The primary goal of this series is to dispel the God-dishonoring doctrine of hellfire and eternal torment as a punishment for sinners endorsed by God. Galatians 5:22-23 describes nine characteristics that are "fruit of the Spirit:" love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (NKJV). Of these fruits of the Spirit, the Bible describes Jehovah as being the embodiment of only one, love: "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8, NKJV). The common doctrine of hellfire in much of Christendom undermines this simple Bible truth, for such a place of eternal torment is not consistent with a loving God.
Besides this, the Bible clearly states that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23, NKJV). This means when one dies, they have paid for their sins, and there is no need for further suffering. In fact, Romans 6:7 states, "for he who has died is freed from sin" (New American Standard Bible). I use this version of the Bible for this quote because it contains a footnote on the word "freed," which states, "Or acquitted," which really illustrates what is happening. When someone dies, they are acquitted of their sins and no more punishment is necessary.
So what is hell? There are four words in the Bible which are rendered "hell" in many common Bible translations: Hades (Greek), Sheol (Hebrew), Tartarus (Greek), and Gehenna (Greek). Each word has a distinct meaning in the Bible, so to translate all of them simply as "hell" overshadows exactly what the Bible is saying when talking about each concept (the two exceptions are Hades and Sheol--Sheol is the Hebrew counterpart to the Greek hades).
The first word I will address is Tartarus, simply because it is the easiest, and also to get it out of the way because it is the least relevant. The word "Tartarus" appears only once in the Bible. 2 Peter 2:4 states, "For is God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus] and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment [...]" (NKJV). Thus, the word Tartarus is used only in conjunction with the demons ("the angels who sinned") and hence has no bearing on the fate of humans.
The two main words I will discuss in this post are Hades and Sheol. These two words are the Greek and Hebrew counterparts of one another and mean the same thing. Literally translated, they mean "grave," but they do not mean an individual's grave (they do not even refer to a literal place). The word Greek and Hebrew words for an individual's grave or literal place of burial are "taphos," and "qever," respectively. The words "Hades" and "Sheol," on the other hand are somewhat more abstract--they mean "the common grave of mankind." To illustrate this concept, one might say today of someone who has died that he or she has "gone to the grave." This reference to "the grave" does not mean the individual's grave, because that phrase may be used for someone who was not buried yet or will not be buried (such as people who are cremated). By referring to the common grave a mankind, the phrase "he has gone to the grave," is simply another way of saying that the person died. In support of this interpretation, the Bible mentions righteous people who are in "hell" (Hades or Sheol): Job 14:13 describes Job being in hell. More distinctly, Acts 2:25-27 quotes David as saying of Jesus himself: "Because thou [God] will not leave my soul in hell [Hades]." The important point here is that in order to be left in hell, one must first be in hell, and indeed, Jesus was in Hades, the common grave of mankind, for three days before his resurrection--which is just another way of saying that Jesus was dead for three days.
So if this interpretation of hell is accurate, then where did the notions of eternal torment and hellfire come from? The answer to this question is present when one understand what the final word for hell, "Gehenna," means But in order to understand what Gehenna means, one must first understand what future hope the dead have. This will be covered in the next part in this series, which will discuss the resurrection.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Soul, The Spirit, and the Fate of the Dead, Part II: What is the Spirit?
The Hebrew and Greek words translated "spirit" in the bible are "ruach," and "pneuma," respectively. These terms can mean a number of things in Biblical usage; however, all Biblical usages refer to that which is invisible and gives evidence of force in motion. "Spirit," when it is used in the Bible, refers to wind, the active life-force in people and animals (the so-called "breath of life"), the impelling force that issues forth from a person's figurative heart and impels him to do or say certain things (such as when a person's spirit moves him or her to help a stranger in need or causes zealousness in a person), inspired utterances originating from an invisible source, spirits (such as angels and demons), and the Holy Spirit (God's active force). Of these notions, the ones most commonly attributed to the word "spirit" are as in angles and demons, the spirit of a person (emotions that compel a certain behavior), the animating force of people and animals, and the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit, or God's active force (called in Hebrew "Elohim Ruach," meaning "Spirit of God") is often referred to as the finger of God. It is the force God uses to cause his will to occur and things to happen. The Holy Spirit cannot be a person because the Bible speaks of people being filled with Holy Spirit and baptized and anointed with Holy Spirit. Would it make sense to say, for example, that a person was anointed with Jesus? No, a person cannot be anointed or baptized with another person (in the sense it is used in the Bible--of course a person can "fill" another person emotionally or carnally).
Does the spirit leave a person as a conscious entity when that person dies? Ezekiel 18:4 reads: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (KJV). Clearly, the soul is not immortal and does not survive the death of the body. When Jehovah told Adam that he was going to die, he stated, "[...] till thou return to the ground; for out of it thou was taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (KJV). Notice that this passage says that Adam himself was made of dust and shall return to dust, it does not make the distinction that Adam's body is made of dust. One more scripture to think about is Psalm 146:4, "His breath [or spirit, Heb. "ruach"] goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that day his thoughts do perish." Thus, when a person's spirit leaves the body, the person ceased to have consciousness ("his thoughts do perish"). The fact that the spirit leaves the body makes sense here when we consider in what sense the term "spirit" is being used. In this passage, "spirit" is referring to the person's animating force; thus, the force that animates the body departs after death. This is not surprising--we all know that when a person dies, apart from any residual energy in the body and any un-fired neurons, there is nothing that continues to animate the body.
In conclusion, there is no soul or spirit that leaves the body as a conscious entity after death. When you die, your soul and spirit die with you. There is no immortal human soul and there is no afterlife.
Upon re-consideration of the structure of these blog posts, I've decided that this second part to "The Soul, the Spirit, and the Fate of the Dead" will be the final part. The next few posts will be formed into another series considering the concepts of hell, the mass resurrection, and exactly who goes to heaven, and where those who don't go to heaven will go to (if you're confused because I just said that there is no afterlife, that confusion will be cleared up in the next series).
The Holy Spirit, or God's active force (called in Hebrew "Elohim Ruach," meaning "Spirit of God") is often referred to as the finger of God. It is the force God uses to cause his will to occur and things to happen. The Holy Spirit cannot be a person because the Bible speaks of people being filled with Holy Spirit and baptized and anointed with Holy Spirit. Would it make sense to say, for example, that a person was anointed with Jesus? No, a person cannot be anointed or baptized with another person (in the sense it is used in the Bible--of course a person can "fill" another person emotionally or carnally).
Does the spirit leave a person as a conscious entity when that person dies? Ezekiel 18:4 reads: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (KJV). Clearly, the soul is not immortal and does not survive the death of the body. When Jehovah told Adam that he was going to die, he stated, "[...] till thou return to the ground; for out of it thou was taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (KJV). Notice that this passage says that Adam himself was made of dust and shall return to dust, it does not make the distinction that Adam's body is made of dust. One more scripture to think about is Psalm 146:4, "His breath [or spirit, Heb. "ruach"] goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that day his thoughts do perish." Thus, when a person's spirit leaves the body, the person ceased to have consciousness ("his thoughts do perish"). The fact that the spirit leaves the body makes sense here when we consider in what sense the term "spirit" is being used. In this passage, "spirit" is referring to the person's animating force; thus, the force that animates the body departs after death. This is not surprising--we all know that when a person dies, apart from any residual energy in the body and any un-fired neurons, there is nothing that continues to animate the body.
In conclusion, there is no soul or spirit that leaves the body as a conscious entity after death. When you die, your soul and spirit die with you. There is no immortal human soul and there is no afterlife.
Upon re-consideration of the structure of these blog posts, I've decided that this second part to "The Soul, the Spirit, and the Fate of the Dead" will be the final part. The next few posts will be formed into another series considering the concepts of hell, the mass resurrection, and exactly who goes to heaven, and where those who don't go to heaven will go to (if you're confused because I just said that there is no afterlife, that confusion will be cleared up in the next series).
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Soul, the Spirit, and the Fate of the Dead Part I: What is a Soul?
The next several posts will deal with a few topics that popular Christianity has intertwined, but actually deal with distinct concepts with many misconceptions associated with them. This first part, as the titles suggests, deals with the question of what a soul is.
Genesis 2:7 states, "And [Jehovah] God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (KJV). The Hebrew word in Gen. 2:7 rendered as "soul" is "nephesh;" the Greek word that corresponds to this is "psyche." Notice that Genesis 2:7 does not say that man was given a soul, but that he became a living soul. This is an accurate diescription. The Bible does not support the notion that a person possesses a soul, but rather that a person (or animal) is a soul. The soul is not something that is separate from us, nor is it something that can leave the body. 1 Corinthians 15:45 confirms this by saying, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (KJV). 1 Peter 3:20 also makes no distinction between the person and the soul, saying, "[...] in the days of Noah [...] eight souls were saved by water" (KJV).
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol XIII states, "There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the OT. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he saw men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [nephesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person [...] The term [psyche] is the NT word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, and the living being" (pp. 449-450).
The New Encyclopedia Britannica states, "The Hebrew term for 'soul' [...] was used by Moses [...], signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings [...] New Testament usage of psyche was comparable to nephesh" (Vol. 15, p. 152). Indeed there are passages that refer to animals as souls: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24; Lev. 24:17, 18; Rev. 16:3. In general, Biblical usage of the term "soul," suggests it to mean a person or animal or the life that a person or animal enjoys.
Josh 11:11 states, "And they smote all the souls that where therein with the edge of the sword" (KJV). Here we see a soul being touched by a sword, so it cannot be intangible like a spirit, which will be the topic of the next post.
The following lists group usages of the words for soul (nephesh and psyche) that support the corresponding heading:
Animals Are Souls:
Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15, 16; Lev. 11:10, 46; 24:18; Num. 31:28; Job 41:21; Eze. 47:9
A Living Person is a Soul
Gen 2:7; 12:5; 14:20; 36:6; 46:15, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; Ex 1:5; 12:4, 16; 16:16; Lev 2:1; 4:2, 27; 5:1, 2, 4, 15, 17; 6:2; 7:18, 20, 21, 25, 27; 17:10, 12, 15; 18:29; 20:6; 22:6, 11; 23:29, 30; 27:2; Num 5:6; 15:27, 28, 30; 19:18, 22; 31:35, 40, 46; 35:30; Deu 10:22; 24:6, 7; 1 Sam 22:22; 2 Sam 14:14; 2 Ki 12:4; 1 Chron 5:21; Ps 19:7; Pro 11:25, 30; 16:24; 19:2, 15; 25:25; 27:7, 9; Jer 43:6; 52:29; Lam 3:25; Eze 27:13; Acts 2:41, 43; 7:14; 27:37 Rom 13:1; 1 Cor 15:45; 1 Pet 3:20
The Soul is Mortal and Destructible
Gen 12:13; 17:14; 19:19, 20; 37:21; Ex 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8; 22:3; 23:30; 24:17; Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20; 23:10; 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; Deu 19:6, 11; 22:26; 27:25; Jos 2:13, 14; 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11; 20:3, 9; Judges 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Ki 19:4; 20:31; Job 7:15; 11:20; 18:4; 33:22; 36:14; Ps 7:2; 22:29; 66:9; 69:1; 78:50; 94:17; 106:15; 124:4; Pro 28:17; Isa 55:3; Jer 2:34; 4:10; 18:20; 38:17; 40:14; Eze 13:19; 17:17; 18:4; 22:25, 27; 33:6; Matt 2:20; 10:28; 26:38; Mark 3:4; 14:34; Luke 6:9; 17:33; John 12:25; Acts 3:23; Rom 11:3; Heb 10:39; James 5:20; Rev 8:9; 12:11; 16:3
Dead Soul (Corpse)
Lev 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:6, 11; 9:6, 7, 10; 19:11, 13; Hag 2:13
Soul is Separate From Spirit
Phillip 1:27; 1 Thess 5:23; Heb 4:12
God Has a Soul
1 Sam 2:35; Psa 11:5; 24:4; Pro 6:16; Isa 1:14; 42:1; Jer 5:9; 12:7; 14:19; 15:1; 32:41; 51:14; Lam 3:20; Eze 23:18; Amos 6:8; Matt 12:18; Heb 10:38
Genesis 2:7 states, "And [Jehovah] God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (KJV). The Hebrew word in Gen. 2:7 rendered as "soul" is "nephesh;" the Greek word that corresponds to this is "psyche." Notice that Genesis 2:7 does not say that man was given a soul, but that he became a living soul. This is an accurate diescription. The Bible does not support the notion that a person possesses a soul, but rather that a person (or animal) is a soul. The soul is not something that is separate from us, nor is it something that can leave the body. 1 Corinthians 15:45 confirms this by saying, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (KJV). 1 Peter 3:20 also makes no distinction between the person and the soul, saying, "[...] in the days of Noah [...] eight souls were saved by water" (KJV).
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol XIII states, "There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the OT. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he saw men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [nephesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person [...] The term [psyche] is the NT word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, and the living being" (pp. 449-450).
The New Encyclopedia Britannica states, "The Hebrew term for 'soul' [...] was used by Moses [...], signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings [...] New Testament usage of psyche was comparable to nephesh" (Vol. 15, p. 152). Indeed there are passages that refer to animals as souls: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24; Lev. 24:17, 18; Rev. 16:3. In general, Biblical usage of the term "soul," suggests it to mean a person or animal or the life that a person or animal enjoys.
Josh 11:11 states, "And they smote all the souls that where therein with the edge of the sword" (KJV). Here we see a soul being touched by a sword, so it cannot be intangible like a spirit, which will be the topic of the next post.
The following lists group usages of the words for soul (nephesh and psyche) that support the corresponding heading:
Animals Are Souls:
Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15, 16; Lev. 11:10, 46; 24:18; Num. 31:28; Job 41:21; Eze. 47:9
A Living Person is a Soul
Gen 2:7; 12:5; 14:20; 36:6; 46:15, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; Ex 1:5; 12:4, 16; 16:16; Lev 2:1; 4:2, 27; 5:1, 2, 4, 15, 17; 6:2; 7:18, 20, 21, 25, 27; 17:10, 12, 15; 18:29; 20:6; 22:6, 11; 23:29, 30; 27:2; Num 5:6; 15:27, 28, 30; 19:18, 22; 31:35, 40, 46; 35:30; Deu 10:22; 24:6, 7; 1 Sam 22:22; 2 Sam 14:14; 2 Ki 12:4; 1 Chron 5:21; Ps 19:7; Pro 11:25, 30; 16:24; 19:2, 15; 25:25; 27:7, 9; Jer 43:6; 52:29; Lam 3:25; Eze 27:13; Acts 2:41, 43; 7:14; 27:37 Rom 13:1; 1 Cor 15:45; 1 Pet 3:20
The Soul is Mortal and Destructible
Gen 12:13; 17:14; 19:19, 20; 37:21; Ex 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8; 22:3; 23:30; 24:17; Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20; 23:10; 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; Deu 19:6, 11; 22:26; 27:25; Jos 2:13, 14; 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11; 20:3, 9; Judges 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Ki 19:4; 20:31; Job 7:15; 11:20; 18:4; 33:22; 36:14; Ps 7:2; 22:29; 66:9; 69:1; 78:50; 94:17; 106:15; 124:4; Pro 28:17; Isa 55:3; Jer 2:34; 4:10; 18:20; 38:17; 40:14; Eze 13:19; 17:17; 18:4; 22:25, 27; 33:6; Matt 2:20; 10:28; 26:38; Mark 3:4; 14:34; Luke 6:9; 17:33; John 12:25; Acts 3:23; Rom 11:3; Heb 10:39; James 5:20; Rev 8:9; 12:11; 16:3
Dead Soul (Corpse)
Lev 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:6, 11; 9:6, 7, 10; 19:11, 13; Hag 2:13
Soul is Separate From Spirit
Phillip 1:27; 1 Thess 5:23; Heb 4:12
God Has a Soul
1 Sam 2:35; Psa 11:5; 24:4; Pro 6:16; Isa 1:14; 42:1; Jer 5:9; 12:7; 14:19; 15:1; 32:41; 51:14; Lam 3:20; Eze 23:18; Amos 6:8; Matt 12:18; Heb 10:38
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Solutions to Two Oft-Cited Paradoxes of Christianity
The first paradox many people have trouble with is, “Can free will and an all-knowing creator exist simultaneously?” The answer to this is obviously no, they cannot. That does not mean, however, that free will cannot exist at the same time as a God who can know the future. The fact is; the Bible provides us with prophecy, which means that absolutely God can know the future. What it does not mean is that God does know every detail of the future of every person alive. God chose to use his power of fore-ordinance in order to provide us with details about the rapidly approaching judgment day, and the events that are to occur leading up to it. Jehovah, however, uses this power selectively, as he does with all his powers. Jehovah only uses his powers when it serves his purposes, he does not use them to show off. The purpose of prophecy is to give his followers direction. So what this paradox actually states is that if someone knows with 100% accuracy what you are going to do tomorrow, then you do not have the free will to do otherwise. In God’s case, he does have the potential to know what you will do tomorrow, but chooses not to exercise that ability, and therefore, your free will remains intact.
If this explanation seems contrived, consider this. According to quantum mechanics, the property of a particle or any object does not exist unless it is observed (in fact, "particles" can exhibit properties that are mutually exclusive from one another...all "particles" in the universe, for example, exhibit wave properties under certain tests that are mutually exclusive to the particle properties they exhibit in other tests). As an example, the uncertainty principle states that a particle’s (or any object’s) position and velocity cannot be known with infinite accuracy. That is not a statement about the limitations of current technology, but a fundamental property of objects within this universe. Quantum mechanics therefore states that those objects do not have an exact position or velocity, but rather, their position in phase space (an abstract higher-dimensional space with dimensions corresponding not only to physical space, but also the components of velocity and other degrees of freedom that are important to the experiment) is a probability curve, so that, for example, if I measure a particle’s position, rather than being able to predict what answer I am going to get, I am presented with a probability spectrum of where I am likely to find the particle. This fact does apply to macroscopic objects as well, but we normally don’t think about it because our technology is not advanced enough to find a macroscopic object’s position with that much precision anyway. Now, if it is true that a phenomenon (such as a particle with a given position) is not, in a sense real or concrete until it is actually observed in the present, then this must be true even more so for phenomena in the future. Therefore, just because Jehovah has the ability to know the future (just like we have the ability to perform an experiment to find a particle’s position in the present), the fact that he does not use this ability in people’s everyday lives (just like we are not constantly running experiments to determine the position of every particle in universe at every instant of time) means that a person’s future is yet unwritten and free will remains intact (just like the particle whose position is undefined).
The other paradox is the one concerning an all-powerful deity. Is such a notion a contradiction? If such a deity can create a being with the ability to defeat him, then he is not all-powerful, and if he cannot, then it seems again that he is not all-powerful. The problem with the paradox comes down to definitions. To solve this, I am going to again turn to physics and quantum mechanics. According to classical mechanics, if you put a particle in a box, the smallest amount of energy that particle can have is zero (this is ignoring mass-energy equivalence, I’m talking purely about mechanical—that is kinetic, potential, and to some extent, internal—energy). This energy level in classical mechanics—the level of zero energy—is called the zero-point energy. According to quantum mechanics, however, just like there is a position-momentum uncertainty principle, there is also a time-energy uncertainty principle, and the important application here is that it is actually impossible, because of this uncertainty, for the particle in a box to actually have zero energy. The smallest amount of energy a particle can have, then, is whatever it is, but it is slightly above zero, but we still call that the zero-point energy. In this situation, zero-point energy does not mean that the particle has no energy, it simply means the smallest amount of energy that particle can have. Similarly, when we say God is all-powerful, we are not actually saying that he can do anything. No one, including God, for instance, can create a situation in which a true paradox is realized. So what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful is not that he can do anything, but rather, nothing that is within the set of all things that are possible to occur is impossible for God to do. It just so happens then, that the existence of a being more powerful than God is not within that set, but rather, in the set of all things that are impossible to occur, so the fact that God cannot create a being more powerful than him does not result in contradiction when we have the right definition of what it means to be all-powerful.
If this explanation seems contrived, consider this. According to quantum mechanics, the property of a particle or any object does not exist unless it is observed (in fact, "particles" can exhibit properties that are mutually exclusive from one another...all "particles" in the universe, for example, exhibit wave properties under certain tests that are mutually exclusive to the particle properties they exhibit in other tests). As an example, the uncertainty principle states that a particle’s (or any object’s) position and velocity cannot be known with infinite accuracy. That is not a statement about the limitations of current technology, but a fundamental property of objects within this universe. Quantum mechanics therefore states that those objects do not have an exact position or velocity, but rather, their position in phase space (an abstract higher-dimensional space with dimensions corresponding not only to physical space, but also the components of velocity and other degrees of freedom that are important to the experiment) is a probability curve, so that, for example, if I measure a particle’s position, rather than being able to predict what answer I am going to get, I am presented with a probability spectrum of where I am likely to find the particle. This fact does apply to macroscopic objects as well, but we normally don’t think about it because our technology is not advanced enough to find a macroscopic object’s position with that much precision anyway. Now, if it is true that a phenomenon (such as a particle with a given position) is not, in a sense real or concrete until it is actually observed in the present, then this must be true even more so for phenomena in the future. Therefore, just because Jehovah has the ability to know the future (just like we have the ability to perform an experiment to find a particle’s position in the present), the fact that he does not use this ability in people’s everyday lives (just like we are not constantly running experiments to determine the position of every particle in universe at every instant of time) means that a person’s future is yet unwritten and free will remains intact (just like the particle whose position is undefined).
The other paradox is the one concerning an all-powerful deity. Is such a notion a contradiction? If such a deity can create a being with the ability to defeat him, then he is not all-powerful, and if he cannot, then it seems again that he is not all-powerful. The problem with the paradox comes down to definitions. To solve this, I am going to again turn to physics and quantum mechanics. According to classical mechanics, if you put a particle in a box, the smallest amount of energy that particle can have is zero (this is ignoring mass-energy equivalence, I’m talking purely about mechanical—that is kinetic, potential, and to some extent, internal—energy). This energy level in classical mechanics—the level of zero energy—is called the zero-point energy. According to quantum mechanics, however, just like there is a position-momentum uncertainty principle, there is also a time-energy uncertainty principle, and the important application here is that it is actually impossible, because of this uncertainty, for the particle in a box to actually have zero energy. The smallest amount of energy a particle can have, then, is whatever it is, but it is slightly above zero, but we still call that the zero-point energy. In this situation, zero-point energy does not mean that the particle has no energy, it simply means the smallest amount of energy that particle can have. Similarly, when we say God is all-powerful, we are not actually saying that he can do anything. No one, including God, for instance, can create a situation in which a true paradox is realized. So what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful is not that he can do anything, but rather, nothing that is within the set of all things that are possible to occur is impossible for God to do. It just so happens then, that the existence of a being more powerful than God is not within that set, but rather, in the set of all things that are impossible to occur, so the fact that God cannot create a being more powerful than him does not result in contradiction when we have the right definition of what it means to be all-powerful.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Who is Jesus Christ, and What is His Relationship to Jehovah?
This might seem like a silly question. Who, after all, has not heard of Jesus? But it's really not, considering there are so many different opinions of who Jesus really was. Was he the Messiah or Christ, was he the son of God, was he God himself? Was Jesus simply a prophet as many Muslims believe, or simply a decent human being? Did he even exist at all.
There are early historical references to Jesus, including The Jewish Antiquities by Jewish historian Josephus, which states in Book 20, Section 200, "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ. Also The Complete Works of Tacitus by Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived later in the first century, which states in "The Annals," Book 15, paragraph 44, "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
Alluding to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states, "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for te first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145)
The Bible tells us that Jesus was God's only-begotten son (John 3:16), he was the chosen Messiah, and his death has bought mankind from sin and death. Some Christians believe that in addition to this, Jesus was God himself. Is this possibly true?
Consider that the Hebrew word "ab" and the Greek work "pater," both translated as "father" connote the idea of a giver of life. Thus, a father is someone who gives his son life. Also consider the term "only begotten son" found at John 3:16. What exactly does "only begotten" mean? It means the Father "begat," or gave life to the son. This means that Jehovah God gave life to Jesus, his son. In other words, Jehovah created Jesus. If this were not the case, then the whole idea of a father-son relationship between the Father and the Son would be nothing more than pretense. Ask yourself if it makes sense that Jehovah and Jesus would go to such lengths to pretend to be Father and Son. Not only is that notion absurd, since God is perfect, his nature would not even allow him to pretend to be something he is not.
To show Jesus is not God, consider John 3:17, "[...] that they may know You [the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (NKJV, emphasis added). Notice that the Father (identified in verse 1) is recognized by Jesus himself (who is being quoted) as the only true God, and recognizes himself (Jesus Christ) as separate from the Father. If the Father is the only true God, then logic dictates that the Son cannot also be the true God.
Jesus also refers to the Father as his God (John 20:17), but not once does the Bible ever refer to the Son as the God of the Father. The Bible also tells us that the Father is Greater than the Son (John 14:28). In fact, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states that "the head of Christ is God." If Jesus were God, this would mean that Jesus was his own head. This is not the structure that God laid out for families because this is not the type of structure that the Father has with the Son. One person is not head over himself, Jehovah God is head of Jesus Christ, his Son.
If it were true that Jehovah was God and that Jesus were God, then both would presumably have the same body of knowledge, since they are both God. The Bible contradicts this when it says, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32). God therefore knows the day and the hour, but Jesus does not, and hence Jesus cannot be God.
Consider Psalm 83:18, "That they may know that You, who name alone is [Jehovah], Are the Most High over all the earth." Jehovah alone is the most high over all the earth, and therefore has no equal, not even his own only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
John 1:1
Proponents of the Trinity doctrine just love to shout out John 1:1. Over and over and over again, the same line gets repeated as if it were the best most original thought they ever had, when it is in fact neither that good (convincing) nor original. Let's look at John 1:1 from various translations, and then look at the actual Greek:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV, NKJV, NIV)--This is the translation many use to prove the existence of God.
" [...] and the word was a god (The New testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With Corrected Text)
"[...] and a god was the word." (The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson)
"[...] and the Word was divine." (The Bible--An American Translation, J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)
"[...] and the Word was a god." (The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, NWT)--This should be the correct translation. Let's see why.
In the Greek, the passage reads:
Εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
A literal word for word translation of the Greek reads: "In beginning was the word (ho logos) and the word was with the God (ton theon) and god (kai theos) was the word (ho logos)."
Notice the first word for God has a definite article (the--ton in Greek), and "the word" has a definite article (the--ho in Greek). The second occurrence of the word "god" appears without a definite article (the--ho or ton). Because Greek lacks an indefinite article (a word corresponding to the English word, "a" or "an," as in "a god) the lack of the definite article "the" means that the term should be rendered in English with an indefinite article.
Also take note that Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as "Mighty God," and "Eternal Father." As for the term "Eternal Father," even most trinitarians can accept that the Father and Son are two distinct people, but many argue that the fact that the Son is called "Eternal Father" is evidence that Jesus always existed and was not created. This is not true. The universe is also eternal, in the sense that it will never die (Ecclesiastes 1:4). This does not mean that it always existed, it simply means it WILL always exist into the future.
As for the Son being called "Mighty God," (El Gibbor in the Hebrew) truly Jesus is a "mighty god," but that does not mean that he is "God Almighty" (El Shaddai in the Hebrew). Jehovah God is also a "Mighty God," in fact being a "Mighty God" is pretty much a pre-requisite to being "God Almighty," but the reverse is not true, one does not have to be "God Almighty" to be a "Mighty God."
So does this mean there are multiple gods up in heaven? It depends on what you mean by the term "god." If you are referring to the creator of all things or someone who is all-powerful, there is only one person who fits either of those descriptions--Jehovah. However, god is used in the Bible to describe people in positions of great power or authority or with the ability to exert such power or authority. For example Psalm 82:6 refers to the judges of Israel as gods, indicating that they have a certain measure of authority; this does not mean, however, that the judges of Israel are the Creator of the universe or even all-powerful. All it means, as stated, is that they have a certain measure of authority. If the term "god" can be applied to the judges of Israel, mere humans, how much more appropriate would the term be when applied to Jesus?
If this is not enough to convince you that Jesus is not God, consider Col 1:15, which refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of every Creature" (KJV). The Bible itself explicitly states that Jesus was born, or created, before all other creations.
Who Is Michael the Archangel?
The term "archangel" in the Bible is never found in the plural, presumably because there can be only one archangel.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 describes Jesus descending from heaven "with the voice of an archangel." There is biblical evidence that reveals that it is not the big of a leap to associate Jesus with the archangel Michael. Indeed, Michael is identified as the heavenly persona of God's only-begotten Son.
Revelation 12:7-12 identifies Michael as the one to lead the army of angels in war against the Devil and to cast him out of heaven. Later, at Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus is identified as the one leading the army in an war against the nations of the world. The fact is, Jesus is the one with authority over the armies of heaven, and, as we shall see once we begin to learn more about the nature of the Kingdom of God, it is Jesus who has authority over the armies of angels. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.
There are early historical references to Jesus, including The Jewish Antiquities by Jewish historian Josephus, which states in Book 20, Section 200, "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ. Also The Complete Works of Tacitus by Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived later in the first century, which states in "The Annals," Book 15, paragraph 44, "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
Alluding to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states, "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for te first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145)
The Bible tells us that Jesus was God's only-begotten son (John 3:16), he was the chosen Messiah, and his death has bought mankind from sin and death. Some Christians believe that in addition to this, Jesus was God himself. Is this possibly true?
Consider that the Hebrew word "ab" and the Greek work "pater," both translated as "father" connote the idea of a giver of life. Thus, a father is someone who gives his son life. Also consider the term "only begotten son" found at John 3:16. What exactly does "only begotten" mean? It means the Father "begat," or gave life to the son. This means that Jehovah God gave life to Jesus, his son. In other words, Jehovah created Jesus. If this were not the case, then the whole idea of a father-son relationship between the Father and the Son would be nothing more than pretense. Ask yourself if it makes sense that Jehovah and Jesus would go to such lengths to pretend to be Father and Son. Not only is that notion absurd, since God is perfect, his nature would not even allow him to pretend to be something he is not.
To show Jesus is not God, consider John 3:17, "[...] that they may know You [the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (NKJV, emphasis added). Notice that the Father (identified in verse 1) is recognized by Jesus himself (who is being quoted) as the only true God, and recognizes himself (Jesus Christ) as separate from the Father. If the Father is the only true God, then logic dictates that the Son cannot also be the true God.
Jesus also refers to the Father as his God (John 20:17), but not once does the Bible ever refer to the Son as the God of the Father. The Bible also tells us that the Father is Greater than the Son (John 14:28). In fact, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states that "the head of Christ is God." If Jesus were God, this would mean that Jesus was his own head. This is not the structure that God laid out for families because this is not the type of structure that the Father has with the Son. One person is not head over himself, Jehovah God is head of Jesus Christ, his Son.
If it were true that Jehovah was God and that Jesus were God, then both would presumably have the same body of knowledge, since they are both God. The Bible contradicts this when it says, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32). God therefore knows the day and the hour, but Jesus does not, and hence Jesus cannot be God.
Consider Psalm 83:18, "That they may know that You, who name alone is [Jehovah], Are the Most High over all the earth." Jehovah alone is the most high over all the earth, and therefore has no equal, not even his own only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
John 1:1
Proponents of the Trinity doctrine just love to shout out John 1:1. Over and over and over again, the same line gets repeated as if it were the best most original thought they ever had, when it is in fact neither that good (convincing) nor original. Let's look at John 1:1 from various translations, and then look at the actual Greek:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV, NKJV, NIV)--This is the translation many use to prove the existence of God.
" [...] and the word was a god (The New testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With Corrected Text)
"[...] and a god was the word." (The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson)
"[...] and the Word was divine." (The Bible--An American Translation, J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)
"[...] and the Word was a god." (The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, NWT)--This should be the correct translation. Let's see why.
In the Greek, the passage reads:
Εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
A literal word for word translation of the Greek reads: "In beginning was the word (ho logos) and the word was with the God (ton theon) and god (kai theos) was the word (ho logos)."
Notice the first word for God has a definite article (the--ton in Greek), and "the word" has a definite article (the--ho in Greek). The second occurrence of the word "god" appears without a definite article (the--ho or ton). Because Greek lacks an indefinite article (a word corresponding to the English word, "a" or "an," as in "a god) the lack of the definite article "the" means that the term should be rendered in English with an indefinite article.
Also take note that Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as "Mighty God," and "Eternal Father." As for the term "Eternal Father," even most trinitarians can accept that the Father and Son are two distinct people, but many argue that the fact that the Son is called "Eternal Father" is evidence that Jesus always existed and was not created. This is not true. The universe is also eternal, in the sense that it will never die (Ecclesiastes 1:4). This does not mean that it always existed, it simply means it WILL always exist into the future.
As for the Son being called "Mighty God," (El Gibbor in the Hebrew) truly Jesus is a "mighty god," but that does not mean that he is "God Almighty" (El Shaddai in the Hebrew). Jehovah God is also a "Mighty God," in fact being a "Mighty God" is pretty much a pre-requisite to being "God Almighty," but the reverse is not true, one does not have to be "God Almighty" to be a "Mighty God."
So does this mean there are multiple gods up in heaven? It depends on what you mean by the term "god." If you are referring to the creator of all things or someone who is all-powerful, there is only one person who fits either of those descriptions--Jehovah. However, god is used in the Bible to describe people in positions of great power or authority or with the ability to exert such power or authority. For example Psalm 82:6 refers to the judges of Israel as gods, indicating that they have a certain measure of authority; this does not mean, however, that the judges of Israel are the Creator of the universe or even all-powerful. All it means, as stated, is that they have a certain measure of authority. If the term "god" can be applied to the judges of Israel, mere humans, how much more appropriate would the term be when applied to Jesus?
If this is not enough to convince you that Jesus is not God, consider Col 1:15, which refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of every Creature" (KJV). The Bible itself explicitly states that Jesus was born, or created, before all other creations.
Who Is Michael the Archangel?
The term "archangel" in the Bible is never found in the plural, presumably because there can be only one archangel.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 describes Jesus descending from heaven "with the voice of an archangel." There is biblical evidence that reveals that it is not the big of a leap to associate Jesus with the archangel Michael. Indeed, Michael is identified as the heavenly persona of God's only-begotten Son.
Revelation 12:7-12 identifies Michael as the one to lead the army of angels in war against the Devil and to cast him out of heaven. Later, at Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus is identified as the one leading the army in an war against the nations of the world. The fact is, Jesus is the one with authority over the armies of heaven, and, as we shall see once we begin to learn more about the nature of the Kingdom of God, it is Jesus who has authority over the armies of angels. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Who is Jehovah?
Many people recognize the name "Jehovah," as in "Jehovah's Witnesses," but few realize where this name comes from (although, with the popularization of the internet, more and more people are learning about the name Jehovah). Jehovah is an Anglicization of the tetragrammaton, God's personal four-letter name that appears thousands of times in the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. The four Hebrew letters that comprise this name are "yud," "heh," "vav," "heh," or, YHVH. (In Hebrew letters, the name looks like יהוה.) The Hebrew letter "yud," is often pronounced the same as our "y" in Hebrew, but is often translated as "j" in anglicized names. The names of Joseph, Jesus, and Jacob, for example, are names that begin with "yud" in Hebrew. "vav" can be translated as "v," or "w." Thus, sometimes, the name is also rendered in English as "Yahweh."As for the vowels in the name, the fact is that ancient Hebrew had no system for writing vowels, thus words were copied only with consonants. For most words, this is not a problem, because words have been spoken throughout the centuries and there is an understanding of how to pronounce the word when someone comes upon it in writing. as for God's name, however, there was an ancient Hebrew superstition that one is not supposed to use God's name in everyday language. This comes from the seventh commandment not to use Jehovah's name in vain (in other words--not to misuse God's name). However, there is a big difference between mis-using a name, and using it with respect.
The fact is, the Bible contains God's personal name, Jehovah thousands of times, indicating that God did want us to know and to use his name. In fact, God wants us to know him as a person, that is why he provided us with the Bible. There are many types of information in the Bible, including information revealing the nature of God and identifying him as a personal being with distinct qualities or characteristics, not unlike each human with a distinct personality and qualities. One piece of personal information that God has chosen to share with us is his name.
one of the first things we get to know about a new friend is his or her personal name. And we use our friends' names in everyday speech without any disrespect towards our friends or their names. Likewise, we should not be afraid to call upon God by name and share his name with others. Instead, however, ancient Hebrews decided to hide Jehovah's name, by pronouncing the word, "adonai," each time they came across the divine name in the written manuscripts. "Adonai" is translated into English as "lord," this is why you often see "LORD" (in all capital letters) in popular translations of the Bible. This makes God seem impersonal; whereas the Bible tells us to "draw close to God," so that he may draw close to us (James 4:8).
Each time you come across LORD in all capitals in the Bible, it is covering over Jehovah's personal name. This does more to disrespect God's name and God's holy word, the Bible than anything else another person might do, specifically for the reason that those who chose to disguise the name of God did so knowing full well that there were removing an important piece of information from God's holy word. Many religious leaders who recite the words, "hallowed by thy name" (meaning, let your name be sanctified or glorified) do everything but glorify God's name when they choose to hide it as if it were something evil that should not be repeated.
To see the reasoning and mentality of some who chose to replace God's personal name in the Bible, consider the preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which states, "For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." Thus, their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said, "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition" (Matt 15:6, NIV).
Because of Hebrew superstition and the lack of vowels in ancient Hebrew, the original pronunciation of Jehovah's name has long been lost. While there is some debate about just how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, there is evidence that the name is three syllables, and most likely "Yehowah" or "Yehowih" etc in Hebrew. You can Google "God's name, three syllables," to find websites that provide such evidence. For those who say we should not use the Divine name simply because we are unsure of its pronunciation, one thing is certain, "Jesus," was definitely NOT the original pronunciation of the name of Christ.
To those who would that first century Christians did not use God's personal name, nor is it found in the NT, actually, passages from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures have been found containing the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew right in the Greek text itself. Also there are many places in the Greek Scriptures (11 places in Matthew alone) where Hebrew Scriptures containing God's name are being directly quoted. There is no reason to believe these passages were not quoted as they were written in Hebrew.
While there is some debate about the extent to which the Tetragrammaton was quoted or used by Jesus' disciples, they almost surely reflected Jesus' own thoughts on the matter, which are recorded at John 17:6, "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world," and again at John 17:26, "And I have declared to them Your name, and I will declare it, that the love with which you loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (NKJV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)