C.L. Shaffer's Blog
October 1, 2021
New Release!
The Gift of Remembering has recently been released on Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Rememberi...). The ebook is available for .99 now through October 6, 2021. I thought I'd share an excerpt from the book:
As with most catastrophic changes, it had begun with a war. But the conflict that raged throughout the entire world did not take Irene's family away from her. That was caused by what took place afterward. Not millions but billions had died in the fight, and once the conflict ended, most were fearful of starting a new one. In certain segments of the population, quarrels became taboo. They were the unforgivable sin. Many went out of their way to keep from instigating the slightest of disagreements.
Irene found her husband agreeing with the new sentiment. He insisted she not raise her voice nor argue with him about anything. He thought it a bad example for their three daughters. He would say, "We might have messed up, but their generation won't." That was the gist of the slogan for his new world.
Frustrated, Irene dug through her old books, retrieved the Bible she'd not opened since the start of the conflict, and pointed out how Paul argued with the pagans of his time. After that, Kent didn't speak to her for three days. That was when he came home with the brochure.
She knew her husband was struggling. His parents had been killed during the war, and he'd fought alongside a significant number of men who'd been tortured or who'd died as well.
"I hate them," he confessed to her one night. "I hate the other side for what they did." He then seemed to snap out of his anger, wiping his hand across his face, appearing guilty. "I can't get past this."
As time went on, he seemed to believe more and more that the information in the brochure could offer him the hope he was looking for and a better outcome than what time and his faith could deliver. The technology would allow him to forget. She resisted the idea, and when her disproval and caution led to further disputes, Kent became even more determined.
"Maybe we should let the girls go through the process too," Kent suggested nearly in tears one morning after a particularly rough night with Tia, who'd awakened from a nightmare—a common occurrence caused by what she'd witnessed during the fighting.
Irene went ballistic.
"Okay, okay," Kent conceded, apparently not wanting to start an argument. "I'll go. Just me," he said, taking Irene in his arms.
She remembered feeling both relief and guilt. Relief because her husband relented at targeting their daughters and guilt because, despite her reservations, she thought perhaps being processed was the right course of action for him . . .
As with most catastrophic changes, it had begun with a war. But the conflict that raged throughout the entire world did not take Irene's family away from her. That was caused by what took place afterward. Not millions but billions had died in the fight, and once the conflict ended, most were fearful of starting a new one. In certain segments of the population, quarrels became taboo. They were the unforgivable sin. Many went out of their way to keep from instigating the slightest of disagreements.
Irene found her husband agreeing with the new sentiment. He insisted she not raise her voice nor argue with him about anything. He thought it a bad example for their three daughters. He would say, "We might have messed up, but their generation won't." That was the gist of the slogan for his new world.
Frustrated, Irene dug through her old books, retrieved the Bible she'd not opened since the start of the conflict, and pointed out how Paul argued with the pagans of his time. After that, Kent didn't speak to her for three days. That was when he came home with the brochure.
She knew her husband was struggling. His parents had been killed during the war, and he'd fought alongside a significant number of men who'd been tortured or who'd died as well.
"I hate them," he confessed to her one night. "I hate the other side for what they did." He then seemed to snap out of his anger, wiping his hand across his face, appearing guilty. "I can't get past this."
As time went on, he seemed to believe more and more that the information in the brochure could offer him the hope he was looking for and a better outcome than what time and his faith could deliver. The technology would allow him to forget. She resisted the idea, and when her disproval and caution led to further disputes, Kent became even more determined.
"Maybe we should let the girls go through the process too," Kent suggested nearly in tears one morning after a particularly rough night with Tia, who'd awakened from a nightmare—a common occurrence caused by what she'd witnessed during the fighting.
Irene went ballistic.
"Okay, okay," Kent conceded, apparently not wanting to start an argument. "I'll go. Just me," he said, taking Irene in his arms.
She remembered feeling both relief and guilt. Relief because her husband relented at targeting their daughters and guilt because, despite her reservations, she thought perhaps being processed was the right course of action for him . . .
December 14, 2019
The Daily Christian - The Universe is not God
I've noticed lately the word Universe being interchanged, in movies and on TV, for the word God. However, it seems not all are using the word Universe as a synonym for God. A quote by Paulo Coelho, who has quite the following on Facebook is known for saying, "When you want something; all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it." It would appear from this that Paulo, and those who believe as he does, that when the word Universe is used it means a kind of invisible force that helps make your dreams come true. I've seen others express it somewhat differently as a sort of force that will align with you and provide you with what you desire if only you maintain a positive mindset.
The world is full of erroneous ideas like these, and it would be difficult to combat them all, but after having a conversation with an acquaintance who used the Universe phrasing, I thought it was time to write on the subject.
For those who use the word Universe as a synonym for God, it is as if they are unfamiliar with the definitions for these two words. The universe is a physical, unconscious thing that, according to my Google.com definition search, is "10 billion light-years in diameter [that] contains a vast number of galaxies." God, on the other hand, is defined by the same source and those of the monotheistic religions as "the creator and ruler of the universe."
As Christians, we should not allow this erroneous interchanging of words to seep into our usage, thinking it less contentious or more politically correct. Exchanging the thing that was made (the Universe) with the person (God) who made it is simply nonsensical and an antithesis to our faith.
In like manner, believing that there is an invisible, non-personal force out there, trying to get you what you want if only you believe it to be true, is not only a new age concept, it is completely unbiblical.
The God we serve, as He is described in the Bible, is a very personal God. He has a character, a personality if you will, a Holiness that is revealed to us through the experiences of those in the biblical text. In addition, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights." (James 1:17) Good things do not originate from some Universal force. They come from God.
The world is full of erroneous ideas like these, and it would be difficult to combat them all, but after having a conversation with an acquaintance who used the Universe phrasing, I thought it was time to write on the subject.
For those who use the word Universe as a synonym for God, it is as if they are unfamiliar with the definitions for these two words. The universe is a physical, unconscious thing that, according to my Google.com definition search, is "10 billion light-years in diameter [that] contains a vast number of galaxies." God, on the other hand, is defined by the same source and those of the monotheistic religions as "the creator and ruler of the universe."
As Christians, we should not allow this erroneous interchanging of words to seep into our usage, thinking it less contentious or more politically correct. Exchanging the thing that was made (the Universe) with the person (God) who made it is simply nonsensical and an antithesis to our faith.
In like manner, believing that there is an invisible, non-personal force out there, trying to get you what you want if only you believe it to be true, is not only a new age concept, it is completely unbiblical.
The God we serve, as He is described in the Bible, is a very personal God. He has a character, a personality if you will, a Holiness that is revealed to us through the experiences of those in the biblical text. In addition, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights." (James 1:17) Good things do not originate from some Universal force. They come from God.
November 5, 2019
The Daily Christian - The FFRF
The Freedom From Religion ad that ran the other week during the Democratic Debate displayed the group's and Ron Reagan's unwillingness to see how faith, particularly the Judeo-Christian faith, shaped what Ron described as a "secular government." Perhaps Ron didn't know what Jefferson meant when he stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
Besides this, Ron also presented a caricature of the Christian faith.The end of the ad displayed this where you can almost hear the smirk: "Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell."
In saying this, Ron demonstrated his oversimplistic view of believers. Allow me to explain. When I dedicated my life to Christ, the last thing I was thinking about was Hell. What I was interested in was getting out of the mindset, the way of life I was starting to go down. In other words, I was seeking freedom from that life not Hell. God answered my prayer, and my outlook, my way of life, completely changed.
Now I am not saying that teaching about the biblical concept of Hell or understanding that there will be a Hell is unimportant, but to claim that this is the only reason why people believe in God is a very simplistic view of Christians and the spiritual experiences that they've had.
Besides this, Ron also presented a caricature of the Christian faith.The end of the ad displayed this where you can almost hear the smirk: "Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell."
In saying this, Ron demonstrated his oversimplistic view of believers. Allow me to explain. When I dedicated my life to Christ, the last thing I was thinking about was Hell. What I was interested in was getting out of the mindset, the way of life I was starting to go down. In other words, I was seeking freedom from that life not Hell. God answered my prayer, and my outlook, my way of life, completely changed.
Now I am not saying that teaching about the biblical concept of Hell or understanding that there will be a Hell is unimportant, but to claim that this is the only reason why people believe in God is a very simplistic view of Christians and the spiritual experiences that they've had.
August 13, 2019
The Daily Christian – Should Women Teach? The seemingly contradictory statements on women teachers in the Bible
I recently was listening to a Christian radio program where the hosts stated their belief that women should not teach men within the church. They claimed that in their church, the women were only allowed to teach other women. However, when it came to holding authority over a man or teaching him—that was forbidden.
To them, to say otherwise was a direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where Paul discusses the matter and uses what occurred in the garden of Eden as an underlying, foundational point as to why a woman should not teach. In these versus, Paul points out that since man came first and was not deceived by the devil as Eve was (Adam knew precisely what he was doing when he partook of the fruit), that women should not hold authority over men. This includes teaching.
One may ask how could any church, after reading the verses in 1 Timothy 2, arrive at the opinion that women can even teach other women. The answer to this is found in Titus 2:1-5 where it states that aged women who have been taught holiness, not to be false accusers, and who are not addicted to too much wine, etc. can teach younger women. Since this is a very specific command that only concerns certain women, my guess is that in making this rule, the radio hosts were also thinking of other examples of women teachers such as Priscilla, who along with her husband, are described by Paul as “helpers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3). In Acts 21:8-9, there are also four women referred to as prophets. Phebe (Phoebe) is said to have been a servant (deacon) in Romans 16:1-2, and Tabitha (Dorcas), mentioned in Acts 9:36 is described as a disciple full of good works, which may have included teaching.
Combining all these verses, however, creates a problem. If we take seriously what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 says then women should not teach—period. But that is not the case as described in the verses just referenced. Obviously, we need to address this apparent contradiction.
One way to deal with the anomaly of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is to suggest that this section of text should be viewed as a cultural phenomenon. The radio hosts hit upon this popular argument by insisting these verses should not be viewed as a cultural incident since Paul uses the example of creation and the fall to describe why women should not teach. Therefore, to these hosts, women should not teach men. However, if we take 1 Timothy 2 as a universal and non-cultural command, then our conclusion would be that women shouldn’t teach at all. Clearly, the hosts of this radio show were not taking 1 Timothy 2 seriously. If they had, they couldn’t have arrived at their “women can only teach other women” rule.
My point is if we do not view 1 Timothy 2 as a cultural phenomenon or at the very least a specific situation that should not be applied elsewhere, then we have to admit that the areas of the Bible where women are teaching contradicts 1 Timothy 2. I don’t think we want to claim such an inconsistency.
However, I do see the conundrum with which these hosts find themselves. To add a biblical illustration for the reasoning behind why women should not teach is a very convincing argument for why these verses are not addressing a cultural issue.
At the heart of this biblical illustration is Paul’s statement that it was a woman who was deceived. This is the main reason why some conclude that women should not teach at all. They believe that women are more likely to be deceived than men, and therefore, will be more prone to teach a corrupted message. But again, women were clearly teaching in the early days of the church. We must address this contradiction.
Returning to our radio hosts, it is apparent that they do not see this contradiction. Their rule that it is permissible for women to teach other women also doesn’t speak to the biblical illustration that themselves point out which is that it was a woman who was deceived. Instead, they add what they think is a safeguard. They do this by supposedly examining the actual ministries of women teachers found throughout the New Testament. They suggest that Pricilla was allowed to teach because she was in the company of her husband. In other words, she was under his authority. The hosts also assert that since the four women prophets were still living under the roof of their father, they too were permitted to teach because he held authority over them. The problem with this is that 1 Timothy 2 does not say that a woman can teach if they are under the authority of a male. It only states that a woman should not hold authority over a man and should not teach.
In addition, if it was necessary for women teachers in the Bible to have a male authority standing by than why are the lifestyles of Phebe and Tabitha not described in the text? The Bible does not explicitly tell us that their fathers were alive or that they were married. (1) This is information considered vital by our hosts, but it is left out. Due to this, it becomes questionable that a woman needed a male figure hanging around in order to teach.
This safeguard created by the radio hosts creates even more questions for it sets up an odd rule that a single woman whose father is dead cannot teach and that only married or women who are still living with their fathers can teach. I just don’t see that command laid out in the Word of God. Again, our hosts are not taking 1 Timothy 2 seriously as it is written. They are trying to combine 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with 1 Timothy 2 to make some allowance for women teachers who are shown throughout the New Testament.
The difficulty with doing this is that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is discussing worship attire. In verse 3, it does say, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This verse does construct a kind of hierarchy that many use as an illustration of how an actual worship service should be organized with a male lead pastor at the helm. People who hold this view also add 1 Timothy 3:1-7 to the mix as an indication that only males should be made head pastor.
I have little problem with this view only to mention that where it states in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “the head of the woman is the man” the words her husband can be inserted for the man which gives the verse a slightly different meaning. Also, I can hear the egalitarian members of the church saying that the reason a male is described in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is because that was who was in charge at the time. To these egalitarian members, these verses actually don’t state, “the overseer of the church should be a man.” Instead, the verses only mention the qualities the man in charge should have because that was who was mainly taking the lead at the time.
Whatever your stance is on this issue, our hosts believe that maintaining male authority over women who teach other women will lessen the likelihood of those women going astray. But again, this is not what 1 Timothy 2 commands. It states women should not teach.
You may have guessed at this point that I have been purposefully driving our hosts’ arguments into a corner. My reason for doing this is there is actually better commentary for 1 Timothy 2 than creating a rule that women can only teach other women under the authority of male, a rule that is in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2!
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we find a verse instructing women to remain silent during church services. On the surface, if you are one given to misogynist viewpoints, it would seem that the Bible is telling women never to discuss any biblical matters whatsoever in the church. This extremist view would entirely remove women from every church-teaching situation, including children’s ministries. My guess is not many would be willing to do this. There would be quite a hole left behind not to mention countless souls left with no message of the Gospel for how many of us learned about the Bible first from our mothers and women Sunday school teachers? My guess is most of us.
So there must be something else going on in these verses that likens back to 1 Timothy 2. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 most agree that what is being addressed is a situation where women were showing up at services and chatting up a storm. I once encountered this myself at church where, behind me, two women talked for nearly the entire service. It was very disruptive, and I could hardly keep my attention on the sermon. Paul was encountering this similar disorderly conduct and addressed it in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 by telling the women to discuss biblical matters at home with their husbands.
The situation Paul is thinking of in 1 Timothy 2 is similar in that it is focusing on the relationship between husband and wife in the environment of the church. As in the case with 1 Corinthians 11:3, the word man in 1 Timothy 2:12 can be translated to husband as in “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over her husband, but to be in silence.” It is probable that very loud, uneducated women were hammering down on their husbands about biblical matters. Paul chastises them for doing this. He uses the illustration from the garden of Eden not to say that all women and only women will be deceived (this isn’t even reality since men can be deceived as well) but that as an example that one was deceived. It’s like saying “Hey, ladies don’t think you’re all that. It was a woman after all who was deceived.”
Paul uses the relationship of Adam and Eve, the first human couple, to get his point across. This is merely a solution to a particular problem Paul is dealing with at the time. Seeing 1 Timothy 2 as a specific dilemma occurring between husbands and wives in the environment of the church, dissolves the contradiction of women teaching elsewhere in the Bible.
There is some modern application for what Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2, which to me is: don’t think too highly of yourself. I’m not dogmatic about this, but I tend to choose a male editor for my books. I do this because I believe it’s important to get that viewpoint. Just like those who think women should not teach at all, I believe women can go to an extreme. We can have such segregated ministries that we never hear from our brothers in Christ.
Having gone to college with the intention of performing some kind of ministry work, I probably have thought about these issues more than the average person. Asking what my role was to be in the ministry was something I struggled with for a number of years. To be honest, I still struggle with it from time to time. I often ask if I am following God’s intention for me. I think this is an important question to ask whatever sex you are.
(1.) Some believe that Tabitha was a widow. The text mentions that she helped widows, but it is debatable that she was actually one herself. If she was a widow, the case that a woman could serve and teach without being married is strengthened.
To them, to say otherwise was a direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where Paul discusses the matter and uses what occurred in the garden of Eden as an underlying, foundational point as to why a woman should not teach. In these versus, Paul points out that since man came first and was not deceived by the devil as Eve was (Adam knew precisely what he was doing when he partook of the fruit), that women should not hold authority over men. This includes teaching.
One may ask how could any church, after reading the verses in 1 Timothy 2, arrive at the opinion that women can even teach other women. The answer to this is found in Titus 2:1-5 where it states that aged women who have been taught holiness, not to be false accusers, and who are not addicted to too much wine, etc. can teach younger women. Since this is a very specific command that only concerns certain women, my guess is that in making this rule, the radio hosts were also thinking of other examples of women teachers such as Priscilla, who along with her husband, are described by Paul as “helpers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3). In Acts 21:8-9, there are also four women referred to as prophets. Phebe (Phoebe) is said to have been a servant (deacon) in Romans 16:1-2, and Tabitha (Dorcas), mentioned in Acts 9:36 is described as a disciple full of good works, which may have included teaching.
Combining all these verses, however, creates a problem. If we take seriously what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 says then women should not teach—period. But that is not the case as described in the verses just referenced. Obviously, we need to address this apparent contradiction.
One way to deal with the anomaly of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is to suggest that this section of text should be viewed as a cultural phenomenon. The radio hosts hit upon this popular argument by insisting these verses should not be viewed as a cultural incident since Paul uses the example of creation and the fall to describe why women should not teach. Therefore, to these hosts, women should not teach men. However, if we take 1 Timothy 2 as a universal and non-cultural command, then our conclusion would be that women shouldn’t teach at all. Clearly, the hosts of this radio show were not taking 1 Timothy 2 seriously. If they had, they couldn’t have arrived at their “women can only teach other women” rule.
My point is if we do not view 1 Timothy 2 as a cultural phenomenon or at the very least a specific situation that should not be applied elsewhere, then we have to admit that the areas of the Bible where women are teaching contradicts 1 Timothy 2. I don’t think we want to claim such an inconsistency.
However, I do see the conundrum with which these hosts find themselves. To add a biblical illustration for the reasoning behind why women should not teach is a very convincing argument for why these verses are not addressing a cultural issue.
At the heart of this biblical illustration is Paul’s statement that it was a woman who was deceived. This is the main reason why some conclude that women should not teach at all. They believe that women are more likely to be deceived than men, and therefore, will be more prone to teach a corrupted message. But again, women were clearly teaching in the early days of the church. We must address this contradiction.
Returning to our radio hosts, it is apparent that they do not see this contradiction. Their rule that it is permissible for women to teach other women also doesn’t speak to the biblical illustration that themselves point out which is that it was a woman who was deceived. Instead, they add what they think is a safeguard. They do this by supposedly examining the actual ministries of women teachers found throughout the New Testament. They suggest that Pricilla was allowed to teach because she was in the company of her husband. In other words, she was under his authority. The hosts also assert that since the four women prophets were still living under the roof of their father, they too were permitted to teach because he held authority over them. The problem with this is that 1 Timothy 2 does not say that a woman can teach if they are under the authority of a male. It only states that a woman should not hold authority over a man and should not teach.
In addition, if it was necessary for women teachers in the Bible to have a male authority standing by than why are the lifestyles of Phebe and Tabitha not described in the text? The Bible does not explicitly tell us that their fathers were alive or that they were married. (1) This is information considered vital by our hosts, but it is left out. Due to this, it becomes questionable that a woman needed a male figure hanging around in order to teach.
This safeguard created by the radio hosts creates even more questions for it sets up an odd rule that a single woman whose father is dead cannot teach and that only married or women who are still living with their fathers can teach. I just don’t see that command laid out in the Word of God. Again, our hosts are not taking 1 Timothy 2 seriously as it is written. They are trying to combine 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with 1 Timothy 2 to make some allowance for women teachers who are shown throughout the New Testament.
The difficulty with doing this is that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is discussing worship attire. In verse 3, it does say, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This verse does construct a kind of hierarchy that many use as an illustration of how an actual worship service should be organized with a male lead pastor at the helm. People who hold this view also add 1 Timothy 3:1-7 to the mix as an indication that only males should be made head pastor.
I have little problem with this view only to mention that where it states in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “the head of the woman is the man” the words her husband can be inserted for the man which gives the verse a slightly different meaning. Also, I can hear the egalitarian members of the church saying that the reason a male is described in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is because that was who was in charge at the time. To these egalitarian members, these verses actually don’t state, “the overseer of the church should be a man.” Instead, the verses only mention the qualities the man in charge should have because that was who was mainly taking the lead at the time.
Whatever your stance is on this issue, our hosts believe that maintaining male authority over women who teach other women will lessen the likelihood of those women going astray. But again, this is not what 1 Timothy 2 commands. It states women should not teach.
You may have guessed at this point that I have been purposefully driving our hosts’ arguments into a corner. My reason for doing this is there is actually better commentary for 1 Timothy 2 than creating a rule that women can only teach other women under the authority of male, a rule that is in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2!
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we find a verse instructing women to remain silent during church services. On the surface, if you are one given to misogynist viewpoints, it would seem that the Bible is telling women never to discuss any biblical matters whatsoever in the church. This extremist view would entirely remove women from every church-teaching situation, including children’s ministries. My guess is not many would be willing to do this. There would be quite a hole left behind not to mention countless souls left with no message of the Gospel for how many of us learned about the Bible first from our mothers and women Sunday school teachers? My guess is most of us.
So there must be something else going on in these verses that likens back to 1 Timothy 2. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 most agree that what is being addressed is a situation where women were showing up at services and chatting up a storm. I once encountered this myself at church where, behind me, two women talked for nearly the entire service. It was very disruptive, and I could hardly keep my attention on the sermon. Paul was encountering this similar disorderly conduct and addressed it in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 by telling the women to discuss biblical matters at home with their husbands.
The situation Paul is thinking of in 1 Timothy 2 is similar in that it is focusing on the relationship between husband and wife in the environment of the church. As in the case with 1 Corinthians 11:3, the word man in 1 Timothy 2:12 can be translated to husband as in “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over her husband, but to be in silence.” It is probable that very loud, uneducated women were hammering down on their husbands about biblical matters. Paul chastises them for doing this. He uses the illustration from the garden of Eden not to say that all women and only women will be deceived (this isn’t even reality since men can be deceived as well) but that as an example that one was deceived. It’s like saying “Hey, ladies don’t think you’re all that. It was a woman after all who was deceived.”
Paul uses the relationship of Adam and Eve, the first human couple, to get his point across. This is merely a solution to a particular problem Paul is dealing with at the time. Seeing 1 Timothy 2 as a specific dilemma occurring between husbands and wives in the environment of the church, dissolves the contradiction of women teaching elsewhere in the Bible.
There is some modern application for what Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2, which to me is: don’t think too highly of yourself. I’m not dogmatic about this, but I tend to choose a male editor for my books. I do this because I believe it’s important to get that viewpoint. Just like those who think women should not teach at all, I believe women can go to an extreme. We can have such segregated ministries that we never hear from our brothers in Christ.
Having gone to college with the intention of performing some kind of ministry work, I probably have thought about these issues more than the average person. Asking what my role was to be in the ministry was something I struggled with for a number of years. To be honest, I still struggle with it from time to time. I often ask if I am following God’s intention for me. I think this is an important question to ask whatever sex you are.
(1.) Some believe that Tabitha was a widow. The text mentions that she helped widows, but it is debatable that she was actually one herself. If she was a widow, the case that a woman could serve and teach without being married is strengthened.
May 20, 2019
The Daily Christian: A Selection From My New Release
After finishing False Beliefs: The Serpent Seed Doctrine & Kenite Myth, I needed a break from such a serious topic. I found my escape in continuing my work on a lighthearted, Christian fiction read called The Wonderful Journey of Edmund Beasley which is now available on Amazon.com
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RGLMNV6).
I thought I would share a piece of this work with you, which is shown below preceded by a brief description.
If you read False Beliefs, you may notice as you go through this next work that, although the book is fiction, there are themes borrowed from False Beliefs such as how myths and conspiracy theories can lead us further from the truth. However, overall, the book is meant to be a quick, fun read about a quirky character who may have just a bit too much ego . . .
Description:
Edmund James Beasley II is a writer and new believer who hasn’t yet come to the realization he needs God’s help. After an incident in college, Edmund develops a phobia about showing his writing to the world and finds employment anywhere he can just to avoid doing so.
Still stuck on an old love, he discovers he’s falling for Eleanor Collins, a woman he meets in the most unexpected of places after she contracts a mysterious virus that leaves people looking dead when they really are not.
Add to the mix a conspiracy theory addicted roommate by the name of Dale who believes the earth is flat and claims to know the real reason why the Mexican-U.S. border wall has yet to be completed, and Edmund’s life just got a whole lot more complicated.
This becomes particularly true when Dale discovers a 1800s manuscript while vacuuming and finds it contains plans for a time machine—well sort of anyway. The manuscript belongs to the “Rascal Brigade of the High Sciences” an assembly of prominent scientists and engineers. Since the late 1800s, the Rascal Brigade has been having fun with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, and they inspire Edmund to write a novel.
But Edmund may get more than inspiration, for the group, coupled with the aftermath of the virus, sets Edmund off on an unexpected journey to catch a killer, for Eleanor’s sake, and to find that he may need God’s help after all.
A Selection From: The Wonderful Journey of Edmund Beasley:
Edmund then began flattening the crinkled pages on his lap. Lifting his hand from the top sheet, he noticed the title, “The Rascal Brigade of the High Sciences” beneath the page’s header.
Going to his laptop, he typed in the designation into the search box. Results quickly filled the page. Unfortunately, most were based on the word “brigade” and were related to the military. He narrowed his search by adding the1800s timeframe and the words “men’s club.” This time, the search produced a brown-tinged photo of a group of men standing together in suits and derby hats. Edmund clicked on it and clicked again to the linking page that directed him to a well-designed website. The old photograph of the men was displayed prominently on the homepage, but above it was a modern snapshot of another group of men. A slogan near the photo read “Having Fun Since 1890.”
The right-hand side of the page contained a list of articles, mostly pseudoscience type stuff. One article discussed the probability the Earth was flat. A list of members could be found on the left side of the page. Scanning through them, Edmund recognized some of the names from his two-year subscription to a well-respected scientific journal. A couple of others were well-known engineers.
Edmund rested his arms on both sides of his laptop. The men were obviously involving themselves in some tongue-in-cheek, schoolboy antics. And the group had been doing it since the late 1800s.
"Who are those men?” Dale asked, coming to stand over Edmund’s shoulder.
Startled, Edmund jumped slightly. “Good grief.”
“Sorry.”
Recovering, Edmund pointed at the old photo. “My guess is one of these gentlemen was the author of the manuscript you discovered.”
“You mean you found the guy who invented the time machine?”
Edmund glanced back and saw Dale wide-eyed, holding a T-shirt to his mouth. He was apparently already emotionally invested in what Edmund had found to be a fabricated story. Edmund considered how to break the news and decided to be quick about it. “It was all a joke. It was just a bit of school-yard fun.” Edmund picked up the sheet that enabled him to figure it out. “See.” He tapped his finger on the drawing, but Dale’s concentration was still on the computer screen.
“This guy in the old photo looks identical to the one in the new picture.” Dale gestured at the old picture and then at the new one. He sat next to Edmund and slid in closer to the screen. “Don’t you see?”
Edmund knew what Dale was getting at. He was trying to argue the two men looked alike because they were actually the same man who’d time traveled to be in both photos. “You’re being a moron.” Edmund slumped back in his chair. He was sorry for the name-calling but facts were facts, and figure seven was an impossibility clearly placed there by the author to allow the reader to be in on the joke.
And as far as the two men looking similar in both photos, all Edmund could see was one blurry old photograph of an assembly of men that could look like just about any group of men. Plus, Edmund knew these clubs often passed membership down to their kids, so individuals were sure to bear some resemblances. He began to explain that to Dale.
“No, don’t you see?” Dale asked with a condescending tone. “They want us to believe they are joking so they can speak openly to each other about their ideas. But in actuality, they’re telling the truth. It’s like hiding something in plain sight.” Dale pointed to the article about the Earth being flat. “I’ve read reports about the government manipulating pictures, taken from space, of the Earth in order to make it look round.”
Edmund scratched at his head. “What are you talking about? What reports? Who wrote these reports?”
“People on the internet.”
“That’s your source?”
“Yes.”
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RGLMNV6).
I thought I would share a piece of this work with you, which is shown below preceded by a brief description.
If you read False Beliefs, you may notice as you go through this next work that, although the book is fiction, there are themes borrowed from False Beliefs such as how myths and conspiracy theories can lead us further from the truth. However, overall, the book is meant to be a quick, fun read about a quirky character who may have just a bit too much ego . . .
Description:
Edmund James Beasley II is a writer and new believer who hasn’t yet come to the realization he needs God’s help. After an incident in college, Edmund develops a phobia about showing his writing to the world and finds employment anywhere he can just to avoid doing so.
Still stuck on an old love, he discovers he’s falling for Eleanor Collins, a woman he meets in the most unexpected of places after she contracts a mysterious virus that leaves people looking dead when they really are not.
Add to the mix a conspiracy theory addicted roommate by the name of Dale who believes the earth is flat and claims to know the real reason why the Mexican-U.S. border wall has yet to be completed, and Edmund’s life just got a whole lot more complicated.
This becomes particularly true when Dale discovers a 1800s manuscript while vacuuming and finds it contains plans for a time machine—well sort of anyway. The manuscript belongs to the “Rascal Brigade of the High Sciences” an assembly of prominent scientists and engineers. Since the late 1800s, the Rascal Brigade has been having fun with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, and they inspire Edmund to write a novel.
But Edmund may get more than inspiration, for the group, coupled with the aftermath of the virus, sets Edmund off on an unexpected journey to catch a killer, for Eleanor’s sake, and to find that he may need God’s help after all.
A Selection From: The Wonderful Journey of Edmund Beasley:
Edmund then began flattening the crinkled pages on his lap. Lifting his hand from the top sheet, he noticed the title, “The Rascal Brigade of the High Sciences” beneath the page’s header.
Going to his laptop, he typed in the designation into the search box. Results quickly filled the page. Unfortunately, most were based on the word “brigade” and were related to the military. He narrowed his search by adding the1800s timeframe and the words “men’s club.” This time, the search produced a brown-tinged photo of a group of men standing together in suits and derby hats. Edmund clicked on it and clicked again to the linking page that directed him to a well-designed website. The old photograph of the men was displayed prominently on the homepage, but above it was a modern snapshot of another group of men. A slogan near the photo read “Having Fun Since 1890.”
The right-hand side of the page contained a list of articles, mostly pseudoscience type stuff. One article discussed the probability the Earth was flat. A list of members could be found on the left side of the page. Scanning through them, Edmund recognized some of the names from his two-year subscription to a well-respected scientific journal. A couple of others were well-known engineers.
Edmund rested his arms on both sides of his laptop. The men were obviously involving themselves in some tongue-in-cheek, schoolboy antics. And the group had been doing it since the late 1800s.
"Who are those men?” Dale asked, coming to stand over Edmund’s shoulder.
Startled, Edmund jumped slightly. “Good grief.”
“Sorry.”
Recovering, Edmund pointed at the old photo. “My guess is one of these gentlemen was the author of the manuscript you discovered.”
“You mean you found the guy who invented the time machine?”
Edmund glanced back and saw Dale wide-eyed, holding a T-shirt to his mouth. He was apparently already emotionally invested in what Edmund had found to be a fabricated story. Edmund considered how to break the news and decided to be quick about it. “It was all a joke. It was just a bit of school-yard fun.” Edmund picked up the sheet that enabled him to figure it out. “See.” He tapped his finger on the drawing, but Dale’s concentration was still on the computer screen.
“This guy in the old photo looks identical to the one in the new picture.” Dale gestured at the old picture and then at the new one. He sat next to Edmund and slid in closer to the screen. “Don’t you see?”
Edmund knew what Dale was getting at. He was trying to argue the two men looked alike because they were actually the same man who’d time traveled to be in both photos. “You’re being a moron.” Edmund slumped back in his chair. He was sorry for the name-calling but facts were facts, and figure seven was an impossibility clearly placed there by the author to allow the reader to be in on the joke.
And as far as the two men looking similar in both photos, all Edmund could see was one blurry old photograph of an assembly of men that could look like just about any group of men. Plus, Edmund knew these clubs often passed membership down to their kids, so individuals were sure to bear some resemblances. He began to explain that to Dale.
“No, don’t you see?” Dale asked with a condescending tone. “They want us to believe they are joking so they can speak openly to each other about their ideas. But in actuality, they’re telling the truth. It’s like hiding something in plain sight.” Dale pointed to the article about the Earth being flat. “I’ve read reports about the government manipulating pictures, taken from space, of the Earth in order to make it look round.”
Edmund scratched at his head. “What are you talking about? What reports? Who wrote these reports?”
“People on the internet.”
“That’s your source?”
“Yes.”
December 19, 2018
The Daily Christian - Ill-Informed Arguments
As a writer, I am often interested in reading the Amazon.com and Goodreads.com book reviews left for other authors. Many times, it is a great source of what not to do in my own work. This curiosity once led me to a website which listed the books that received the lowest Amazon.com rating for that particular year. On the page, one analysis in particular caught my eye. It was a review of a book about whether God loved those involved in the homosexual lifestyle.
I've never read this nonfiction piece nor do I recall its title. The work may have been one of the worse books ever written. This is of little matter, for the quality of the book was not the focus of the reviewer’s analysis. Instead, the individual was sidetracked by the author’s viewpoint on homosexuality. In doing so, the critic provided a number of arguments that I'd like to go through which may be helpful to us when we present our own arguments.
The reviewer’s critique began with the conclusion from the work’s author that God did in fact love those involved in homosexuality. The reviewer then followed this with a rather snarky comment similar to “…well, sort of anyway.” My guess is that this last part was an add-on by the critic and that it wasn’t apart of the author’s conclusion. This became evident as I continued to read the reviewer’s analysis.
Following this aside, the critic explained that we should not, as he believed the author of the book had, cherry-pick the Bible to get it to say what we want it to say. I suspect that most Christians would agree with this statement. I agreed as well, and in doing so, I assumed the reviewer himself was someone who respected the Bible. However, his next comments demonstrated that he actually possessed little interest in what the Bible said particularly on the subject of homosexuality.
The reviewer went on to argue that if someone was going to call homosexuality sinful then that person should also call those who eat shellfish sinful. The critic then proceeded to list the other seemingly (to our eyes) odd laws given to the ancient Israelites. If the reviewer had listed any of the other sexual sins provided in the Old Testament, I would have agreed with his statement. For example, you can’t in one breath point at someone involved in homosexuality and say that he or she is doing wrong while you continue to sleep with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. One supposes you could do this, but you would probably stand a good chance of being called a hypocrite if you did not change your behavior first (Matthew 7). In other words, if you decide to follow the Bible in one regard, then you need to be consistent and follow it in the other, for both fornication and homosexuality are considered a sin according to the Bible. However, this was not what this reviewer was getting at. He contended that the Old Testament commands against homosexuality were just as archaic and strange as not eating shellfish or following the various other laws in regards to diet, priestly tasks, or ceremonial duties. However, if the critic were knowledgeable about the biblical text, he would have read in the New Testament that Christ fulfilled all of these laws and made unclean animals—clean (Acts 10:11-15, 1 Timothy 4:1-5) thus eliminating these ceremonial aspects of the law from the Christian life. However, sexual immorality which includes homosexuality still applies as it is reiterated several places throughout the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Due to the reviewer’s inaccurate views on Christianity and not understanding how certain laws could be disregarded by Christians today, the reviewer truly believed that the book’s author cherry-picked the Bible. If the reviewer had only understood this biblical background, he would have known how nonsensical his statement would be to Christian readers. In fact, the Bible is consistent in regards to homosexuality being a sin. If the Bible, in one instance, said homosexuality was okay and then in another explained that it was not, then the reviewer would have a point that the author of the book was indeed cherry picking. But the author was simply following the consistent message found throughout the Bible on that particular subject. If one did not like that consistent message, then they didn’t like the message in the Bible. It was obvious at this point that the reviewer did not like the Bible.
This became more apparent with the reviewer’s next statement when he explained that the Bible was merely an ancient fictional tale. This assertion destroyed any credibility he may have possessed concerning his concern for how one read the biblical text. The reviewer, first having given the impression that he respected the Bible and was someone who truly cared when people erroneously cherry-picked it, was now making it evident that he didn’t care what the Bible said. This argument completely cannibalized his first statement against cherry picking, for if he didn’t even believe that the Bible was worth reading, there was no point in arguing against those who cherry-picked it. The whole text, in his opinion, was rubbish.
As the reviewer ended his arguments, he further added to this lack of credibility on the topic. He quoted the great theologian of our time, Morgan Freedman, who he claimed once made a blistering comment about those who criticized homosexuality. (1.) But why quote Mr. Freedman? Was it because he played God in a few movies? Does that make Mr. Freedman an expert on Christian Theology and the Bible? I don’t think so. Quoting Freedman did little to add to the reviewer’s arguments.
Thinking over this assessment reminded me of a list of logical fallacies that can often creep into arguments. The most prominent one is, “Well, it’s true because the Bible says so.” The problem with this statement is that it may work on fellow Christians who see the Bible as a source of authority, but it probably won’t work on someone who doesn’t. As a side note, I always think it’s interesting that this example is given in the classroom while other non-Christian examples could work just as well such as, “It’s true because the Koran says so” or “because Professor so and so says so.”
As Christians, we need to be aware of the types of statements we provide for our faith. Our arguments, and even how we present them, are a reflection of our faith. If they are sloppy like the reviewer’s above with little thought or research put into them, then our credibility and the reliability of our faith becomes diminished.
One way to avoid uninformed arguments is to know who our audience is. For example, my statements above where I reference the Bible’s view on homosexuality would not have impressed the reviewer since he obviously believed that the Bible was a fairy tale. Starting from a place of logic and eventually moving into biblical territory may be more advantageous with someone like our critic. C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, for example, is a wonderful model on how to minister to those who have no respect for the biblical text or for Christianity in general. Some believe, however, that any ministry should strictly originate with the Bible. For those who take this stand of a purely biblical approach, may want to begin with an explanation on how the Bible has correctly prophesized historical events and how the general moral laws of the Bible (do not murder, do not steal, and do not commit adultery) are the basis for our moral standards and laws even today. Both arguments provide a starting point on how the Bible is a credible source.
The importance of understanding one’s audience in the ministry became more significant to me one day when I was listening to an interview of a Christian singer. The singer admitted that when he was young, Christianity never really took hold. The reason for this was he didn’t understand the concept of sin and salvation. It wasn’t until he was older, after he’d actually done some rather sinful things that he finally got it—that he needed Christ. Strangely enough, this young man’s innocence kept him from knowing God. The good thing was that he did finally come to understand what he was taught as a child. But beating the message of sin over this child’s head, at that time, would have simply frustrated the person ministering to him and would have gotten the child nowhere.
Therefore, if the opportunity presents itself, asking questions and finding out where the person is coming from may go a long way in ministering to them.
(1.) The quote has been attributed to Morgan Freedman. It is contended by many that Freedman never said it.
I've never read this nonfiction piece nor do I recall its title. The work may have been one of the worse books ever written. This is of little matter, for the quality of the book was not the focus of the reviewer’s analysis. Instead, the individual was sidetracked by the author’s viewpoint on homosexuality. In doing so, the critic provided a number of arguments that I'd like to go through which may be helpful to us when we present our own arguments.
The reviewer’s critique began with the conclusion from the work’s author that God did in fact love those involved in homosexuality. The reviewer then followed this with a rather snarky comment similar to “…well, sort of anyway.” My guess is that this last part was an add-on by the critic and that it wasn’t apart of the author’s conclusion. This became evident as I continued to read the reviewer’s analysis.
Following this aside, the critic explained that we should not, as he believed the author of the book had, cherry-pick the Bible to get it to say what we want it to say. I suspect that most Christians would agree with this statement. I agreed as well, and in doing so, I assumed the reviewer himself was someone who respected the Bible. However, his next comments demonstrated that he actually possessed little interest in what the Bible said particularly on the subject of homosexuality.
The reviewer went on to argue that if someone was going to call homosexuality sinful then that person should also call those who eat shellfish sinful. The critic then proceeded to list the other seemingly (to our eyes) odd laws given to the ancient Israelites. If the reviewer had listed any of the other sexual sins provided in the Old Testament, I would have agreed with his statement. For example, you can’t in one breath point at someone involved in homosexuality and say that he or she is doing wrong while you continue to sleep with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. One supposes you could do this, but you would probably stand a good chance of being called a hypocrite if you did not change your behavior first (Matthew 7). In other words, if you decide to follow the Bible in one regard, then you need to be consistent and follow it in the other, for both fornication and homosexuality are considered a sin according to the Bible. However, this was not what this reviewer was getting at. He contended that the Old Testament commands against homosexuality were just as archaic and strange as not eating shellfish or following the various other laws in regards to diet, priestly tasks, or ceremonial duties. However, if the critic were knowledgeable about the biblical text, he would have read in the New Testament that Christ fulfilled all of these laws and made unclean animals—clean (Acts 10:11-15, 1 Timothy 4:1-5) thus eliminating these ceremonial aspects of the law from the Christian life. However, sexual immorality which includes homosexuality still applies as it is reiterated several places throughout the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Due to the reviewer’s inaccurate views on Christianity and not understanding how certain laws could be disregarded by Christians today, the reviewer truly believed that the book’s author cherry-picked the Bible. If the reviewer had only understood this biblical background, he would have known how nonsensical his statement would be to Christian readers. In fact, the Bible is consistent in regards to homosexuality being a sin. If the Bible, in one instance, said homosexuality was okay and then in another explained that it was not, then the reviewer would have a point that the author of the book was indeed cherry picking. But the author was simply following the consistent message found throughout the Bible on that particular subject. If one did not like that consistent message, then they didn’t like the message in the Bible. It was obvious at this point that the reviewer did not like the Bible.
This became more apparent with the reviewer’s next statement when he explained that the Bible was merely an ancient fictional tale. This assertion destroyed any credibility he may have possessed concerning his concern for how one read the biblical text. The reviewer, first having given the impression that he respected the Bible and was someone who truly cared when people erroneously cherry-picked it, was now making it evident that he didn’t care what the Bible said. This argument completely cannibalized his first statement against cherry picking, for if he didn’t even believe that the Bible was worth reading, there was no point in arguing against those who cherry-picked it. The whole text, in his opinion, was rubbish.
As the reviewer ended his arguments, he further added to this lack of credibility on the topic. He quoted the great theologian of our time, Morgan Freedman, who he claimed once made a blistering comment about those who criticized homosexuality. (1.) But why quote Mr. Freedman? Was it because he played God in a few movies? Does that make Mr. Freedman an expert on Christian Theology and the Bible? I don’t think so. Quoting Freedman did little to add to the reviewer’s arguments.
Thinking over this assessment reminded me of a list of logical fallacies that can often creep into arguments. The most prominent one is, “Well, it’s true because the Bible says so.” The problem with this statement is that it may work on fellow Christians who see the Bible as a source of authority, but it probably won’t work on someone who doesn’t. As a side note, I always think it’s interesting that this example is given in the classroom while other non-Christian examples could work just as well such as, “It’s true because the Koran says so” or “because Professor so and so says so.”
As Christians, we need to be aware of the types of statements we provide for our faith. Our arguments, and even how we present them, are a reflection of our faith. If they are sloppy like the reviewer’s above with little thought or research put into them, then our credibility and the reliability of our faith becomes diminished.
One way to avoid uninformed arguments is to know who our audience is. For example, my statements above where I reference the Bible’s view on homosexuality would not have impressed the reviewer since he obviously believed that the Bible was a fairy tale. Starting from a place of logic and eventually moving into biblical territory may be more advantageous with someone like our critic. C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, for example, is a wonderful model on how to minister to those who have no respect for the biblical text or for Christianity in general. Some believe, however, that any ministry should strictly originate with the Bible. For those who take this stand of a purely biblical approach, may want to begin with an explanation on how the Bible has correctly prophesized historical events and how the general moral laws of the Bible (do not murder, do not steal, and do not commit adultery) are the basis for our moral standards and laws even today. Both arguments provide a starting point on how the Bible is a credible source.
The importance of understanding one’s audience in the ministry became more significant to me one day when I was listening to an interview of a Christian singer. The singer admitted that when he was young, Christianity never really took hold. The reason for this was he didn’t understand the concept of sin and salvation. It wasn’t until he was older, after he’d actually done some rather sinful things that he finally got it—that he needed Christ. Strangely enough, this young man’s innocence kept him from knowing God. The good thing was that he did finally come to understand what he was taught as a child. But beating the message of sin over this child’s head, at that time, would have simply frustrated the person ministering to him and would have gotten the child nowhere.
Therefore, if the opportunity presents itself, asking questions and finding out where the person is coming from may go a long way in ministering to them.
(1.) The quote has been attributed to Morgan Freedman. It is contended by many that Freedman never said it.
August 20, 2018
The Daily Christian - Son of Perdition
Recently, I announced the release of my second book False Beliefs: The Serpent Seed Doctrine & Kenite Myth. A couple of areas did not make it into the book because they weren’t exactly apart of the main themes of the work. Below is one of those “deleted scenes.”
Son of Perdition
Some believe in the faulty concept that angels have the ability to transform into true physical men. Due to this, they contend that Satan will turn into a man and become the antichrist during the end times. There are variations to this belief such as Satan becoming a real flesh and blood human being by which a human son will be born. It is this son, not Satan, who will become the antichrist. This is basically the Hollywood version where a sinister-looking yet alluring male actor is typically cast as Satan. Another theory is that the supposed lineage of Cain (Satan’s supposed physical son) will eventually produce the antichrist. Others take a different route all together, skipping the transformation from angel to man by asserting that because angels basically look like men already, Satan will be able to fool everyone into thinking that this powerful spiritual being is simply a man. This understanding is more biblical in how it understands the nature of angels, but unfortunately, it still misses the mark.
Let us begin by examining the notion that Satan can change into a man. In Luke 22:3, we are told that “Then entered Satan into Judas...” This is all Satan really needs to do. Even if the devil possessed the ability to turn into a human being, which there is no biblical evidence that Lucifer holds that talent, there is no motivation for the devil to do so. Satan uses our sin nature, our flesh to carry out evil. All the devil requires is unsuspecting and impressionable human beings. This is what occurred with Judas. Satan did not need to turn into a man to carry out the intended task.
When we claim that Satan will be the antichrist in human form we are ascribing a power to the devil that God alone possesses. Only God can make human beings. This is the core problem with this belief and other similar angelic hybrid theories.
The idea that Satan will come to earth as the antichrist in the form of a man or even as a spiritual being is based on a false premise of the phrase “son of perdition” found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and John 17:12. Supporters of this notion contend that the expression “son of perdition” can only refer to Satan. The problem with this is that the “son of perdition” does not reference Satan exclusively in the Bible. John 17:12 actually references Judas, a human being not the devil. Let us read John 17:12 where Christ is speaking:
“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
Supporters believe that the phrase “son of perdition” found in John 17:12 can not be Judas, which is how most view this expression in this particular context, because according to supporters, Judas was saved due to the fact that he repented by realizing he’d killed an innocent man.(1) Therefore, Christ would not have called Judas the “son of perdition” in John 17:12.
The difficulty with this is that Judas kills himself as recorded in Matthew 27:5 and in Acts 1:16-19. His body is then said to have decayed and split open. The question that follows is: Why would Acts 1:16-19 describe Judas’ body in such a disgraceful manner if he really was a saint saved? The account is very similar in tone in how Jezebel’s dead body is described in 2 Kings 9:30-37.
Furthermore, Judas might have realized that he’d sent innocent blood to its death but this does not necessarily mean that he believed Christ to be his Savior. It would seem that Judas only saw Christ as just a man who he condemned, which no doubt led him to kill himself. The point here is that a person can come to see that they have done wrong in a certain circumstance and yet still not believe that Christ is their Savior. The two need not go hand in hand.
We see no evidence of Judas’ faith. In fact, John 6:60-71 tells us quite plainly that Christ did not view Judas as one of the faithful twelve. Again, it is true that we see Judas repenting of betraying a friend, but there is no indication that he was one of the faithful. Perhaps if Judas had not killed himself, a faith would have developed within him. But because of a guilt that he obviously could not shake, he did something that erased that possibility. However, Christ refers to Judas as the “son of perdition” in John 17:12 not only because of his betrayal but because Christ knew the reason behind why Judas was willing to betray Him. The explanation was that Judas had no faith in Christ.
In returning to John 17:12, supporters want us to think that Christ is saying, “I saved everyone that you gave me except Satan.” However, understanding this verse in this way contradicts the biblical text overall. God’s mercy is great, but we see no evidence of an attempt to save Satan anywhere within the Bible. This is why we must view John 17:12 as Christ speaking about his apostles.(2) Out of these, Christ saved all but Judas. Due to this, the expression, “son of perdition” found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does not need to mean Satan but can refer to a human being greatly under Satan’s influence, just as Judas was. Furthermore, if you read beyond verse three in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly tells us that this “son of perdition” will be using Satan’s power:
“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”(3)
Another reason why it is erroneous to believe that Satan will be the antichrist is because in the Bible, the “son of perdition” and Satan are shown to be two separate individuals. The “son of perdition” (another title for the antichrist) will no doubt have Satan’s helping hand, but he will not actually be Satan. Revelations 20:10 shows that Satan, the beast (antichrist) and the false prophet are separate identities not simply roles being played out by the devil.
“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”(4)
This idea of Satan playing different roles unfortunately is based on an erroneous view of the Godhead which is that God plays the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and is not three distinct persons in one. Supporters of this flawed concept project this perspective of God onto their view of Satan claiming that the devil, like God, will also play different roles during the end times.
Satan will have a role to play in the end times, but it will not be as the antichrist. To come to such a conclusion, one must ignore explicit biblical passages and have an error-filled concept of the Godhead.
1.) Matt. 27:1-5.
2.) In John 17:6-19, Christ is praying specifically for the apostles. At vs. 20, He prays for all believers.
3.) 2 Thess. 2:9. (KJV)
4.) Rev. 20:10. (KJV)
Son of Perdition
Some believe in the faulty concept that angels have the ability to transform into true physical men. Due to this, they contend that Satan will turn into a man and become the antichrist during the end times. There are variations to this belief such as Satan becoming a real flesh and blood human being by which a human son will be born. It is this son, not Satan, who will become the antichrist. This is basically the Hollywood version where a sinister-looking yet alluring male actor is typically cast as Satan. Another theory is that the supposed lineage of Cain (Satan’s supposed physical son) will eventually produce the antichrist. Others take a different route all together, skipping the transformation from angel to man by asserting that because angels basically look like men already, Satan will be able to fool everyone into thinking that this powerful spiritual being is simply a man. This understanding is more biblical in how it understands the nature of angels, but unfortunately, it still misses the mark.
Let us begin by examining the notion that Satan can change into a man. In Luke 22:3, we are told that “Then entered Satan into Judas...” This is all Satan really needs to do. Even if the devil possessed the ability to turn into a human being, which there is no biblical evidence that Lucifer holds that talent, there is no motivation for the devil to do so. Satan uses our sin nature, our flesh to carry out evil. All the devil requires is unsuspecting and impressionable human beings. This is what occurred with Judas. Satan did not need to turn into a man to carry out the intended task.
When we claim that Satan will be the antichrist in human form we are ascribing a power to the devil that God alone possesses. Only God can make human beings. This is the core problem with this belief and other similar angelic hybrid theories.
The idea that Satan will come to earth as the antichrist in the form of a man or even as a spiritual being is based on a false premise of the phrase “son of perdition” found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and John 17:12. Supporters of this notion contend that the expression “son of perdition” can only refer to Satan. The problem with this is that the “son of perdition” does not reference Satan exclusively in the Bible. John 17:12 actually references Judas, a human being not the devil. Let us read John 17:12 where Christ is speaking:
“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
Supporters believe that the phrase “son of perdition” found in John 17:12 can not be Judas, which is how most view this expression in this particular context, because according to supporters, Judas was saved due to the fact that he repented by realizing he’d killed an innocent man.(1) Therefore, Christ would not have called Judas the “son of perdition” in John 17:12.
The difficulty with this is that Judas kills himself as recorded in Matthew 27:5 and in Acts 1:16-19. His body is then said to have decayed and split open. The question that follows is: Why would Acts 1:16-19 describe Judas’ body in such a disgraceful manner if he really was a saint saved? The account is very similar in tone in how Jezebel’s dead body is described in 2 Kings 9:30-37.
Furthermore, Judas might have realized that he’d sent innocent blood to its death but this does not necessarily mean that he believed Christ to be his Savior. It would seem that Judas only saw Christ as just a man who he condemned, which no doubt led him to kill himself. The point here is that a person can come to see that they have done wrong in a certain circumstance and yet still not believe that Christ is their Savior. The two need not go hand in hand.
We see no evidence of Judas’ faith. In fact, John 6:60-71 tells us quite plainly that Christ did not view Judas as one of the faithful twelve. Again, it is true that we see Judas repenting of betraying a friend, but there is no indication that he was one of the faithful. Perhaps if Judas had not killed himself, a faith would have developed within him. But because of a guilt that he obviously could not shake, he did something that erased that possibility. However, Christ refers to Judas as the “son of perdition” in John 17:12 not only because of his betrayal but because Christ knew the reason behind why Judas was willing to betray Him. The explanation was that Judas had no faith in Christ.
In returning to John 17:12, supporters want us to think that Christ is saying, “I saved everyone that you gave me except Satan.” However, understanding this verse in this way contradicts the biblical text overall. God’s mercy is great, but we see no evidence of an attempt to save Satan anywhere within the Bible. This is why we must view John 17:12 as Christ speaking about his apostles.(2) Out of these, Christ saved all but Judas. Due to this, the expression, “son of perdition” found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does not need to mean Satan but can refer to a human being greatly under Satan’s influence, just as Judas was. Furthermore, if you read beyond verse three in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly tells us that this “son of perdition” will be using Satan’s power:
“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”(3)
Another reason why it is erroneous to believe that Satan will be the antichrist is because in the Bible, the “son of perdition” and Satan are shown to be two separate individuals. The “son of perdition” (another title for the antichrist) will no doubt have Satan’s helping hand, but he will not actually be Satan. Revelations 20:10 shows that Satan, the beast (antichrist) and the false prophet are separate identities not simply roles being played out by the devil.
“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”(4)
This idea of Satan playing different roles unfortunately is based on an erroneous view of the Godhead which is that God plays the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and is not three distinct persons in one. Supporters of this flawed concept project this perspective of God onto their view of Satan claiming that the devil, like God, will also play different roles during the end times.
Satan will have a role to play in the end times, but it will not be as the antichrist. To come to such a conclusion, one must ignore explicit biblical passages and have an error-filled concept of the Godhead.
1.) Matt. 27:1-5.
2.) In John 17:6-19, Christ is praying specifically for the apostles. At vs. 20, He prays for all believers.
3.) 2 Thess. 2:9. (KJV)
4.) Rev. 20:10. (KJV)
June 13, 2018
The Daily Christian - "The Apple Delusion"
I have just released my next book, a work of nonfiction, available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DFNXWCV.com titled False Beliefs: The Serpent Seed Doctrine & Kenite Myth, Two concepts that are destroying the Gospel of Christ. For those unfamiliar with these ideas, the Serpent Seed Doctrine & Kenite Myth espouses that when Eve ate from the tree in the garden of Eden that she was actually having a sexual encounter with Satan. From this union, say supporters, Cain was born as the physical son of Satan who later had descendants called the Kenites. These notions are perpetrated by the Christian Identity Movement. Other CI Movement ideas such as Anglo-Israelism are also examined. I have provided an excerpt from the book below.
Supporters often express a great deal of anger for those who teach that Adam and Eve ate an apple in the garden of Eden. They call it the “apple delusion.” One can see how this could lead to a sense of betrayal in some when supporters of the Serpent Seed Doctrine point out that the Genesis story does not even contain the word apple.
Supporters certainly capitalize on this fact. They take this sliver of truth and lead people into assuming that everything else the doctrine espouses is true. However, if you were someone who truly believed that the text actually contained the word apple, and you have gone on to believe in the Serpent Seed Doctrine, then the question you should be asking yourself is, “If I was deceived once, what makes me think I am not being deceived again?” The fact that the apple thing got past you is an indication that you were not even doing the simple step of reading the text for yourself. Instead, you were taking another person’s word for it. What else are you not reading or are just taking for granted as the truth?
Those who are not dogmatically taught that it was an apple in the Genesis story are usually not persuaded by the Serpent Seed Doctrine. Because supporters are so focused on arguing against the view that it was an apple that Adam and Eve ate, they don’t recognize (or perhaps even consider) that most adults understand that there is an underlying meaning being relayed in Genesis other than a woman just biting into a piece of fruit. This author is not sure who, over the age of eight, would not recognize this. Of course, there is meaning behind the symbolism, but it is not sex. It is disobedience. Due to this, the apple argument becomes irrelevant for most.
This narrow view that supporters have of non-supporters causes them to believe that their perspective on the text is much more sophisticated and mature. However, this author contends that the supporter’s view is not at all sophisticated or more mature. One must believe that Satan had and has genitalia and sperm, and that “he” was willing to procreate with Eve, even though it is obvious from the text that Satan despised Adam and Eve due to him tempting them in the first place. This view of angels in general is not advanced at all but rather earthly and pubescent.
This author does agree with one aspect of the supporter’s viewpoint. As previously mentioned, sensuality is present in the symbolism of the text, and it is there for a reason. Sin is sensual. Sin feels good. One of the main reasons why we sin in the first place is because there is a component of it that makes us feel good, if only for a time. Supporters focus on the sensuality that is present in the story and go too far by thinking the text is simply about the physical act of earthly sex. But sin, no matter what it is, usually has a sensual aspect to it. Ask a bank robber why he robs banks. No doubt, he will tell you that it was for the money, but beneath this motivation is the thrill he gets from it. The act makes him feel powerful and perhaps manlier. All of these are very sensual notions, and this is just from robbing a bank. Imagine the allure of wanting to be as a god.
Supporters often express a great deal of anger for those who teach that Adam and Eve ate an apple in the garden of Eden. They call it the “apple delusion.” One can see how this could lead to a sense of betrayal in some when supporters of the Serpent Seed Doctrine point out that the Genesis story does not even contain the word apple.
Supporters certainly capitalize on this fact. They take this sliver of truth and lead people into assuming that everything else the doctrine espouses is true. However, if you were someone who truly believed that the text actually contained the word apple, and you have gone on to believe in the Serpent Seed Doctrine, then the question you should be asking yourself is, “If I was deceived once, what makes me think I am not being deceived again?” The fact that the apple thing got past you is an indication that you were not even doing the simple step of reading the text for yourself. Instead, you were taking another person’s word for it. What else are you not reading or are just taking for granted as the truth?
Those who are not dogmatically taught that it was an apple in the Genesis story are usually not persuaded by the Serpent Seed Doctrine. Because supporters are so focused on arguing against the view that it was an apple that Adam and Eve ate, they don’t recognize (or perhaps even consider) that most adults understand that there is an underlying meaning being relayed in Genesis other than a woman just biting into a piece of fruit. This author is not sure who, over the age of eight, would not recognize this. Of course, there is meaning behind the symbolism, but it is not sex. It is disobedience. Due to this, the apple argument becomes irrelevant for most.
This narrow view that supporters have of non-supporters causes them to believe that their perspective on the text is much more sophisticated and mature. However, this author contends that the supporter’s view is not at all sophisticated or more mature. One must believe that Satan had and has genitalia and sperm, and that “he” was willing to procreate with Eve, even though it is obvious from the text that Satan despised Adam and Eve due to him tempting them in the first place. This view of angels in general is not advanced at all but rather earthly and pubescent.
This author does agree with one aspect of the supporter’s viewpoint. As previously mentioned, sensuality is present in the symbolism of the text, and it is there for a reason. Sin is sensual. Sin feels good. One of the main reasons why we sin in the first place is because there is a component of it that makes us feel good, if only for a time. Supporters focus on the sensuality that is present in the story and go too far by thinking the text is simply about the physical act of earthly sex. But sin, no matter what it is, usually has a sensual aspect to it. Ask a bank robber why he robs banks. No doubt, he will tell you that it was for the money, but beneath this motivation is the thrill he gets from it. The act makes him feel powerful and perhaps manlier. All of these are very sensual notions, and this is just from robbing a bank. Imagine the allure of wanting to be as a god.
February 1, 2017
The Daily Christian - The Not So Reformed Martin Luther
I recently finished reading a well-written biography titled Luther, the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career by James M. Kittelson. The biography helped me realize that my perspective on the reformer was somewhat limited. I had always viewed Luther as the master theologian who bravely refused to recant his beliefs before a great assembly at the Diet of Worms. No doubt a triumphant scene cherished by most Protestants. However, despite this and many of his other courageous acts concerning his reforming ideas, Luther still held to some rather odd ideas.
For one, he continued to believe, long after his reforming concepts had swept through Germany, that the bread and the wine during the Lord’s Supper transformed into Christ’s actual body and blood, a process referred to as transubstantiation. Even though many of his fellow reformers began to see the bread and wine as merely symbols for Christ’s body and blood, Luther explained that he simply could not get past the words, “…this is my body,” found in the Synoptic Gospels.
This is perhaps a strange controversy to most modern Protestant Christians, who would probably be more likely to agree with Luther’s associates than Luther himself that when Christ originally uttered the words, “This is my body” He was sitting right there with His full body— half of which was not on the table. However, Luther countered this “geography” argument by pointing out that God could be in two places at once, which is obviously true. But for the Protestant who wanted to disassociate him or herself from the institution and traditions of a medieval church, the only thing that transubstantiation seemed to offer was an indirect means by which to bind the believer to that institution and those traditions.
The reason there existed a desire for this disassociation was because it was evident, and had been evident for some time, that there were many erroneous practices occurring within the medieval church. One of these traditions was referred to as Sacerdotalism. This was the belief that a priest needed to carry out the sacraments. One of the motivations for why this conviction was put into practice was because it was thought that involving oneself in the sacraments, which included the Lord’s Supper, helped to bring about salvation. Kittelson doesn't really get into this but because it was thought that the sacraments were tied to salvation, it fell to a trained priest to carry them out in order to guarantee that they were done properly. Adding to the support for Sacerdotalism was transubstantiation, for if the bread and wine were in fact Christ’s body and blood, than only a priest could handle such holy things.
Why Luther never came to see the connection between transubstantiation and Sacerdotalism is somewhat perplexing. However, one reason for this may have been that his concentration was on something much more important. Luther strongly protested against the idea that salvation could be found in performing or in participating in the sacraments. It was only through faith in Christ that one could find redemption. This was Luther’s center of attention. And perhaps because of this focus, Luther unwittingly supported the concept of transubstantiation, which indirectly sustained the very ideas that he was fighting against.
Luther’s attention on disavowing the idea that the sacraments equated to salvation did allow him to see, perhaps before others had, that this type of thinking was just another way to say that through works, one could find redemption. However, taking this to the extreme, Luther thought this error so grave that he became suspicion of anyone promoting good works. He believed it was just too easy for any believer to look to their good works instead of to Christ for their deliverance.
One can see an earlier source for Luther’s negative attitude toward good works. He had spent his younger days at a monastery, believing like pretty much everyone else at the time that through such an ascetic lifestyle one could help his or her salvation along. In other words, coupled with involving oneself in the sacraments, this type of life helped to guarantee one’s salvation. When Luther began to understand that one’s efforts did not bring about salvation, which is the biblical concept of true salvation, he saw these labors or good works in a negative light. Later his friends, Contarini and Melanchthon would provide the groundwork for an explanation that good works were merely a reflection of one’s salvation, an explanation that most Christian apologists use today. But Luther didn’t like this either. His early and ongoing experiences with the medieval church created the perfect ground to seed his doubts concerning good works.
Luther’s negative attitude toward good works should not be confused with his views on moral living. Luther was not a libertine. However, he, as Kittelson surmised, thought that keeping one’s conscience clear was the main point of living a moral life. In other words, when one’s conscience was clear, the Devil could not get a foothold.
Beyond the central and important concepts of salvation, Luther did have a rather open-minded attitude toward the Bible itself. He contended that it was up to the believer to decide which books of the Bible were of more value to them personally. In one respect, this idea is not so controversial. For example, the book of Leviticus is probably not as essential to the Christian’s daily walk as the books of the New Testament. On the other hand, Leviticus is still an important and even vital book of the Bible since it provides foundational information needed to understand other areas of the text.
Perhaps Luther did not see the cause and effect of statements such as these. Today, there is a belief system called Pauline Christianity, which espouses that only the teachings of Paul are meant for the church. The other books of the Bible, such as the Gospels are viewed, by those in this system, as being only useful to the early Jews. By saying that you can choose which books of the Bible are of greater value to you, Luther perhaps helped provide the foundation for this erroneous hierarchical view of Scripture.
Beyond these theological criticisms, we come to Luther’s personality and manner. Well known were his many angry outbursts directed at those who disagreed with him. The last tract he ever wrote was bitingly titled, Against the Asses at Paris and Louvain. Rome and even his fellow Protestant believers were not immune to his name-calling or accusations of being guided by the Devil. Perhaps if this manner would have been kept better in check, Luther may have been able to help change more minds within the establishment of the church. On the other hand, it was precisely this feisty attitude which no doubt captured people’s attention. It also served to motivate Luther to continue to work. Anger can often be a double-edged sword.
What we have in Kittelson’s Luther is a very human Luther. This is evident not only in Luther’s persona but also surprisingly in certain aspects of his theology. However, even a human Luther was able to do something extraordinary. We as flawed believers have, with God’s help, this opportunity as well.
For one, he continued to believe, long after his reforming concepts had swept through Germany, that the bread and the wine during the Lord’s Supper transformed into Christ’s actual body and blood, a process referred to as transubstantiation. Even though many of his fellow reformers began to see the bread and wine as merely symbols for Christ’s body and blood, Luther explained that he simply could not get past the words, “…this is my body,” found in the Synoptic Gospels.
This is perhaps a strange controversy to most modern Protestant Christians, who would probably be more likely to agree with Luther’s associates than Luther himself that when Christ originally uttered the words, “This is my body” He was sitting right there with His full body— half of which was not on the table. However, Luther countered this “geography” argument by pointing out that God could be in two places at once, which is obviously true. But for the Protestant who wanted to disassociate him or herself from the institution and traditions of a medieval church, the only thing that transubstantiation seemed to offer was an indirect means by which to bind the believer to that institution and those traditions.
The reason there existed a desire for this disassociation was because it was evident, and had been evident for some time, that there were many erroneous practices occurring within the medieval church. One of these traditions was referred to as Sacerdotalism. This was the belief that a priest needed to carry out the sacraments. One of the motivations for why this conviction was put into practice was because it was thought that involving oneself in the sacraments, which included the Lord’s Supper, helped to bring about salvation. Kittelson doesn't really get into this but because it was thought that the sacraments were tied to salvation, it fell to a trained priest to carry them out in order to guarantee that they were done properly. Adding to the support for Sacerdotalism was transubstantiation, for if the bread and wine were in fact Christ’s body and blood, than only a priest could handle such holy things.
Why Luther never came to see the connection between transubstantiation and Sacerdotalism is somewhat perplexing. However, one reason for this may have been that his concentration was on something much more important. Luther strongly protested against the idea that salvation could be found in performing or in participating in the sacraments. It was only through faith in Christ that one could find redemption. This was Luther’s center of attention. And perhaps because of this focus, Luther unwittingly supported the concept of transubstantiation, which indirectly sustained the very ideas that he was fighting against.
Luther’s attention on disavowing the idea that the sacraments equated to salvation did allow him to see, perhaps before others had, that this type of thinking was just another way to say that through works, one could find redemption. However, taking this to the extreme, Luther thought this error so grave that he became suspicion of anyone promoting good works. He believed it was just too easy for any believer to look to their good works instead of to Christ for their deliverance.
One can see an earlier source for Luther’s negative attitude toward good works. He had spent his younger days at a monastery, believing like pretty much everyone else at the time that through such an ascetic lifestyle one could help his or her salvation along. In other words, coupled with involving oneself in the sacraments, this type of life helped to guarantee one’s salvation. When Luther began to understand that one’s efforts did not bring about salvation, which is the biblical concept of true salvation, he saw these labors or good works in a negative light. Later his friends, Contarini and Melanchthon would provide the groundwork for an explanation that good works were merely a reflection of one’s salvation, an explanation that most Christian apologists use today. But Luther didn’t like this either. His early and ongoing experiences with the medieval church created the perfect ground to seed his doubts concerning good works.
Luther’s negative attitude toward good works should not be confused with his views on moral living. Luther was not a libertine. However, he, as Kittelson surmised, thought that keeping one’s conscience clear was the main point of living a moral life. In other words, when one’s conscience was clear, the Devil could not get a foothold.
Beyond the central and important concepts of salvation, Luther did have a rather open-minded attitude toward the Bible itself. He contended that it was up to the believer to decide which books of the Bible were of more value to them personally. In one respect, this idea is not so controversial. For example, the book of Leviticus is probably not as essential to the Christian’s daily walk as the books of the New Testament. On the other hand, Leviticus is still an important and even vital book of the Bible since it provides foundational information needed to understand other areas of the text.
Perhaps Luther did not see the cause and effect of statements such as these. Today, there is a belief system called Pauline Christianity, which espouses that only the teachings of Paul are meant for the church. The other books of the Bible, such as the Gospels are viewed, by those in this system, as being only useful to the early Jews. By saying that you can choose which books of the Bible are of greater value to you, Luther perhaps helped provide the foundation for this erroneous hierarchical view of Scripture.
Beyond these theological criticisms, we come to Luther’s personality and manner. Well known were his many angry outbursts directed at those who disagreed with him. The last tract he ever wrote was bitingly titled, Against the Asses at Paris and Louvain. Rome and even his fellow Protestant believers were not immune to his name-calling or accusations of being guided by the Devil. Perhaps if this manner would have been kept better in check, Luther may have been able to help change more minds within the establishment of the church. On the other hand, it was precisely this feisty attitude which no doubt captured people’s attention. It also served to motivate Luther to continue to work. Anger can often be a double-edged sword.
What we have in Kittelson’s Luther is a very human Luther. This is evident not only in Luther’s persona but also surprisingly in certain aspects of his theology. However, even a human Luther was able to do something extraordinary. We as flawed believers have, with God’s help, this opportunity as well.
November 23, 2016
The Daily Christian - Too Fantastical to Believe
I went down an internet wormhole the other day where at the end of it, I found myself on a site that makes lists. The list described ten things people incorrectly believe are in the Bible but are not. Intrigued, I read through and saw a few inaccuracies but over all agreed with some of the points. I moved on to the discussion reel where everyone was focused on one of the items from the list—Jonah’s whale.
Some atheists who had joined in the discussion argued that the story of Jonah was a fictionalized account. Feeling their confidence growing, perhaps due to their anonymity, some went on to assert that all religious people only believe in God because, like a fairy tale, it gives them comfort like a child scared of the dark. I had to laugh at this since it is often our faith in God that can cause us a great deal of discomfort.
Others focused on what seemed to be a more valid point from the list which was that the original Greek in the New Testament described Jonah’s whale as a fish (Matthew 12:40) and not a whale. A number of people pounced on this, claiming that this was just another instance, which proved that men were the authors of the Bible and that they made the whole thing up since a fish could not hold a man.
What began this whole line of argument was that the list’s author neglected to mention that the Greek word kĕtŏs used in Matthew 12:40 means a “huge fish (a gaping for prey).” (1) The root word for this is chasma in Greek, which means “a chasm or vacancy.” (2) I don’t mean to be too obvious here but huge fish plus chasm sounds a lot like a description of a whale. In fact, that is how the KJV translated it to English in Matthew 12:40. In addition, kētŏs is only employed in Matthew 12:40 where Christ referred to Jonah’s whale. The New Testament used the word ichthus (3) or a variation of that word or the term ŏpsariŏn (4) when it spoke of normal sized fish.
Now it is true that the Old Testament applied the generalized term for fish when speaking of Jonah’s whale. The Hebrew word for fish is dâg, dâgâh or a general term for any breathing animal, which is nephesh. (5) However, Jonah 1:17 recorded Jonah’s whale as a “great dâg (fish),” showcasing that Jonah’s “fish” was different from a regular sized fish. Nevertheless, the Greek language, which the New Testament writers employed, was much more sophisticated than the Hebrew when referencing creatures of the sea since it made a distinction between fishes and whales. Of course, we will not find the word whale in the ancient Hebrew of Greek languages since it is an English term. Nor will we find the word mammal, which some focused on in the discussion reel as well. This word was not used in the English language until 1826. (6)
The biblical writers employed words that were available to them in their own language. This is where unbelievers sometimes go wrong in reading the Bible. They neglect to recognize that an ancient book will not have modern words or classifications. Added to this is that people today read the Bible with a modern point of view. Some have neither the will nor the desire to dig any deeper than this perspective. However, to get at what the Bible is really discussing, we often have to break through these layers.
Having established that Jonah’s whale was in fact a whale, others may argue that it still would have been impossible for a man to live in one for three days. Of course, the standard apologetic answer to this is that if you believe that God created you and me and the entire universe, then keeping a man alive in a whale for three days really isn’t that big of a deal.
What is unfortunate about this is that often times it is fellow Christians who can’t get their heads around certain or even all of the supernatural events that the Bible recorded. Thomas Jefferson is such an example of this. Jefferson cut and pasted, for his own edification, the pages of the Bible, slowly eliminating certain supernatural events from the text. This project, which originated as a private affair, eventually formed into what is referred today to as the Jefferson Bible. What is interesting about this endeavor is that Jefferson did not eliminate all of the supernatural events that the Bible recorded. He only took out those that he felt were just too fantastical to believe. Jefferson allowed himself to become the authority over the text rather than allowing the text to have authority over him. Unfortunately, this is where many believers stubbornly position themselves today.
This really hit home for me after the publication of my first book. I received a couple of comments from others, which implied that some of the supernatural events in my book, mainly one in particular, were just too supernatural to believe. One individual ended his criticism with the comment that “magic” does not form our faith but rather our relationship with Christ develops our faith.
In some respects, I agreed with this comment. However, this argument tended to forget that Christ used supernatural miracles when He healed people and raised them from the dead. Christ made use of miracles in order to soften people’s hearts toward Him. I might add that our conversion and the relationship that follows with Christ are also supernatural. Furthermore, supernatural events are not “magic,” since the term implies that there is an un-supernatural explanation behind what people perceive as supernatural. In other words, supernatural power is not fabricated.
Now it is true that Christ eventually grew weary of people getting addicted to His show of miracles. He says as much in John 4:48. However, He no doubt saw these miracles as a useful way to bring people into the fold.
God does work in supernatural ways. He did so with Jonah, and He does so with us. In fact, God Himself is supernatural. Attempting to remove this characteristic, cuts at the very character of God.
1. James Strong, Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa: Word Bible Publishers, Inc., 1986), kētŏs, 2785
2. Ibid., chasma, 5490
3. Ibid., ichthus, 2486
4. Ibid., ŏpsariŏn, 3795
5. Ibid., dâg, dâgâh, and nephesh, 1709, 1710, 5315 respectively
6. “Mammal,” http://www.etymonline.com/
Some atheists who had joined in the discussion argued that the story of Jonah was a fictionalized account. Feeling their confidence growing, perhaps due to their anonymity, some went on to assert that all religious people only believe in God because, like a fairy tale, it gives them comfort like a child scared of the dark. I had to laugh at this since it is often our faith in God that can cause us a great deal of discomfort.
Others focused on what seemed to be a more valid point from the list which was that the original Greek in the New Testament described Jonah’s whale as a fish (Matthew 12:40) and not a whale. A number of people pounced on this, claiming that this was just another instance, which proved that men were the authors of the Bible and that they made the whole thing up since a fish could not hold a man.
What began this whole line of argument was that the list’s author neglected to mention that the Greek word kĕtŏs used in Matthew 12:40 means a “huge fish (a gaping for prey).” (1) The root word for this is chasma in Greek, which means “a chasm or vacancy.” (2) I don’t mean to be too obvious here but huge fish plus chasm sounds a lot like a description of a whale. In fact, that is how the KJV translated it to English in Matthew 12:40. In addition, kētŏs is only employed in Matthew 12:40 where Christ referred to Jonah’s whale. The New Testament used the word ichthus (3) or a variation of that word or the term ŏpsariŏn (4) when it spoke of normal sized fish.
Now it is true that the Old Testament applied the generalized term for fish when speaking of Jonah’s whale. The Hebrew word for fish is dâg, dâgâh or a general term for any breathing animal, which is nephesh. (5) However, Jonah 1:17 recorded Jonah’s whale as a “great dâg (fish),” showcasing that Jonah’s “fish” was different from a regular sized fish. Nevertheless, the Greek language, which the New Testament writers employed, was much more sophisticated than the Hebrew when referencing creatures of the sea since it made a distinction between fishes and whales. Of course, we will not find the word whale in the ancient Hebrew of Greek languages since it is an English term. Nor will we find the word mammal, which some focused on in the discussion reel as well. This word was not used in the English language until 1826. (6)
The biblical writers employed words that were available to them in their own language. This is where unbelievers sometimes go wrong in reading the Bible. They neglect to recognize that an ancient book will not have modern words or classifications. Added to this is that people today read the Bible with a modern point of view. Some have neither the will nor the desire to dig any deeper than this perspective. However, to get at what the Bible is really discussing, we often have to break through these layers.
Having established that Jonah’s whale was in fact a whale, others may argue that it still would have been impossible for a man to live in one for three days. Of course, the standard apologetic answer to this is that if you believe that God created you and me and the entire universe, then keeping a man alive in a whale for three days really isn’t that big of a deal.
What is unfortunate about this is that often times it is fellow Christians who can’t get their heads around certain or even all of the supernatural events that the Bible recorded. Thomas Jefferson is such an example of this. Jefferson cut and pasted, for his own edification, the pages of the Bible, slowly eliminating certain supernatural events from the text. This project, which originated as a private affair, eventually formed into what is referred today to as the Jefferson Bible. What is interesting about this endeavor is that Jefferson did not eliminate all of the supernatural events that the Bible recorded. He only took out those that he felt were just too fantastical to believe. Jefferson allowed himself to become the authority over the text rather than allowing the text to have authority over him. Unfortunately, this is where many believers stubbornly position themselves today.
This really hit home for me after the publication of my first book. I received a couple of comments from others, which implied that some of the supernatural events in my book, mainly one in particular, were just too supernatural to believe. One individual ended his criticism with the comment that “magic” does not form our faith but rather our relationship with Christ develops our faith.
In some respects, I agreed with this comment. However, this argument tended to forget that Christ used supernatural miracles when He healed people and raised them from the dead. Christ made use of miracles in order to soften people’s hearts toward Him. I might add that our conversion and the relationship that follows with Christ are also supernatural. Furthermore, supernatural events are not “magic,” since the term implies that there is an un-supernatural explanation behind what people perceive as supernatural. In other words, supernatural power is not fabricated.
Now it is true that Christ eventually grew weary of people getting addicted to His show of miracles. He says as much in John 4:48. However, He no doubt saw these miracles as a useful way to bring people into the fold.
God does work in supernatural ways. He did so with Jonah, and He does so with us. In fact, God Himself is supernatural. Attempting to remove this characteristic, cuts at the very character of God.
1. James Strong, Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa: Word Bible Publishers, Inc., 1986), kētŏs, 2785
2. Ibid., chasma, 5490
3. Ibid., ichthus, 2486
4. Ibid., ŏpsariŏn, 3795
5. Ibid., dâg, dâgâh, and nephesh, 1709, 1710, 5315 respectively
6. “Mammal,” http://www.etymonline.com/
