anything contrary to this understanding is against the Bible. Let us take a look at statements frequently given by people whom are in disagreement with truth today (even from some of the most brilliant people....don't let this startle you however. They might be smart in certain areas, but not in the area of Philosophy).
A relativist may make the claim "There is no absolute truth." However, there is a problem within this claim. This statement is being made in an absolute manner. If there is no absolute truth, this means that the statement that there is no absolute truth, would be an absolute truth in and of itself. If we wish to make the claim that the statement is not true..then of course its not true that there is no absolute truth. Thus this is a self stultifying argument that does not correspond to reality.
Other statements made frequently which are illogical include "Everything is relative" and "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." Also "Truth is based on perspective." The famous, Friedrich Nietzsche was quoted as stating, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Others are "all sentences are meaningless" and "Logic does not correspond to reality." Also "You can't be certain about anything."
Lets take a look at these claims in turn. Everything is relative is a statement that is meant to be expressed in an absolute manner, since it encompasses Everything. This is a sweeping generalization and is also self refuting. If it is not absolute, then the statement everything is relative becomes something logically impossible, known as a infinite regress, since it would then be centered around an understanding encompassing that it must be relative to Sam. If its absolutely true for Sam, then its not relative, and we have successfully refuted Relativism. This cycle would continue to absurdity, thus we note that this is an argument which is a reductio ad absurdum.
The statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me" may be seen to be obvious. If this statement is true for you that what I"m believing is also true for you and for me...then what I am believing is not true. Thus it is not really true for me, and this statement and understanding is centered around fallacious logic.
"All sentences are meaningless" is a claim which begs the question.."Including this one?" Thus in order for this to be true, "all sentences are meaningless." is in fact a sentence that is meaningless..thus providing meaning to sentences.
"There are no facts, only interpretations" contains the same error. This statement being made is a statement of fact, thus must be seen as counter intuitive to an interpretation. This statement if not factual in its content allows for facts to actually exist, and if it is indeed true, becomes a fact itself, thus it is self refuting.
"You can't be certain about anything" is a claim that is centered around skeptical arguments, such as one particular Philosopher we will be looking at, David Hume, the leader of the skepticism of today's society. This statement commits the problematic structure within its outlook that if you can't be certain about anything, how can the skeptic be certain of this claim? If he can't be certain that we can't be certain about anything, then is self refuting as it violates the principle of noncontradiction. You can at least be certain of that. Augustine, as we will find out later, discovered this problem many centuries before David Hume came to this conclusion.
"Logic does not correspond to reality" is the final one we will look at for right now. I would encourage those who are interested in learning more about Epistemology and Metayphysics to take a peek at Dr. Glenn Miller's article. What can be seen from this sentence? It is a statement that is attempting to accord something to reality, thus it is an attempt to have something correspond to reality. What is this sentence utilizing? Since its coming to a conclusion, and is making a statement of "is" as opposed to "is not" it is implicitly utilizing the law of noncontradiction within the claim. What this statement is actually doing is implicitly arguing that the logic that it is utilizing does not correspond to reality. Thus, since this statement is utilizing logic, that would include the statement being made about reality. Hence, it is self refuting to make this claim.
This is the beginning of self stultifying claims. We will investigate how this applies to worldviews as we go into the understandings of different Philosophers in some articles to come. Also, be on the lookout for some interesting writings from an actual Scientist who is working in the field of Pharmacy (incidentally, having much to do with Pharmacology) in the weeks to come! Shalom and blessings.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Stuff to come
Hello to all, and shalom.
The next couple of weeks will be filled with some action packed and funfilled Apologetic material as always. We will be evaluating more religious movements, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions such as Jainism, Shintoism and Confucianism.
Also I will be touching base on a few of the leading Philosophical movements of our day, led by Skeptic David Hume, Agnostic Immanuel Kant and some Postmodernistic understanding which will be key to address. We will evaluate the meaning of "truth" and see how this corresponds with a Biblical understanding.
I also want to address some Scientific topics as a side project as well, largely in the areas of studies of Science that I have studied intensely, which are Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Some of the readers here know that I have been kind of had forced upon me, topics especially relevant in the studies of Science, due to the fact that two of my best friends are Scientists who are both Creationists. One is an Aerospace Engineer, and contains a Masters degree..he is especially interested in the understanding of space and Cosmology and how the Universe works and the age of the universe...which relates to his background as well. My other friend is specialized in Pharmacology/Pharmacy, and contains a doctorate in this field related study. He also has an undergraduate degree in Biology. He believes that Science is not dependent upon Evolution, and that there are some very related areas in Biology which undercut the conjecture known as Evolution. He also sees problems with transitional fossils, and the functioning of transitional fossils if there were ever found some to exist, since Irreducible Complex structures such as the eye exist. His understanding is that since IC exists, that there is no way that a transitional fossil could function, since the IC system could not function with one of its parts missing. So in the process of growing up with my Theistic Evolution understanding, challenges were presented to my understanding by...two unlikely sources whom happen to be my best friends, and both containing very prominent positions in their related fields of study. However, since I myself am not a Scientist (though my two Science friends believe my Scientific knowledge to be adequate) this will not be exhaustive as the main crux of our focus needs to be on Scripture, but it will cover an over view of topics such as, is Creation a viable Scientific option, and does it contain a Theory, What types of Science can be utilized to refute Evolution and demonstrate the validity of the Creation Science theory, are there any Creation Scientists who have published peer reviewed literature, and is Creation Science merely limited to the realm of the understanding of a preacher, or are there scientists who are authorities in the field of Science who agree with Creation? These are questions which I had to tackle head on before making my final decision that Young Earth Creation Science was a valid understanding to undertake in the area of Science, especially in the realm of Biology. I have prayed over this, and God has allowed this door to be open. We will see where this leads :). Lots of stuff to come!
God bless and shalom to all,
hamashiachagape
The next couple of weeks will be filled with some action packed and funfilled Apologetic material as always. We will be evaluating more religious movements, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions such as Jainism, Shintoism and Confucianism.
Also I will be touching base on a few of the leading Philosophical movements of our day, led by Skeptic David Hume, Agnostic Immanuel Kant and some Postmodernistic understanding which will be key to address. We will evaluate the meaning of "truth" and see how this corresponds with a Biblical understanding.
I also want to address some Scientific topics as a side project as well, largely in the areas of studies of Science that I have studied intensely, which are Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Some of the readers here know that I have been kind of had forced upon me, topics especially relevant in the studies of Science, due to the fact that two of my best friends are Scientists who are both Creationists. One is an Aerospace Engineer, and contains a Masters degree..he is especially interested in the understanding of space and Cosmology and how the Universe works and the age of the universe...which relates to his background as well. My other friend is specialized in Pharmacology/Pharmacy, and contains a doctorate in this field related study. He also has an undergraduate degree in Biology. He believes that Science is not dependent upon Evolution, and that there are some very related areas in Biology which undercut the conjecture known as Evolution. He also sees problems with transitional fossils, and the functioning of transitional fossils if there were ever found some to exist, since Irreducible Complex structures such as the eye exist. His understanding is that since IC exists, that there is no way that a transitional fossil could function, since the IC system could not function with one of its parts missing. So in the process of growing up with my Theistic Evolution understanding, challenges were presented to my understanding by...two unlikely sources whom happen to be my best friends, and both containing very prominent positions in their related fields of study. However, since I myself am not a Scientist (though my two Science friends believe my Scientific knowledge to be adequate) this will not be exhaustive as the main crux of our focus needs to be on Scripture, but it will cover an over view of topics such as, is Creation a viable Scientific option, and does it contain a Theory, What types of Science can be utilized to refute Evolution and demonstrate the validity of the Creation Science theory, are there any Creation Scientists who have published peer reviewed literature, and is Creation Science merely limited to the realm of the understanding of a preacher, or are there scientists who are authorities in the field of Science who agree with Creation? These are questions which I had to tackle head on before making my final decision that Young Earth Creation Science was a valid understanding to undertake in the area of Science, especially in the realm of Biology. I have prayed over this, and God has allowed this door to be open. We will see where this leads :). Lots of stuff to come!
God bless and shalom to all,
hamashiachagape
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses
We have already touched base on the Mormon and Islamic faiths, and have found their arguments wanting. So now lets turn our attention to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are officially known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and they are a product of Charles Taze Russell, who was born on February 16, 1852. in 1870, without any formal theological education, Russell organized a class who designated him as a Pastor. By 1879, he founded the Zion's Watchtower. This was where he reinterpreted the Bible and by 1886, the Millenial Dawn was published, a 7 volume series.
Its interesting that the Jehovah's Witnesses wish to claim that the Bible is the only authority that they wish to go by given how many principles of Messianic Judaism/Christian thought they violate. Among them are the divinity of Yeshua, and his resurrection, and salvation by grace.
Lets further look at some of Russell's claims that he makes about the Bible. "If the six volumes of Scripture Studies are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes "the Bible in an arranged form," that is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years-if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures." (Watchtower, Sept 15, 1910)
Obviously with this statement there are problems within adding to Torah as mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:32, also in Revelation 22, there are problems with adding to the Bible. Russell runs into a problem here. Its also very interesting how Russell contends that one should not go to the Bible alone, and that if someone follows the Bible alone, they will go into darkness (we at Congregation Zion Sake wonder how this darkness would be found in such a manner! To see why, look at http://www.zionsake.org/ ).
One other thing that the Watchtower makes mention of that many Christians would take issue with is that the Trintiy doctrine is not stated by Yeshua. Yes, this is true. But the personification of God is mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:4 which infers a unified nature about God. The issue with the Watchtower understanding is that neither Yeshua or the Ruach Hakodesh is God.
Many people would recognize this movement as Aryanism, the very movement that the Nicene Creed put an end to. Some of the comments of the Jehovah's Witness understanding can be seen as reflective within an Aryanistic understanding. See for instance some of the following claims. "Jesus, the Christ, a created individual, is the second greatest personage of the Universe. Jehovah God and Jesus together constitute the superior authorities." (Make Sure of All Things, p. 207)
"He was a god, but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah." (Let God Be True, p. 33).
"If Jesus were God, then during Jesus' death God was dead in the grave." (Let God Be True, 1946, p. 91).
"The truth of the matter is that the word is Christ Jesus, who did have a beginning." (Let God Be True, p. 88).
We have already addressed the Torah in a previous article. See here - http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-torah-forever.html
The Torah is in fact forever, and this is detrimental to their position about Yeshua having a beginning. One Biblical passage utilized by the Jehovah's Witnesses for backing up the other presuppositions we need to examine.
In John 14:28, it is stated "My Father is greater than I." Tim Hegg addresses this claim here - www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Lesser&GreaterYHVH.pdf As we see, the matter is over role vs. the essential nature of God. As Josh McDowell puts it "This verse refers to the voluntary subordination of Jesus during his earthly life when He willingly placed Himself in submission to the Father. It says nothing about His nature, only His temporary rank on earth. Thus, the "greater than" refers to His position rather than His person." (McDowell, A Ready Defense, pg 334-335). Likewise, this is the case when Jehovah's Witnesses utilize John 17 to ask why Yeshua was praying. Another commonly cited verse to attempt to deny the divinity of Yeshua is Luke 18:19 ""Why call me good, only God is good?"
Of course Yeshua was also making sure that the man in question was actually declaring whether he was God or not. The question was more directed in this effect.
What most of this incorporates is a Western and Americanized understanding of Theology being applied to scripture.
Colossians 1:15 is also utilized by Jehovah's Witnesses to attempt to deflect the position that Yeshua is God. They claim that the term "firstborn" atually is referencing him being created. In fact, this would be understood from a Jewish perspective as Yeshua being pre-existing. This is totally missed by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The final major problem of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have actually discussed this position with other Biblical scholars as well, is John 1:1. Those who are fluent in Greek declare that John 1:1 meant "the Word was God." Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses declare that in John 1:1, it should read "the word was a god." Again, this is making Yeshua less than a God. In effect, its also teaching polytheism, which through the writings of Dr. Phil Fernandez, we have ventured to refute.
The Watchtower however, pursues this understanding. "how are we to understand John 1:1,2 of which there are differing translations? Many translations read: "And the Word was With God, and the Word was God." Others read: "And the Word (The Logos) was divine." Another: "And the Word was God." Others, "And the Word was a god." Since we have examined so much of what John wrote about Jesus who was the Word made flesh, we are now in a position to determine which of those several translations is correct. It means our salvation." (The Word Who Is He? According to John, p. 52).
However, a quick visit to http://www.biblegateway.com/ will show this statement to be incorrect.
The primary premise behind this which is faulty in the case of God, is that theos appears with the definite article, and without the definite article. They contend that the places without the definite article should read "a god." However there is no basis for this claim. "Ha Theos" means The God, and "Theos" would merely be translated as God. IOW, there is no difference in Greek between Ha Theos and Theos. Secondly, it would contradict the way they would read the book of John. Their own Theology would be undercut, since the rest of John would read, for example in verse 6 "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." But they do not read the verse like this. So in essence, they are being inconsistent with their expression of theos.
They also take issue with the Ruach Hakodesh, failing to even begin to understand what this term actually is. In its very understanding, it is the breath of God as it is translated accurately from Hebrew to English. Obviously its not hard to see that this is a part of God, thus making the Ruach Hakodesh, one with God.
The last problem with Jehovah's Witnesses theology is in the area of their prophecy. Jehovah's Witnesses prophecied that Yeshua would return to the earth in 1914, of course prior to 1914. Charles Taze Russell has been quoted as saying "the full establishment of the Kingdom of God in the earth at A.D. 1914, the terminus of the times of the Gentiles." (C. T. Russell, Thy Kingdom Come, 1891, p. 126).
To back this up, we look also at a few other statements made by the Watchtower prior to 1914. ""But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. (Zion's Watch Tower 1894 July 15 p.226)
"The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord...." Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.239)
Both 1878, and 1914, we see the same failed prophecy by the Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the return of Yeshua.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses accurately portray their history? Excellent question to ask. What is stated next will demonstrate this to us. "When Jesus said He would come again, He did not mean He would return in the flesh visible to men on earth. He has given up that earthly life as a ransom and therefore, cannot take such life back again...The good news today is that Christ Jesus has come again, that God's Kingdom by Him has been set up and is no ruling in heaven...all the evidence shows that Jesus took up His Kingdom power and began His reign from Heaven in the year 1914." (Pamphlet, "This Good News of the Kingdom", pp. 19, 21).
As with Preterists, the best way to combat this understanding is to demonstrate what was stated in the Bible. See my article here http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/08/letter-to-brian-simmons-on-few.html, also, tho written a bit differently, on Brian Simmon's website here http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/testimony-of-a-former-preterist/
For a fuller list of detailed prophetic failures of the Jehovah's Witnesses, see here - http://ecclesia.org/truth/jw-3.html - although I do see some of this material as ad hominem attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses, the resources are valid. Just FYI for the readers.
A major obstacle will be encountered when discoursing with Jehovah's Witnesses about the above material. We must keep in mind how the Jehovah's Witnesses operate. So in like manner, they may not be open to hearing much of what people have to say. As a matter of fact, one need look at what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe about this as well ""Have No Dealings With Apostates, ... For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it, and see right away that it is from an apostate? Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: `It won't affect me; I'm too strong in the truth. And besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test.' In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt." (Watchtower, March 15, 1986 p12) "
The best remedy for this strategy is to do two things. Once again, this is a contradiction within their theology. See "We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God's Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the Truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination" (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, 1968, p. 13). Secondly, we need to encourage them to read the Bible, and to remind them of the passage in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which states "21Test everything. Hold on to the good."
With JW's utilizing this strategy, we obviously see why it is hard for them to be open to what the Lord truly has to say. Nonetheless, our job is to witness to them, and from there let the Ruach Hakodesh do the rest.
In the end, we can see that the Jehovah's Witnesses understanding is based around a faulty understanding of some essential Biblical doctrine. While we most certainly should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, for the most of its part, the Jehovah's Witness doctrine is Theologically bankrupt, especially as it concerns the understanding of what God is, and what the word of God says. Its also a good reminder of what happens when we add or take away from the scripture of God. Its important to take the Word of God in context within its cultural identity, centered around a Jewish understanding. When we do this, we finally see what God wants out of his creation, and we can start properly living for him the way he intended, and not based upon the interpretation of what man desires.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are officially known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and they are a product of Charles Taze Russell, who was born on February 16, 1852. in 1870, without any formal theological education, Russell organized a class who designated him as a Pastor. By 1879, he founded the Zion's Watchtower. This was where he reinterpreted the Bible and by 1886, the Millenial Dawn was published, a 7 volume series.
Its interesting that the Jehovah's Witnesses wish to claim that the Bible is the only authority that they wish to go by given how many principles of Messianic Judaism/Christian thought they violate. Among them are the divinity of Yeshua, and his resurrection, and salvation by grace.
Lets further look at some of Russell's claims that he makes about the Bible. "If the six volumes of Scripture Studies are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes "the Bible in an arranged form," that is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years-if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures." (Watchtower, Sept 15, 1910)
Obviously with this statement there are problems within adding to Torah as mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:32, also in Revelation 22, there are problems with adding to the Bible. Russell runs into a problem here. Its also very interesting how Russell contends that one should not go to the Bible alone, and that if someone follows the Bible alone, they will go into darkness (we at Congregation Zion Sake wonder how this darkness would be found in such a manner! To see why, look at http://www.zionsake.org/ ).
One other thing that the Watchtower makes mention of that many Christians would take issue with is that the Trintiy doctrine is not stated by Yeshua. Yes, this is true. But the personification of God is mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:4 which infers a unified nature about God. The issue with the Watchtower understanding is that neither Yeshua or the Ruach Hakodesh is God.
Many people would recognize this movement as Aryanism, the very movement that the Nicene Creed put an end to. Some of the comments of the Jehovah's Witness understanding can be seen as reflective within an Aryanistic understanding. See for instance some of the following claims. "Jesus, the Christ, a created individual, is the second greatest personage of the Universe. Jehovah God and Jesus together constitute the superior authorities." (Make Sure of All Things, p. 207)
"He was a god, but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah." (Let God Be True, p. 33).
"If Jesus were God, then during Jesus' death God was dead in the grave." (Let God Be True, 1946, p. 91).
"The truth of the matter is that the word is Christ Jesus, who did have a beginning." (Let God Be True, p. 88).
We have already addressed the Torah in a previous article. See here - http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-torah-forever.html
The Torah is in fact forever, and this is detrimental to their position about Yeshua having a beginning. One Biblical passage utilized by the Jehovah's Witnesses for backing up the other presuppositions we need to examine.
In John 14:28, it is stated "My Father is greater than I." Tim Hegg addresses this claim here - www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Lesser&GreaterYHVH.pdf As we see, the matter is over role vs. the essential nature of God. As Josh McDowell puts it "This verse refers to the voluntary subordination of Jesus during his earthly life when He willingly placed Himself in submission to the Father. It says nothing about His nature, only His temporary rank on earth. Thus, the "greater than" refers to His position rather than His person." (McDowell, A Ready Defense, pg 334-335). Likewise, this is the case when Jehovah's Witnesses utilize John 17 to ask why Yeshua was praying. Another commonly cited verse to attempt to deny the divinity of Yeshua is Luke 18:19 ""Why call me good, only God is good?"
Of course Yeshua was also making sure that the man in question was actually declaring whether he was God or not. The question was more directed in this effect.
What most of this incorporates is a Western and Americanized understanding of Theology being applied to scripture.
Colossians 1:15 is also utilized by Jehovah's Witnesses to attempt to deflect the position that Yeshua is God. They claim that the term "firstborn" atually is referencing him being created. In fact, this would be understood from a Jewish perspective as Yeshua being pre-existing. This is totally missed by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The final major problem of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have actually discussed this position with other Biblical scholars as well, is John 1:1. Those who are fluent in Greek declare that John 1:1 meant "the Word was God." Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses declare that in John 1:1, it should read "the word was a god." Again, this is making Yeshua less than a God. In effect, its also teaching polytheism, which through the writings of Dr. Phil Fernandez, we have ventured to refute.
The Watchtower however, pursues this understanding. "how are we to understand John 1:1,2 of which there are differing translations? Many translations read: "And the Word was With God, and the Word was God." Others read: "And the Word (The Logos) was divine." Another: "And the Word was God." Others, "And the Word was a god." Since we have examined so much of what John wrote about Jesus who was the Word made flesh, we are now in a position to determine which of those several translations is correct. It means our salvation." (The Word Who Is He? According to John, p. 52).
However, a quick visit to http://www.biblegateway.com/ will show this statement to be incorrect.
The primary premise behind this which is faulty in the case of God, is that theos appears with the definite article, and without the definite article. They contend that the places without the definite article should read "a god." However there is no basis for this claim. "Ha Theos" means The God, and "Theos" would merely be translated as God. IOW, there is no difference in Greek between Ha Theos and Theos. Secondly, it would contradict the way they would read the book of John. Their own Theology would be undercut, since the rest of John would read, for example in verse 6 "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." But they do not read the verse like this. So in essence, they are being inconsistent with their expression of theos.
They also take issue with the Ruach Hakodesh, failing to even begin to understand what this term actually is. In its very understanding, it is the breath of God as it is translated accurately from Hebrew to English. Obviously its not hard to see that this is a part of God, thus making the Ruach Hakodesh, one with God.
The last problem with Jehovah's Witnesses theology is in the area of their prophecy. Jehovah's Witnesses prophecied that Yeshua would return to the earth in 1914, of course prior to 1914. Charles Taze Russell has been quoted as saying "the full establishment of the Kingdom of God in the earth at A.D. 1914, the terminus of the times of the Gentiles." (C. T. Russell, Thy Kingdom Come, 1891, p. 126).
To back this up, we look also at a few other statements made by the Watchtower prior to 1914. ""But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. (Zion's Watch Tower 1894 July 15 p.226)
"The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord...." Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.239)
Both 1878, and 1914, we see the same failed prophecy by the Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the return of Yeshua.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses accurately portray their history? Excellent question to ask. What is stated next will demonstrate this to us. "When Jesus said He would come again, He did not mean He would return in the flesh visible to men on earth. He has given up that earthly life as a ransom and therefore, cannot take such life back again...The good news today is that Christ Jesus has come again, that God's Kingdom by Him has been set up and is no ruling in heaven...all the evidence shows that Jesus took up His Kingdom power and began His reign from Heaven in the year 1914." (Pamphlet, "This Good News of the Kingdom", pp. 19, 21).
As with Preterists, the best way to combat this understanding is to demonstrate what was stated in the Bible. See my article here http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/08/letter-to-brian-simmons-on-few.html, also, tho written a bit differently, on Brian Simmon's website here http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/testimony-of-a-former-preterist/
For a fuller list of detailed prophetic failures of the Jehovah's Witnesses, see here - http://ecclesia.org/truth/jw-3.html - although I do see some of this material as ad hominem attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses, the resources are valid. Just FYI for the readers.
A major obstacle will be encountered when discoursing with Jehovah's Witnesses about the above material. We must keep in mind how the Jehovah's Witnesses operate. So in like manner, they may not be open to hearing much of what people have to say. As a matter of fact, one need look at what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe about this as well ""Have No Dealings With Apostates, ... For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it, and see right away that it is from an apostate? Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: `It won't affect me; I'm too strong in the truth. And besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test.' In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt." (Watchtower, March 15, 1986 p12) "
The best remedy for this strategy is to do two things. Once again, this is a contradiction within their theology. See "We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God's Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the Truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination" (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, 1968, p. 13). Secondly, we need to encourage them to read the Bible, and to remind them of the passage in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which states "21Test everything. Hold on to the good."
With JW's utilizing this strategy, we obviously see why it is hard for them to be open to what the Lord truly has to say. Nonetheless, our job is to witness to them, and from there let the Ruach Hakodesh do the rest.
In the end, we can see that the Jehovah's Witnesses understanding is based around a faulty understanding of some essential Biblical doctrine. While we most certainly should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, for the most of its part, the Jehovah's Witness doctrine is Theologically bankrupt, especially as it concerns the understanding of what God is, and what the word of God says. Its also a good reminder of what happens when we add or take away from the scripture of God. Its important to take the Word of God in context within its cultural identity, centered around a Jewish understanding. When we do this, we finally see what God wants out of his creation, and we can start properly living for him the way he intended, and not based upon the interpretation of what man desires.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Was animal sacrifice a cruel invention by God?
Recently I was approached with an issue about a practice that appeared up until around the beginning of the 1st millenia, and something that will be reinstated within the 3rd temple. The issue was on animal sacrifice, and whether it was a morally right thing to do. To understand this issue we have to understand what God's purpose was in creating the world to begin with. Initially it is stated in Genesis 1:26 - "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' The word dominion is defined as - dominance or power through legal authority. God has thus given mankind dominance or power through legal authority over animals. The idea of sin must also be understood. The word sin literally means "missing the mark." The Torah was established to exemplify a teaching of what man must not do in missing the mark. All of the Torah must be followed. If someone has missed the mark on any of these issues, they have sinned.
Sin began in the Garden of Eden, where God told Adam and Eve that they could eat of any tree within the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they did not follow this plan "they would surely die" according to God. In Romans 6:23, it describes what the penalty for sin is: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Yeshua ha Mashiach our Lord." As far as the Yeshua issue we will get to that point. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree if eaten from, would give Adam and Eve worldly wisdom, rather than Godly wisdom. With this worldly wisdom, they would separate their focus from God onto God's creation. When man decided to fall against God for the first time, it was then that the sinful ways of the world were established, where man would become prideful, lustful, greedy, envious, slothful, wrathful, and gluttonous. These characteristics are at the root of all sins. These are linked to the 6 things that God hates and the 7 that are abominations to him. " There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers .(Prov 6.16ff)" God had a choice to make, and his choice was to allow mankind to either die for their sin, or have a proper sacrificial ceremony. The first institution of animal sacrifice was when God gave Adam and Eve clothes to wear, thus separating them from their sin. Many people think of this as a very brutal punishment for sin. However, the sacrificial animals went to feed the Levites and the people. Animals do not contain human souls, they were never intended for that. On this level, as providing for food, this is no different than having slaughterhouses that kill animals to provide healthy food for people in today's world. Rather than us having to die right away from having commited a sin, God provided this as an alternative. Leviticus 17 states how this alternative was to be applied - 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: 'This is what the LORD has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, [a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD -that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the LORD the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the LORD, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. [b] 6 The priest is to sprinkle the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols [c] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.' 8 "Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD -that man must be cut off from his people. 10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood." 13 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off." 15 " 'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.' "Since the life is in the blood of something, its either our blood, or something else's blood that must be taken. Matthew 6:25-34 talks about how the life of a single human being is worth more than animals or any of God's other creations. Do Not Worry 25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[a]? 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.What are we then allowed to sacrifice? It is not children. Ezekiel 20:26 states "26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn [a] —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'"
Often people illustrate the example of Abraham and Isaac as a challenge to this. Genesis 18:17-19 states - "17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." We see here that the Lord has every intention of making Isaac something great. He will not harm Isaac. So when God says in Genesis 22:2 " 2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." what is he attempting to do? It is obvious that Abraham knows that his son will be taken care of when this scenario occurs " Genesis 22:6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, 'Father?' 'Yes, my son?' Abraham replied. 'The fire and wood are here,' Isaac said, 'but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?' 8 Abraham answered, 'God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.' And the two of them went on together." Abraham knew that Isaac would be provided for. When the Angel of the Lord states in Genesis 22:12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son," then we know this was for something else. This was supposed to mark the symbolism of when God would come down in the form of human and sacrifice himself. The only son reference is utilized in John 3:16. The answer to the question then is only that which is clean according to Leviticus 17:11 including God's penal substitution, himself in the form of Yeshua, may be sacrificed. Beyond that, if this isn't a good enough explanation for some people, animal sacrifice may not seem good, but it is giving of our possessions, a teaching of selflessness. Having to sacrifice a first born of livestock would have been very shameful to the Jews at the time period because other Jews would know what it was for, so they would be very careful not to sin.
When man gained worldly wisdom, he turned against Eve after she had given him the fruit. This caused evil to come into the world by the beings who had dominion over all other animals. This in turn sent the world into sin, which resulted in animals killing other animals. Through Adam's disobedience God brought about sacrifice to show consequences of wrongs and a selfless nature towards God, instead of our selfish sinful nature. Giving something of our personal possessions up for God. When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he was beginning to help eliminate the need for sacrifice at the temple. The story of Abraham and Isaac had nothing to do with killing Isaac, because through Isaac, the child of promise, God was going to establish many nations. Abraham, knowing this and even to the point that God was going to send a lamb in Isaac's place as sacrifice, went through the procedure that God had in store for his covenant with us. This was in demonstration for mankind to be able to find the Messiah so that God's people would turn to him and follow him. The ultimate sacrifice has already been fulfilled through Yeshua Ha Mashiach, God in the form of man. And because of God's glorious self-sacrifice, all we must now do to eliminate shame from our lives is to take up our cross and follow Yeshua's commands on a daily basis. Penal substitution is a moral idea as long as it is a voluntary action approved by the lawgiver. In this case, Yeshua approves his own action.Nor is he out to destroy animals. Another question to address was whether God was cruel to animals or not. In Psalm 147:9, it says he provides food for animals. Also in Luke 12:6 - "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God." Animals were also to be treated properly as well. They weren to be overworked per Exodus 23:12, not to be underfed per Dt 25:4 and not to be hunted to extinction per Dt 22:6-7. There are actions we see in today's society where people mistreat and abuse animals prior to killing them, even in certain cases not allowing animals to walk on their own two feet. While this may be true of today's society in certain circumstances, it was and is not at all to be condoned by our mighty God. This sin is not to be put upon those eating of the food, however. It is to be put only onto those who are acting in the manner they do. The purpose for sacrificing animals was to harvest animals, not to destroy and kill them off. They were used by the Israelites as clothing and food. This is perfectly justified and does not contradict a nature of a loving God. God is a god who demands justice. And as we see here, he is not a blood thirsty God either. "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant- they were unfaithful to me there. 8 Gilead is a city of wicked men, stained with footprints of blood. 9 As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes. (Hosea 6.6ff)" This demonstrates not a God who is ready and willing at every angle to destroy mankind, but a passionate God who loves his creation, and wants them to follow structure and order. The giving of animal blood by mankind was to give the blood of his possession in a statement that says that you would give your life up for God.As a whole, we find the argument that sacrifice is a cruel invention by God to be without merit and simply an argument from outrage. This is a logical fallacy that argues against something without offering arguments besides saying that the thing would be unacceptible, or outrageous, or "wrong", or "silly", and so on. Humans are simply different from animals. Ignoring this is being hypersensitive to something that is not of God's will. From a logical perspective, sacrifice is not contrary to God's nature. Death is the exact opposite of life, and when people sin against God, the cost is their death. Having animals as a sacrifice by which we have dominion over does not violate his law. As a matter of fact, if God did not establish this law of penal substition, he would have contradicted his nature of being a loving God, because love requires justice. The shedding of blood leading to loss of life satisfied Yahweh's just demand that violation of his holy will results in death. For the time period before Yeshua coming to Earth as a man and taking our punishment upon himself, the only repentence was to shed the blood of ourselves, or the blood of a substitution. God gave us a substitution, and we should be grateful for that. God can use whatever method he deems necessary to save mankind. He has done so very carefully with a fine-toothed comb for enough time that we can record prophecy to a finite world so that everyone can be without trouble in understanding that Yeshua is ha Mashiach.SHALOM and Hallelujah to our great God!
Sin began in the Garden of Eden, where God told Adam and Eve that they could eat of any tree within the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they did not follow this plan "they would surely die" according to God. In Romans 6:23, it describes what the penalty for sin is: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Yeshua ha Mashiach our Lord." As far as the Yeshua issue we will get to that point. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree if eaten from, would give Adam and Eve worldly wisdom, rather than Godly wisdom. With this worldly wisdom, they would separate their focus from God onto God's creation. When man decided to fall against God for the first time, it was then that the sinful ways of the world were established, where man would become prideful, lustful, greedy, envious, slothful, wrathful, and gluttonous. These characteristics are at the root of all sins. These are linked to the 6 things that God hates and the 7 that are abominations to him. " There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers .(Prov 6.16ff)" God had a choice to make, and his choice was to allow mankind to either die for their sin, or have a proper sacrificial ceremony. The first institution of animal sacrifice was when God gave Adam and Eve clothes to wear, thus separating them from their sin. Many people think of this as a very brutal punishment for sin. However, the sacrificial animals went to feed the Levites and the people. Animals do not contain human souls, they were never intended for that. On this level, as providing for food, this is no different than having slaughterhouses that kill animals to provide healthy food for people in today's world. Rather than us having to die right away from having commited a sin, God provided this as an alternative. Leviticus 17 states how this alternative was to be applied - 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: 'This is what the LORD has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, [a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD -that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the LORD the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the LORD, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. [b] 6 The priest is to sprinkle the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols [c] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.' 8 "Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD -that man must be cut off from his people. 10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood." 13 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off." 15 " 'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.' "Since the life is in the blood of something, its either our blood, or something else's blood that must be taken. Matthew 6:25-34 talks about how the life of a single human being is worth more than animals or any of God's other creations. Do Not Worry 25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[a]? 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.What are we then allowed to sacrifice? It is not children. Ezekiel 20:26 states "26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn [a] —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'"
Often people illustrate the example of Abraham and Isaac as a challenge to this. Genesis 18:17-19 states - "17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." We see here that the Lord has every intention of making Isaac something great. He will not harm Isaac. So when God says in Genesis 22:2 " 2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." what is he attempting to do? It is obvious that Abraham knows that his son will be taken care of when this scenario occurs " Genesis 22:6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, 'Father?' 'Yes, my son?' Abraham replied. 'The fire and wood are here,' Isaac said, 'but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?' 8 Abraham answered, 'God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.' And the two of them went on together." Abraham knew that Isaac would be provided for. When the Angel of the Lord states in Genesis 22:12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son," then we know this was for something else. This was supposed to mark the symbolism of when God would come down in the form of human and sacrifice himself. The only son reference is utilized in John 3:16. The answer to the question then is only that which is clean according to Leviticus 17:11 including God's penal substitution, himself in the form of Yeshua, may be sacrificed. Beyond that, if this isn't a good enough explanation for some people, animal sacrifice may not seem good, but it is giving of our possessions, a teaching of selflessness. Having to sacrifice a first born of livestock would have been very shameful to the Jews at the time period because other Jews would know what it was for, so they would be very careful not to sin.
When man gained worldly wisdom, he turned against Eve after she had given him the fruit. This caused evil to come into the world by the beings who had dominion over all other animals. This in turn sent the world into sin, which resulted in animals killing other animals. Through Adam's disobedience God brought about sacrifice to show consequences of wrongs and a selfless nature towards God, instead of our selfish sinful nature. Giving something of our personal possessions up for God. When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he was beginning to help eliminate the need for sacrifice at the temple. The story of Abraham and Isaac had nothing to do with killing Isaac, because through Isaac, the child of promise, God was going to establish many nations. Abraham, knowing this and even to the point that God was going to send a lamb in Isaac's place as sacrifice, went through the procedure that God had in store for his covenant with us. This was in demonstration for mankind to be able to find the Messiah so that God's people would turn to him and follow him. The ultimate sacrifice has already been fulfilled through Yeshua Ha Mashiach, God in the form of man. And because of God's glorious self-sacrifice, all we must now do to eliminate shame from our lives is to take up our cross and follow Yeshua's commands on a daily basis. Penal substitution is a moral idea as long as it is a voluntary action approved by the lawgiver. In this case, Yeshua approves his own action.Nor is he out to destroy animals. Another question to address was whether God was cruel to animals or not. In Psalm 147:9, it says he provides food for animals. Also in Luke 12:6 - "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God." Animals were also to be treated properly as well. They weren to be overworked per Exodus 23:12, not to be underfed per Dt 25:4 and not to be hunted to extinction per Dt 22:6-7. There are actions we see in today's society where people mistreat and abuse animals prior to killing them, even in certain cases not allowing animals to walk on their own two feet. While this may be true of today's society in certain circumstances, it was and is not at all to be condoned by our mighty God. This sin is not to be put upon those eating of the food, however. It is to be put only onto those who are acting in the manner they do. The purpose for sacrificing animals was to harvest animals, not to destroy and kill them off. They were used by the Israelites as clothing and food. This is perfectly justified and does not contradict a nature of a loving God. God is a god who demands justice. And as we see here, he is not a blood thirsty God either. "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant- they were unfaithful to me there. 8 Gilead is a city of wicked men, stained with footprints of blood. 9 As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes. (Hosea 6.6ff)" This demonstrates not a God who is ready and willing at every angle to destroy mankind, but a passionate God who loves his creation, and wants them to follow structure and order. The giving of animal blood by mankind was to give the blood of his possession in a statement that says that you would give your life up for God.As a whole, we find the argument that sacrifice is a cruel invention by God to be without merit and simply an argument from outrage. This is a logical fallacy that argues against something without offering arguments besides saying that the thing would be unacceptible, or outrageous, or "wrong", or "silly", and so on. Humans are simply different from animals. Ignoring this is being hypersensitive to something that is not of God's will. From a logical perspective, sacrifice is not contrary to God's nature. Death is the exact opposite of life, and when people sin against God, the cost is their death. Having animals as a sacrifice by which we have dominion over does not violate his law. As a matter of fact, if God did not establish this law of penal substition, he would have contradicted his nature of being a loving God, because love requires justice. The shedding of blood leading to loss of life satisfied Yahweh's just demand that violation of his holy will results in death. For the time period before Yeshua coming to Earth as a man and taking our punishment upon himself, the only repentence was to shed the blood of ourselves, or the blood of a substitution. God gave us a substitution, and we should be grateful for that. God can use whatever method he deems necessary to save mankind. He has done so very carefully with a fine-toothed comb for enough time that we can record prophecy to a finite world so that everyone can be without trouble in understanding that Yeshua is ha Mashiach.SHALOM and Hallelujah to our great God!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Refuting Various Philosophical positions on the nature of God
I found this an interesting article from Dr. Phil Fernandes. He is a Christian Apologist who has obtained a doctorate, and is a professor of Theology, Apologetics and Philosophy. I will share this with you because I don't believe I could have written a better critique. See here -
The Failure of Other Non-Theistic Worldviews
Gabe Ginorioby Gabe Ginorio -->
by Dr. Phil FernandesA chapter from his doctoral dissertation© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved
Theism is the view of reality which holds to the existence of a personal God who is separate (transcendent) from the universe though involved (immanent) with it. 1 Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three main theistic religions. 2
It has been shown that atheism, the world view that there is no God, has failed to prove its case. This means that theism may be true. It is therefore possible that God exists. However, before looking into arguments for the existence of the theistic God, discussion of other non-theistic world views is necessary to show that they have also failed to prove their cases.
The non-theistic world views (other than atheism) include pantheism, panentheism, deism, finite godism, and polytheism. If these world views fail as atheism has failed, then the case for theism will become more probable since it is the only remaining major world view. Of course, the case for theism will reach a high degree of probability only if strong arguments can be advanced in its favor.
PANTHEISM
Pantheism is the world view that teaches that God is the universe. 3 Pantheism is based upon monism, the belief that all reality is one being. 4 Hinduism and some adherents of Buddhism are pantheistic in their thought. 5 The New Age Movement (the invasion of Western Society with Hindu thought) is also pantheistic. 6
Pantheism teaches that God is not a personal being. Instead, God is an impersonal force. 7 Since pantheists believe that all reality is one being and that God is this one reality, they believe that each individual is God. 8 In fact, individual existence is merely an illusion since all reality is one being. 9
There are several problems for pantheism which cause it to fail as a world view. First, many beings exist, not just one. 10 As Christian philosopher Norman Geisler has pointed out, it is actually undeniable that I exist. 11 For if I attempt to deny my existence, I must first exist to make the denial. 12 For nothing can deny nothing. Only an existent being can deny its own existence. Therefore, I exist. However, if I try to convince others that I alone exist, I must first affirm their own individual and separate existence by communicating with them. 13 In other words, to argue for pantheism is to admit that pantheism is false. To argue with others is to affirm the existence of others, and if more than one being exists, then pantheism cannot be true.
A second problem with pantheism is that there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. Both the big bang model and the second law of thermodynamics reveal this. 14 Also, if the universe is eternal, the present moment could never have arrived. But since the present moment has arrived, only a finite number of events could have occurred in the past. 15 Therefore, there was a first event. The universe had a beginning. Since from nothing, nothing comes, everything that had a beginning needs a cause. Hence, the universe needs a cause. 16 But, for pantheism to be true, the universe would have to be eternal and uncaused.
Third, pantheism claims that reality is ultimately impersonal. This is the same as saying that reality is non-intelligent and non-moral. 17 But for someone to deny the reality of intelligence, he must first assume he has the intelligence to make the denial. 18 Even pantheists pass moral judgments on others. In fact, many pantheists have been known to protest violence and the production of nuclear weapons. 19 They have fought for stricter anti-pollution legislation and campaigned for animal rights. 20 It is hard to find a pantheist who is not vocal about his or her moral beliefs. Pantheists must explain where intelligence and morality come from. Could intelligence and morality have been caused by a non-intelligent and non-moral being? It appears more probable that the Ultimate Cause of intelligence and morality must Himself be an intelligent and moral Being. 21
Fourth, why should anyone accept the pantheistic claim that the world is an illusion? Does not common sense and experience favor the reality of the physical world? Why should anyone embrace pantheism without any evidence when common sense and experience teach otherwise? 22
For these four reasons it appears that pantheism, as a world view, has failed. If an alternative to theism is to be accepted, one must look elsewhere.
PANENTHEISM
Panentheism has been described as the belief that the universe is God’s body. 23 In this world view, God is conceived of as having two poles to His existence. In His potential pole, He is infinite, unchanging, and eternal. In His actual pole, He is finite, changing, and temporal. 24 Unlike pantheism, panentheism views God as personal. 25
Panentheism fails for several reasons. First, God cannot be both infinite and finite. This would be the same as saying that God is both unlimited and limited, 26 and this is an obvious contradiction. The Christian concept of God is one of an infinite God in His basic nature. 27 Panentheism, on the other hand, holds the contradictory concept of a God who is both infinite and finite in His basic nature.
Second, panentheism is again contradictory when it declares God to be both eternal (without a beginning) and temporal (with a beginning). 28 One cannot have it both ways. Either God is eternal or God is temporal. In the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, the eternal God added a temporal nature to his eternal nature. 29 This involves no contradiction, but, in the case of panentheism, a contradiction is evident. If the eternal pole of God caused the temporal pole of God to come into existence, then it would make more sense for the panentheist to refer to the temporal pole not as God, but as God’s creation. But then the panentheist would cease to be a panentheist. In fact, he would then be a theist. 30
Third, panentheism teaches that God actualizes His own potentialities. However, this is impossible. No potentiality can actualize itself. For instance, empty cups cannot fill themselves. For a potentiality to become actual, something actual must actualize it. As a result, the panentheistic god, if it existed, would need the theistic God to actualize its potential to exist. 31 Therefore, Panentheism fails as a world view.
DEISM
Deism is the world view that promotes the belief in a God who created the universe but no longer has any dealings with it. 32 The deist believes that God allows the world to operate on its own in accordance with natural laws that He has set in motion. 33 God does not perform miracles or interrupt the natural course of events. 34
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were deists of the eighteenth century. 35 Though deism is not as popular as it once was, similar views are held today by many Unitarians and religious humanists. 36
Several objections to deism deserve mention. First, deists deny a miracle-working God. Yet, they admit one of God’s greatest supernatural works when they affirm His work of creation. If God could create the entire universe out of nothing, then could he not perform lesser miracles? 37
Second, if God cared enough to create the universe, then why doesn’t He care enough to be involved with it? 38 And, third, the deistic view of natural laws is outdated. Natural laws are now considered by scientists to be descriptive of the general way nature acts. No longer are natural laws thought to prescribe what can and cannot happen in nature. 39 Natural laws cannot automatically rule out miracles, just as the occurrence of usual events does not disprove the possibility of unusual events occurring. 40
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, deism was a strong movement. 41 Much of its popularity was due to the belief that the science of that day had proven miracles to be impossible. 42 However, now that this misconception has been overturned, deism is no longer the attractive world view that it once was.
FINITE GODISM
Finite Godism is a world view that accepts the existence of a god. However, it believes He is limited. 43 Adherents differ as to how God is limited. Some believe He is limited in His power. 44 Others consider Him limited in His knowledge or His goodness. 45
Devotees of Finite Godism usually promote their world view as the answer to the problem of evil. 46 They reason that an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow evil and innocent humans to suffer in the world. 47 Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of When Bad Things Happen to Good People, holds this view. He believes that evil proves God is not perfect and that He is limited in power. 48 For if God could prevent it, reasons Kushner, God would not allow the innocent to suffer. 49 Kushner asks others to forgive God for His failures. 50
Several responses have been given to those who believe in the existence of a finite God. First, all finite existence needs a cause for its continuing existence. 51 Finite beings are, by definition, limited beings. And limited beings, precisely because of their limitations, must depend on other beings to keep them in existence. In fact, if everything that exists is limited and dependent, then nothing would now exist. For there must exist an infinite Being that is the cause of the continuing existence of all finite and dependent beings. In other words, a finite God would depend on an infinite God for its existence. However, a finite God would not be God after all. Only the infinite Being is God. 52
Second, a finite God doesn’t deserve worship. 53 Only a being that is ultimately worthy is deserving of worship. A God with limitations is surely not ultimately worthy. Only an infinite Being is deserving of worship.
Third, evil does not prove that God must be limited. 54 An all-good and all-powerful God may choose to allow evil and human suffering for the purpose of a greater good. What exactly this greater good may entail in specific cases may remain a mystery to finite beings, but, the wisdom of an infinite Being far transcends the wisdom of finite beings (Isaiah 55:8-9). A child may question the decision of his parents to allow him to receive surgery. But he does not have access to the amount of information that his parents have, and he does not see that the present pain he is enduring is for the purpose of future healing. The relationship of mankind to God is analogous to the relationship of this child to his parents. Also, God may defeat evil in the future (as the Bible teaches). In fact, only an infinite God can guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil. A finite God cannot. 55
In short, finite godism leaves one with a god who is no God at all. For he, like the rest of the universe, needs a cause. He is not worthy of worship, and he cannot guarantee the defeat of evil. A god who needs help and forgiveness deserves only sympathy, not worship.
POLYTHEISM
Polytheism is the world view that teaches the existence of more than one god. 56 Many Eastern religions accept the existence of many gods. This includes certain forms of Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Jainism. 57 Western thought is itself not without polytheistic belief systems. Ancient Greek mythology expressed polytheistic themes. 58 Several cult groups such as Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church spread polytheism in the West today. 59
Polytheism fails for the following reasons. Either all the gods are finite or at least one of them is infinite. They cannot all be finite. If they are all finite beings, then they would need an infinite Being to ground their existence, but, then this infinite Being would be God. 60
So there must exist at least one infinite Being. It is not possible that there exist more than one infinite Being. If more than one infinite Being existed, they would limit one another’s existence. One infinite Being could prevent the other infinite Being(s) from accomplishing its goals. But then these beings would not be infinite since they would be limited by another’s power. Therefore, there must exist one, and only one, infinite Being. 61 This one infinite Being would alone be God. Therefore, Polytheism fails in its attempt to explain reality.
SKEPTICISM NOT A VIABLE OPTION
All world views, except for theism, have been shown to be failures. They are self-contradictory and fail to explain the available evidence. If theism, the only remaining world view, also fails, then skepticism would be the only possible alternative. However, skepticism also fails.
If one decides to be a skeptic, then he has chosen to suspend judgment on all things. He has failed to suspend judgment on his choice to be a skeptic. 62 This, of course, is contradictory. Also, no one can consistently live like a skeptic. For example, if someone suspended judgment on what he should eat, then he would eventually starve to death. 63
CONCLUSION
Therefore, since skepticism fails as all non-theistic world views have failed, then, due to the process of elimination, theism must be true. Still, the following chapters will include a positive defense of theism.
ENDNOTES
1 Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 38.
2 Geisler, Apologetics, 263.
3 Geisler and Watkins, 98-99.
4 Geisler, Apologetics, 173-174.
5 Geisler and Watkins, 78-79.
6 Ibid., 94.
7 Ibid., 98.
8 Ibid., 96.
9 Ibid., 99.
10 Geisler, Apologetics, 187.
11 Ibid., 239.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid., 241.
14 Craig, 81-93.
15 Ibid., 81.
16 Ibid., 93.
17 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-249.
18 Ibid., 247-248.
19 Walter Martin, The New Age Cult (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989), 65.
20 Ibid.
21 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-248.
22 Geisler and Watkins, 102.
23 Ibid., 108.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., 136.
26 Ibid.
27 Erickson, Christian Theology, 272.
28 Geisler and Watkins, 139.
29 Erickson, 735.
30 Geisler and Watkins, 21.
31 Geisler, Apologetics, 208-209.
32 Ibid., 147-148.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., 148.
36 Ibid., 181.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 182.
39 Ibid., 181.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 148.
42 Ibid., 181.
43 Ibid., 188.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid., 189-190.
46 Ibid., 188.
47 Ibid.
48 Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Avon Books, 1981), 148.
49 Ibid., 134.
50 Ibid., 147-148.
51 Geisler and Watkins, 211-212.
52 Ibid., 212.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., 212-213.
55 Ibid., 212.
56 Ibid., 217.
57 Ibid., 218.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, 130.
61 Ibid.
62 Geisler and Feinberg, 93-94.
63 Ibid., 94.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/tag/nontheistic/
The Failure of Other Non-Theistic Worldviews
Gabe Ginorioby Gabe Ginorio -->
by Dr. Phil FernandesA chapter from his doctoral dissertation© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved
Theism is the view of reality which holds to the existence of a personal God who is separate (transcendent) from the universe though involved (immanent) with it. 1 Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three main theistic religions. 2
It has been shown that atheism, the world view that there is no God, has failed to prove its case. This means that theism may be true. It is therefore possible that God exists. However, before looking into arguments for the existence of the theistic God, discussion of other non-theistic world views is necessary to show that they have also failed to prove their cases.
The non-theistic world views (other than atheism) include pantheism, panentheism, deism, finite godism, and polytheism. If these world views fail as atheism has failed, then the case for theism will become more probable since it is the only remaining major world view. Of course, the case for theism will reach a high degree of probability only if strong arguments can be advanced in its favor.
PANTHEISM
Pantheism is the world view that teaches that God is the universe. 3 Pantheism is based upon monism, the belief that all reality is one being. 4 Hinduism and some adherents of Buddhism are pantheistic in their thought. 5 The New Age Movement (the invasion of Western Society with Hindu thought) is also pantheistic. 6
Pantheism teaches that God is not a personal being. Instead, God is an impersonal force. 7 Since pantheists believe that all reality is one being and that God is this one reality, they believe that each individual is God. 8 In fact, individual existence is merely an illusion since all reality is one being. 9
There are several problems for pantheism which cause it to fail as a world view. First, many beings exist, not just one. 10 As Christian philosopher Norman Geisler has pointed out, it is actually undeniable that I exist. 11 For if I attempt to deny my existence, I must first exist to make the denial. 12 For nothing can deny nothing. Only an existent being can deny its own existence. Therefore, I exist. However, if I try to convince others that I alone exist, I must first affirm their own individual and separate existence by communicating with them. 13 In other words, to argue for pantheism is to admit that pantheism is false. To argue with others is to affirm the existence of others, and if more than one being exists, then pantheism cannot be true.
A second problem with pantheism is that there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. Both the big bang model and the second law of thermodynamics reveal this. 14 Also, if the universe is eternal, the present moment could never have arrived. But since the present moment has arrived, only a finite number of events could have occurred in the past. 15 Therefore, there was a first event. The universe had a beginning. Since from nothing, nothing comes, everything that had a beginning needs a cause. Hence, the universe needs a cause. 16 But, for pantheism to be true, the universe would have to be eternal and uncaused.
Third, pantheism claims that reality is ultimately impersonal. This is the same as saying that reality is non-intelligent and non-moral. 17 But for someone to deny the reality of intelligence, he must first assume he has the intelligence to make the denial. 18 Even pantheists pass moral judgments on others. In fact, many pantheists have been known to protest violence and the production of nuclear weapons. 19 They have fought for stricter anti-pollution legislation and campaigned for animal rights. 20 It is hard to find a pantheist who is not vocal about his or her moral beliefs. Pantheists must explain where intelligence and morality come from. Could intelligence and morality have been caused by a non-intelligent and non-moral being? It appears more probable that the Ultimate Cause of intelligence and morality must Himself be an intelligent and moral Being. 21
Fourth, why should anyone accept the pantheistic claim that the world is an illusion? Does not common sense and experience favor the reality of the physical world? Why should anyone embrace pantheism without any evidence when common sense and experience teach otherwise? 22
For these four reasons it appears that pantheism, as a world view, has failed. If an alternative to theism is to be accepted, one must look elsewhere.
PANENTHEISM
Panentheism has been described as the belief that the universe is God’s body. 23 In this world view, God is conceived of as having two poles to His existence. In His potential pole, He is infinite, unchanging, and eternal. In His actual pole, He is finite, changing, and temporal. 24 Unlike pantheism, panentheism views God as personal. 25
Panentheism fails for several reasons. First, God cannot be both infinite and finite. This would be the same as saying that God is both unlimited and limited, 26 and this is an obvious contradiction. The Christian concept of God is one of an infinite God in His basic nature. 27 Panentheism, on the other hand, holds the contradictory concept of a God who is both infinite and finite in His basic nature.
Second, panentheism is again contradictory when it declares God to be both eternal (without a beginning) and temporal (with a beginning). 28 One cannot have it both ways. Either God is eternal or God is temporal. In the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, the eternal God added a temporal nature to his eternal nature. 29 This involves no contradiction, but, in the case of panentheism, a contradiction is evident. If the eternal pole of God caused the temporal pole of God to come into existence, then it would make more sense for the panentheist to refer to the temporal pole not as God, but as God’s creation. But then the panentheist would cease to be a panentheist. In fact, he would then be a theist. 30
Third, panentheism teaches that God actualizes His own potentialities. However, this is impossible. No potentiality can actualize itself. For instance, empty cups cannot fill themselves. For a potentiality to become actual, something actual must actualize it. As a result, the panentheistic god, if it existed, would need the theistic God to actualize its potential to exist. 31 Therefore, Panentheism fails as a world view.
DEISM
Deism is the world view that promotes the belief in a God who created the universe but no longer has any dealings with it. 32 The deist believes that God allows the world to operate on its own in accordance with natural laws that He has set in motion. 33 God does not perform miracles or interrupt the natural course of events. 34
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were deists of the eighteenth century. 35 Though deism is not as popular as it once was, similar views are held today by many Unitarians and religious humanists. 36
Several objections to deism deserve mention. First, deists deny a miracle-working God. Yet, they admit one of God’s greatest supernatural works when they affirm His work of creation. If God could create the entire universe out of nothing, then could he not perform lesser miracles? 37
Second, if God cared enough to create the universe, then why doesn’t He care enough to be involved with it? 38 And, third, the deistic view of natural laws is outdated. Natural laws are now considered by scientists to be descriptive of the general way nature acts. No longer are natural laws thought to prescribe what can and cannot happen in nature. 39 Natural laws cannot automatically rule out miracles, just as the occurrence of usual events does not disprove the possibility of unusual events occurring. 40
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, deism was a strong movement. 41 Much of its popularity was due to the belief that the science of that day had proven miracles to be impossible. 42 However, now that this misconception has been overturned, deism is no longer the attractive world view that it once was.
FINITE GODISM
Finite Godism is a world view that accepts the existence of a god. However, it believes He is limited. 43 Adherents differ as to how God is limited. Some believe He is limited in His power. 44 Others consider Him limited in His knowledge or His goodness. 45
Devotees of Finite Godism usually promote their world view as the answer to the problem of evil. 46 They reason that an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow evil and innocent humans to suffer in the world. 47 Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of When Bad Things Happen to Good People, holds this view. He believes that evil proves God is not perfect and that He is limited in power. 48 For if God could prevent it, reasons Kushner, God would not allow the innocent to suffer. 49 Kushner asks others to forgive God for His failures. 50
Several responses have been given to those who believe in the existence of a finite God. First, all finite existence needs a cause for its continuing existence. 51 Finite beings are, by definition, limited beings. And limited beings, precisely because of their limitations, must depend on other beings to keep them in existence. In fact, if everything that exists is limited and dependent, then nothing would now exist. For there must exist an infinite Being that is the cause of the continuing existence of all finite and dependent beings. In other words, a finite God would depend on an infinite God for its existence. However, a finite God would not be God after all. Only the infinite Being is God. 52
Second, a finite God doesn’t deserve worship. 53 Only a being that is ultimately worthy is deserving of worship. A God with limitations is surely not ultimately worthy. Only an infinite Being is deserving of worship.
Third, evil does not prove that God must be limited. 54 An all-good and all-powerful God may choose to allow evil and human suffering for the purpose of a greater good. What exactly this greater good may entail in specific cases may remain a mystery to finite beings, but, the wisdom of an infinite Being far transcends the wisdom of finite beings (Isaiah 55:8-9). A child may question the decision of his parents to allow him to receive surgery. But he does not have access to the amount of information that his parents have, and he does not see that the present pain he is enduring is for the purpose of future healing. The relationship of mankind to God is analogous to the relationship of this child to his parents. Also, God may defeat evil in the future (as the Bible teaches). In fact, only an infinite God can guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil. A finite God cannot. 55
In short, finite godism leaves one with a god who is no God at all. For he, like the rest of the universe, needs a cause. He is not worthy of worship, and he cannot guarantee the defeat of evil. A god who needs help and forgiveness deserves only sympathy, not worship.
POLYTHEISM
Polytheism is the world view that teaches the existence of more than one god. 56 Many Eastern religions accept the existence of many gods. This includes certain forms of Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Jainism. 57 Western thought is itself not without polytheistic belief systems. Ancient Greek mythology expressed polytheistic themes. 58 Several cult groups such as Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church spread polytheism in the West today. 59
Polytheism fails for the following reasons. Either all the gods are finite or at least one of them is infinite. They cannot all be finite. If they are all finite beings, then they would need an infinite Being to ground their existence, but, then this infinite Being would be God. 60
So there must exist at least one infinite Being. It is not possible that there exist more than one infinite Being. If more than one infinite Being existed, they would limit one another’s existence. One infinite Being could prevent the other infinite Being(s) from accomplishing its goals. But then these beings would not be infinite since they would be limited by another’s power. Therefore, there must exist one, and only one, infinite Being. 61 This one infinite Being would alone be God. Therefore, Polytheism fails in its attempt to explain reality.
SKEPTICISM NOT A VIABLE OPTION
All world views, except for theism, have been shown to be failures. They are self-contradictory and fail to explain the available evidence. If theism, the only remaining world view, also fails, then skepticism would be the only possible alternative. However, skepticism also fails.
If one decides to be a skeptic, then he has chosen to suspend judgment on all things. He has failed to suspend judgment on his choice to be a skeptic. 62 This, of course, is contradictory. Also, no one can consistently live like a skeptic. For example, if someone suspended judgment on what he should eat, then he would eventually starve to death. 63
CONCLUSION
Therefore, since skepticism fails as all non-theistic world views have failed, then, due to the process of elimination, theism must be true. Still, the following chapters will include a positive defense of theism.
ENDNOTES
1 Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 38.
2 Geisler, Apologetics, 263.
3 Geisler and Watkins, 98-99.
4 Geisler, Apologetics, 173-174.
5 Geisler and Watkins, 78-79.
6 Ibid., 94.
7 Ibid., 98.
8 Ibid., 96.
9 Ibid., 99.
10 Geisler, Apologetics, 187.
11 Ibid., 239.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid., 241.
14 Craig, 81-93.
15 Ibid., 81.
16 Ibid., 93.
17 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-249.
18 Ibid., 247-248.
19 Walter Martin, The New Age Cult (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989), 65.
20 Ibid.
21 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-248.
22 Geisler and Watkins, 102.
23 Ibid., 108.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., 136.
26 Ibid.
27 Erickson, Christian Theology, 272.
28 Geisler and Watkins, 139.
29 Erickson, 735.
30 Geisler and Watkins, 21.
31 Geisler, Apologetics, 208-209.
32 Ibid., 147-148.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., 148.
36 Ibid., 181.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 182.
39 Ibid., 181.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 148.
42 Ibid., 181.
43 Ibid., 188.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid., 189-190.
46 Ibid., 188.
47 Ibid.
48 Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Avon Books, 1981), 148.
49 Ibid., 134.
50 Ibid., 147-148.
51 Geisler and Watkins, 211-212.
52 Ibid., 212.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., 212-213.
55 Ibid., 212.
56 Ibid., 217.
57 Ibid., 218.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, 130.
61 Ibid.
62 Geisler and Feinberg, 93-94.
63 Ibid., 94.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/tag/nontheistic/
Saturday, August 21, 2010
On Mormonism, the Truth behind it all
I have been involved in Apologetics for many years. One of the things I have failed to do is discuss matters of different types of Theology. So in addition to my other projects, one thing I have decided by the grace of God to infiltrate into my research is sound reporting on other religious movements.
I suppose we should start with cultish religions that have come out of Christianity. We can proceed from there and then move towards larger religious movements. Today what I want to talk about is Mormonism.
It will be of keen interest to readers to keep in mind Galatians 1:8 when discoursing about the Mormons. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
These are strong words. Lets talk about the Mormons now. This movement was begun by Joseph Smith Jr., who began the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. At the age of around 15, he allegedly received a vision that became the foundation of this church. He declared "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he can not enter the Kingdom of God." Thus with this one dogmatic assertion here, Joseph Smith declared everybody to be wrong as it pertained to Yeshua. The Mormons thus, claim they are the restored church of Yeshua.
The four works of vital importance to the Mormons are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The alleged "prophet's" words are also a source of authority.
The Mormons tend to be more reliant on the Book of Mormon, and their other books than the Bible however. It is not foreign to ask of a Mormon whether they have read the Bible, and for this answer to be no.
Now we have to keep in mind Deuteronomy 13 when we're discussing any prophet. This declares "1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. " Shall we purge the evil from amongst Joseph Smith? Let us see.
What does the Mormon doctrine teach with accord of its traditions vs. what the Bible teaches? One of the Mormon's doctrines is Baptism for the Dead. But, this is an addition to scripture. This is never mentioned anywhere in either the Tanakh or the Brit Hadashah. We have already gone over the dangers of adding to scripture. The Mormon basis for using this is in fact, no basis at all. 1 Corinthains 15: 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
What the context is talking about here has to do with the resurrection of Yeshua. That is the subject. Paul is not condoning the belief that people should be baptized for the dead when this is read in context. In fact, Paul is merely stating that those who are baptized with the resurrection of Yeshua have done so in vain (Judaism and Christianity are both wrong and we can all go home and enjoy our day). See what Paul states earlier in this passage for the context - 1 Corinthians 15:14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. Thus Baptism for the dead, as according to the Biblical basis for doing so, seems to be done if taken in a literal sense, in vanity.
Celestial Marriage is also an addition to the scripture. This is taught in the book Doctrine and Covenants."
The Book of Mormon's foundational level is predicated on Yeshua going to the original inhabitants of America after his resurrection. But again, nothing is mentioned about this in scripture. As a matter of fact, this took place in Galilee. This is another addition to scripture.
Now it is within the nature of a Mormon to point this particular scrpture out - 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
This comes from the KJV. We will touch base on this later, and why I am not a fan of this particular version of the Bible. (One point I have alluded to is the change of the name of Ya'akov to James as the brother of Yeshua). Nevertheless, an earlier translation from the Wycleffe version declares " 11 I am a good shepherd; a good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
12 But an hired hind, and that is not the shepherd, whose be not the sheep his own [whose the sheep be not his own], seeth a wolf coming, and he leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf snatcheth, and scattereth the sheep.
13 And the hired hind fleeth, for he is an hired hind, and it pertaineth not to him of the sheep.
14 I am a good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and my sheep know me.
15 As the Father hath known me, I know the Father; and I put my life for my sheep.
16 [And] I have other sheep, that be not of this fold, and it behooveth me to bring them together, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be made one fold and one shepherd. " Even in the KJV, there is not an issue when this verse is taken in its context. There are Jewish believers of the flock, and there are non-Jewish believers of the flock. In its context, that is what this means. It goes back to Numbers 15:13-16. Continuing further.
The Pearl of Great Price contains the first 6 chapters of Genesis and the Book of Abraham, which has been proven to be a fraudulent Egyptian Papyrus from an Archaeological perspective.
The Living Prophet, or the head of the church is said to be "more vital to us than the standard works." Here we can also see manipulation of thought by the ward teachers of 1945. "Any Latter-Day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, and revelators of the church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy....Lucier....wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking....When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of the controversy."
Ah, but obviously, a Torah observant Jew would draw exception to this if he followed the entirety of the Torah. Exodus 23:2 declares " 2 "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd," This would also be so if the leaders were wrong.
Secondly, the Bible encourages us to think for ourselves, but not to follow apostasy that turns away from what the Bible declares...such as Colossians 2:8 " 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." It also encourages us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 "21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil." By setting up these standards, we are creating philosophy that opposes the will of God.
We have seen two strikes against the Mormon faith, but lets continue for the sake of discussion. This gets even more interesting.
What does Joseph Smith state? "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did. Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you (The King Follett Discourse pp8-10)."
Whats the problem with this? A small...tiny problem when we read Alma 11:26-29 of the Book of Mormon. "And Zeezrom said unto him: "Thou sayest that there is a true and living God?" And Amulek said :"Yea there is a true and living God." Now Zeezrom said :"Is there more than one God?" And he answered, "No!"
The plural discoursed by Joseph Smith "all Gods" refutes this. We therefore have a contradiction within the very sources of the Mormon doctrine.
Another rather problematic area for the Book of Mormon is Archaeological discoveries, which we should have a slew of them by now if the Book of Mormon were true.
Some of these are:
1) None of the cities have been located.
2) No names have been found in the New World Inscriptions.
3) Nothing has corresponded to Joseph Smith's ideology of "reformed Egyptian" since nothing has been located in America that has been written in Egyptian.
4) No ancient extracts of the Book of Mormon have been found
5) No artifacts have been found which demonstrate the Book of Mormon to be true. Furthermore, nothing from the Americas has demonstrated that the ancient inhabitants held to Jewish or Christian beliefs.
These are all unexplained problems, which extend to the point that scholars of the Mormon faith have twisted their own scriptures to leave traditional understandings behind Mormonism.
Other contradictions include 1 Nephi 2:5-8 which states that there is a river called Laman which emptied into the Red Sea, but this has never been discovered, no river has ever emptied into the Red Sea from Arabia. Alma 7:10 declares that Yeshua would be born in Jerusalem, but the Bible clearly confirms it would be Bethlehem.
However with these problems alone it is easy to see that the Mormons have their share of problems and contradictions to work with. Our God is not the author of confusion, and as such, these resources do not appear to be coming from God.
I suppose we should start with cultish religions that have come out of Christianity. We can proceed from there and then move towards larger religious movements. Today what I want to talk about is Mormonism.
It will be of keen interest to readers to keep in mind Galatians 1:8 when discoursing about the Mormons. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
These are strong words. Lets talk about the Mormons now. This movement was begun by Joseph Smith Jr., who began the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. At the age of around 15, he allegedly received a vision that became the foundation of this church. He declared "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he can not enter the Kingdom of God." Thus with this one dogmatic assertion here, Joseph Smith declared everybody to be wrong as it pertained to Yeshua. The Mormons thus, claim they are the restored church of Yeshua.
The four works of vital importance to the Mormons are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The alleged "prophet's" words are also a source of authority.
The Mormons tend to be more reliant on the Book of Mormon, and their other books than the Bible however. It is not foreign to ask of a Mormon whether they have read the Bible, and for this answer to be no.
Now we have to keep in mind Deuteronomy 13 when we're discussing any prophet. This declares "1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. " Shall we purge the evil from amongst Joseph Smith? Let us see.
What does the Mormon doctrine teach with accord of its traditions vs. what the Bible teaches? One of the Mormon's doctrines is Baptism for the Dead. But, this is an addition to scripture. This is never mentioned anywhere in either the Tanakh or the Brit Hadashah. We have already gone over the dangers of adding to scripture. The Mormon basis for using this is in fact, no basis at all. 1 Corinthains 15: 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
What the context is talking about here has to do with the resurrection of Yeshua. That is the subject. Paul is not condoning the belief that people should be baptized for the dead when this is read in context. In fact, Paul is merely stating that those who are baptized with the resurrection of Yeshua have done so in vain (Judaism and Christianity are both wrong and we can all go home and enjoy our day). See what Paul states earlier in this passage for the context - 1 Corinthians 15:14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. Thus Baptism for the dead, as according to the Biblical basis for doing so, seems to be done if taken in a literal sense, in vanity.
Celestial Marriage is also an addition to the scripture. This is taught in the book Doctrine and Covenants."
The Book of Mormon's foundational level is predicated on Yeshua going to the original inhabitants of America after his resurrection. But again, nothing is mentioned about this in scripture. As a matter of fact, this took place in Galilee. This is another addition to scripture.
Now it is within the nature of a Mormon to point this particular scrpture out - 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
This comes from the KJV. We will touch base on this later, and why I am not a fan of this particular version of the Bible. (One point I have alluded to is the change of the name of Ya'akov to James as the brother of Yeshua). Nevertheless, an earlier translation from the Wycleffe version declares " 11 I am a good shepherd; a good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
12 But an hired hind, and that is not the shepherd, whose be not the sheep his own [whose the sheep be not his own], seeth a wolf coming, and he leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf snatcheth, and scattereth the sheep.
13 And the hired hind fleeth, for he is an hired hind, and it pertaineth not to him of the sheep.
14 I am a good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and my sheep know me.
15 As the Father hath known me, I know the Father; and I put my life for my sheep.
16 [And] I have other sheep, that be not of this fold, and it behooveth me to bring them together, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be made one fold and one shepherd. " Even in the KJV, there is not an issue when this verse is taken in its context. There are Jewish believers of the flock, and there are non-Jewish believers of the flock. In its context, that is what this means. It goes back to Numbers 15:13-16. Continuing further.
The Pearl of Great Price contains the first 6 chapters of Genesis and the Book of Abraham, which has been proven to be a fraudulent Egyptian Papyrus from an Archaeological perspective.
The Living Prophet, or the head of the church is said to be "more vital to us than the standard works." Here we can also see manipulation of thought by the ward teachers of 1945. "Any Latter-Day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, and revelators of the church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy....Lucier....wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking....When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of the controversy."
Ah, but obviously, a Torah observant Jew would draw exception to this if he followed the entirety of the Torah. Exodus 23:2 declares " 2 "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd," This would also be so if the leaders were wrong.
Secondly, the Bible encourages us to think for ourselves, but not to follow apostasy that turns away from what the Bible declares...such as Colossians 2:8 " 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." It also encourages us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 "21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil." By setting up these standards, we are creating philosophy that opposes the will of God.
We have seen two strikes against the Mormon faith, but lets continue for the sake of discussion. This gets even more interesting.
What does Joseph Smith state? "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did. Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you (The King Follett Discourse pp8-10)."
Whats the problem with this? A small...tiny problem when we read Alma 11:26-29 of the Book of Mormon. "And Zeezrom said unto him: "Thou sayest that there is a true and living God?" And Amulek said :"Yea there is a true and living God." Now Zeezrom said :"Is there more than one God?" And he answered, "No!"
The plural discoursed by Joseph Smith "all Gods" refutes this. We therefore have a contradiction within the very sources of the Mormon doctrine.
Another rather problematic area for the Book of Mormon is Archaeological discoveries, which we should have a slew of them by now if the Book of Mormon were true.
Some of these are:
1) None of the cities have been located.
2) No names have been found in the New World Inscriptions.
3) Nothing has corresponded to Joseph Smith's ideology of "reformed Egyptian" since nothing has been located in America that has been written in Egyptian.
4) No ancient extracts of the Book of Mormon have been found
5) No artifacts have been found which demonstrate the Book of Mormon to be true. Furthermore, nothing from the Americas has demonstrated that the ancient inhabitants held to Jewish or Christian beliefs.
These are all unexplained problems, which extend to the point that scholars of the Mormon faith have twisted their own scriptures to leave traditional understandings behind Mormonism.
Other contradictions include 1 Nephi 2:5-8 which states that there is a river called Laman which emptied into the Red Sea, but this has never been discovered, no river has ever emptied into the Red Sea from Arabia. Alma 7:10 declares that Yeshua would be born in Jerusalem, but the Bible clearly confirms it would be Bethlehem.
However with these problems alone it is easy to see that the Mormons have their share of problems and contradictions to work with. Our God is not the author of confusion, and as such, these resources do not appear to be coming from God.
What do the Rabbis have to say about Isaiah 53?
It is quite incredible as to what you will find stated by the community of the ancient rabbinical resources of the Ancient Jews. While the very Hebrewic language of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is enough to dismiss the notion that Isaiah 53 is about Israel as a nation, what is even more incredible is that every ancient Jewish resources confirms this explanation as we will see.
Here is a listing of these ancient rabbinical commentaries.
"“Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not.”Targum JonathanBabylonian Talmud states "The Rabanan say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar of Rabbi’s House (or The Leper Scholar) for it is written, “Surely He hath born our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[3] "The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, The leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi [4] say, The sick one, as it is said, “Surely he hath borne our sicknesses.”[5]Midrash Siphre says "R. Yosé the Galilaean said, Come forth and learn the righteousness of the King Messiah and the reward of the just from the first man who received but one commandment, a prohibition, and transgressed it: consider how many deaths were inflicted upon himself, upon his own generations, and upon those that followed them, till the end of all generations. Which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness, or the attribute of vengeance? He answered, The attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of vengeance is less; how much more, then will the King Messiah, who endures affliction and pains for the transgressors (as it is written, “He was wounded,” etc.) justify all generations! And this is what is meant when it is said, “And the Lord made the iniquity of us all meet upon him.”[6]Midrash Thanhuma " R. Nahman say, The word “man” in the passage, every man a head of the house of his fathers (Num. i. 4), refers to the Messiah the son of David, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah” (the branch); where Yonathan interprets, Behold the man Messiah (Zech. Vi. 12): and so it is said, “A man of pains and known to sickness.”[7]"Midrash P'siqtha "The Holy One brought forth the soul of the Messiah, and said to him…Art thou willing to…redeem my sons…? He replied, I am. God replied, If so, thou must take upon thyself chastisements in order to wipe away their iniquity, as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.” The Messiah answered, I will take them upon me gladly."Midrash Konen "The fifth mansion in Paradise…there dwell Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There also is the “litter of the wood of Lebanon”…and within it Messiah son of David who loveth Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by the head, lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear thou sufferings and wounds wherewith the Almighty doth chastise thee for Israel’s sin;” and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.[8] "
The Musaf Prayer states from the 7th century A.D. "Our righteous anointed[11] is departed from us; horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgressions, and was wounded because of our transgressions. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time the Eternal will create Him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring Him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time by the power of Yinon.[12] "The Zohar declares "There is in the garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness: this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for transgressions of the law: and this is that which is written, “Surely our sickness he hath carried.”[13] "Rabbi Moshe had-Darshan "This is that which is written, “I will lift mine eyes unto the hills: O whence cometh my help” (Ps. Cxxi. I)? and, “Who art thou, O great mountain” (Zech. iv. 7)? The great mountain means the Messiah, and why does he speak of him thus? Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper.” I have learnt it from the words of R. Mosheh had-Darshan: The redeemer whom I shall raise up from among you will have no father, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah [branch], and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and so Isaiah says, “And he came up like a sucker,” etc.Says R. B’rckhyah, The Holy One said to Israel…the redeemer whom I shall raise up out of your midst will have no father also, as it is said, “Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and similarly by Isaiah, “And he came up as a sucker before him.”The Holy One said…O Messiah, my righteousness, said he, the iniquities of those who are hidden beside thee will cause thee to enter into a hard yoke: thine eyes shall see no light, and thine ears shall hear great reproaches from the nations of the world; thy nostrils shall smell ill savours, thy mouth taste bitterness, and thy tongue cleave to thy gums; thy skin shall hang upon thy bones, and thy body grow weak in grief and sighing. Art thou willing to accept this? if so, it shall be well; but if not, behold, I drive them from me for ever. Said the Messiah, Lord of the world, I accept it joyfully and will endure these chastisements, upon the condition that thou givest life again to those who die in my days, and to those who died from the time of the first man until now; and that thou savest in my days not only these…but such as were born out of due time; nor again these only, but those also whom thou thoughtest to create but who were not created. The Holy One replied, I will do so: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as it is written, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted.”This is the King Messiah, who belonged to the generation of the wicked, but rejected them, and chose the Holy One and his holy name to serve him with all his heart, and applied himself to seek for mercy for Israel, and to fast and humble himself on their behalf, as it is said, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc. And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, “By his stripes we were healed,” and “He carried the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Every rabbi up through 800 years after the commentary of the Talmud also agrees. Until Rashi of course. But for those who are a fan of the Rashi commentary discussing that Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel, it should be paid careful attention to why this was. Rabbi ben Eliezer, a contemporary of Rashi, confirms this for us. One more point. Rabbi ben Eliezer states "15.Rashi, toward the end of the 11th century, was the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel. Initially, he applied it to the Messiah. (See Sanhedrin 93.) Only after the Crusades began did Rashi assert that the suffering servant was Israel.[18] However, Rashi’s new view was seen as an aberration from the traditional view (that it spoke of the Messiah). "
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Does this mean that the Talmudic rabbis believed Yeshua was this guy? No, and primarily because they were looking for the wrong role of the Messiah (Ben David) instead of Ben Yosef (and we will talk about the roles of the Messiah in a later article). But some very interesting information can be found on Yeshua in Sanhedrin 43a, which confirms, and does not deny, what the Brit Hadashah has to state about Yeshua. "There is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God[2]. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover[1].Ulla[3] commented: "Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: 'Show them no pity... and do not shield them.' (Deut 13.8b NRSV)[4] In Yeshu's case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority."
So according to the Talmud, there was absolutely no reason that Yeshua (called Yeshu) should have been hung on the tree of life according to the standards of the Torah. He didn't break the Torah. What makes this more interesting is that this would have been the place within the Talmud to deny the story of Yeshua. Israel, your Messiah is crying for you (Matthew 23).
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Here is a listing of these ancient rabbinical commentaries.
"“Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not.”Targum JonathanBabylonian Talmud states "The Rabanan say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar of Rabbi’s House (or The Leper Scholar) for it is written, “Surely He hath born our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[3] "The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, The leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi [4] say, The sick one, as it is said, “Surely he hath borne our sicknesses.”[5]Midrash Siphre says "R. Yosé the Galilaean said, Come forth and learn the righteousness of the King Messiah and the reward of the just from the first man who received but one commandment, a prohibition, and transgressed it: consider how many deaths were inflicted upon himself, upon his own generations, and upon those that followed them, till the end of all generations. Which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness, or the attribute of vengeance? He answered, The attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of vengeance is less; how much more, then will the King Messiah, who endures affliction and pains for the transgressors (as it is written, “He was wounded,” etc.) justify all generations! And this is what is meant when it is said, “And the Lord made the iniquity of us all meet upon him.”[6]Midrash Thanhuma " R. Nahman say, The word “man” in the passage, every man a head of the house of his fathers (Num. i. 4), refers to the Messiah the son of David, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah” (the branch); where Yonathan interprets, Behold the man Messiah (Zech. Vi. 12): and so it is said, “A man of pains and known to sickness.”[7]"Midrash P'siqtha "The Holy One brought forth the soul of the Messiah, and said to him…Art thou willing to…redeem my sons…? He replied, I am. God replied, If so, thou must take upon thyself chastisements in order to wipe away their iniquity, as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.” The Messiah answered, I will take them upon me gladly."Midrash Konen "The fifth mansion in Paradise…there dwell Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There also is the “litter of the wood of Lebanon”…and within it Messiah son of David who loveth Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by the head, lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear thou sufferings and wounds wherewith the Almighty doth chastise thee for Israel’s sin;” and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.[8] "
The Musaf Prayer states from the 7th century A.D. "Our righteous anointed[11] is departed from us; horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgressions, and was wounded because of our transgressions. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time the Eternal will create Him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring Him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time by the power of Yinon.[12] "The Zohar declares "There is in the garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness: this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for transgressions of the law: and this is that which is written, “Surely our sickness he hath carried.”[13] "Rabbi Moshe had-Darshan "This is that which is written, “I will lift mine eyes unto the hills: O whence cometh my help” (Ps. Cxxi. I)? and, “Who art thou, O great mountain” (Zech. iv. 7)? The great mountain means the Messiah, and why does he speak of him thus? Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper.” I have learnt it from the words of R. Mosheh had-Darshan: The redeemer whom I shall raise up from among you will have no father, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah [branch], and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and so Isaiah says, “And he came up like a sucker,” etc.Says R. B’rckhyah, The Holy One said to Israel…the redeemer whom I shall raise up out of your midst will have no father also, as it is said, “Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and similarly by Isaiah, “And he came up as a sucker before him.”The Holy One said…O Messiah, my righteousness, said he, the iniquities of those who are hidden beside thee will cause thee to enter into a hard yoke: thine eyes shall see no light, and thine ears shall hear great reproaches from the nations of the world; thy nostrils shall smell ill savours, thy mouth taste bitterness, and thy tongue cleave to thy gums; thy skin shall hang upon thy bones, and thy body grow weak in grief and sighing. Art thou willing to accept this? if so, it shall be well; but if not, behold, I drive them from me for ever. Said the Messiah, Lord of the world, I accept it joyfully and will endure these chastisements, upon the condition that thou givest life again to those who die in my days, and to those who died from the time of the first man until now; and that thou savest in my days not only these…but such as were born out of due time; nor again these only, but those also whom thou thoughtest to create but who were not created. The Holy One replied, I will do so: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as it is written, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted.”This is the King Messiah, who belonged to the generation of the wicked, but rejected them, and chose the Holy One and his holy name to serve him with all his heart, and applied himself to seek for mercy for Israel, and to fast and humble himself on their behalf, as it is said, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc. And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, “By his stripes we were healed,” and “He carried the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Every rabbi up through 800 years after the commentary of the Talmud also agrees. Until Rashi of course. But for those who are a fan of the Rashi commentary discussing that Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel, it should be paid careful attention to why this was. Rabbi ben Eliezer, a contemporary of Rashi, confirms this for us. One more point. Rabbi ben Eliezer states "15.Rashi, toward the end of the 11th century, was the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel. Initially, he applied it to the Messiah. (See Sanhedrin 93.) Only after the Crusades began did Rashi assert that the suffering servant was Israel.[18] However, Rashi’s new view was seen as an aberration from the traditional view (that it spoke of the Messiah). "
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Does this mean that the Talmudic rabbis believed Yeshua was this guy? No, and primarily because they were looking for the wrong role of the Messiah (Ben David) instead of Ben Yosef (and we will talk about the roles of the Messiah in a later article). But some very interesting information can be found on Yeshua in Sanhedrin 43a, which confirms, and does not deny, what the Brit Hadashah has to state about Yeshua. "There is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God[2]. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover[1].Ulla[3] commented: "Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: 'Show them no pity... and do not shield them.' (Deut 13.8b NRSV)[4] In Yeshu's case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority."
So according to the Talmud, there was absolutely no reason that Yeshua (called Yeshu) should have been hung on the tree of life according to the standards of the Torah. He didn't break the Torah. What makes this more interesting is that this would have been the place within the Talmud to deny the story of Yeshua. Israel, your Messiah is crying for you (Matthew 23).
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)