Series: Mysteries

Question Eleven

Who were the beings that appeared to Abraham, Moses and Jacob?

 “Okay, so you say there is one great intelligence occupying the universe that does not match up to orthodox ideas. How about the stories of the prophets who said they met God who seemed to appear in human form? Did they meet the Big Guy or something else?”

 This is awkward for believers to explain. On one hand they say God is an invisible spirit that is everywhere, and, on the other, the Bible presents him as a being in human form occupying no more space than you and me.

Here are some examples:

God takes a walk in the garden

“And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” Genesis 3:8

God eats dinner with Abraham

“And the Lord (Lord is from the Hebrew YAHOVAH which means Jehovah) appeared to him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamres and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, THREE MEN stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said My Lord (This Lord is from the Hebrew ADONAY meaning master.), if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and WASH YOUR FEET, and REST yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a MORSEL OF BREAD, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, SO DO, AS THOU HAST SAID. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly THREE measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hastened to dress it…. And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, AND THEY DID EAT…. And the MEN rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the Lord (Again YeHOVAH translated Jehovah.) said shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?… And the men (two of them) turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord” (YeHOVAH) (Gen 18:1-8; 16-17, & 22)

God wrestles with Jacob

“And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled A MAN with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he (Jacob) said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel (means “the face of God”): for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen 32:24-30)

Moses sees God’s body.

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Exodus33:23

So, how do believers explain away an invisible God as being everywhere, yet appearing in a human body, even sharing the fatted calf with Abraham?

The answer they give is this. God is indeed a formless spirit, which is everywhere, but because he is all-powerful he can make anything happen he wants, including making it seem like he has human form. He will sometimes appear as human so we can understand the communication delivered.

That is probably the only explanation a guy could come up with who is trying to harmonize such conflicting beliefs. The only trouble with such an explanation is that it has little appeal to logic and is also not supported in the Bible.

Nowhere does God or the Bible give any hint that he appears in physical form just to make communication easier. Such reasoning is just a guess at explaining something that seems contradictory.

So what is the real explanation here? There’s got to be more to it than some magical all-powerful God pretending to be human now and then.

Here is an answer that will solve the mystery.

The thing that causes confusion is that many other entities are called gods in the Bible other than the One Great Life whose body is the universe. I’m not talking about idols and false gods condemned by the prophets. I’m saying that there were many who were called legitimate Gods in the Bible who were not creators of heaven and earth.

Here are some of the people who were called Gods in the scriptures. Most Bibles do not translate the Hebrew word ELOHIYM consistently as God or Gods, hence the confusion.

Abraham was called a mighty god (mistranslated in most Bibles) Gen 23:6

Moses was called a god.  Ex 4:16 & 7:1

The judges of the people of Israel. The word “judges” is inaccurate and should read “Gods.” Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, 28.

The physical being who ate with Abraham and the one in human form who wrestled with Jacob were obviously humanoids who were called gods.

In addition Jesus acknowledged that those prophets who received the Word of God in ancient times were gods. He said: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came…” John 10:35-36

ELOHIYM is the most common Hebrew word for God and is plural. We see evidence of why this is so in the first book of the Bible:

“And God (should be translated “the Gods”) said, Let us make man IN OUR IMAGE, after OUR likeness.” Gen 1:26-27

“Behold, the man is to become AS ONE OF US, to know good and evil.” Gen 3:22

Obviously, more than one entity is legitimately called a god in the Bible.

Here is the explanation.

It is true that there is One Great Life who we generically call God. We as living entities are like cells in his body just as our cells are living entities in our physical bodies.

In addition to the One Life being call God, so are others. These include those who receive the Word of God for the people as well as powerful supernatural beings who are sometimes referred to as powerful angels as in the case of the being who dealt with Moses.

So, the gods of the Bible are really powerful humans who are in tune with the Spirit of the One God. Some of them are powerful mortals and others are supernatural humans.

Who are these supernatural humans and whence came they?

To answer this question we must again examine ourselves, but this time look into the future to see where we may be heading.

Look at the progress we have made in just the last 200 years. We’ve gone from the horse and buggy and slide rules to space travel and sophisticated computers. If we have accomplished such progress in 200 years what will happen in another 200, 2000 or 2 million years?

The universe is 13.8 billion years old so 2 million years is like about 13 seconds if we compressed the age of the universe down to a day. Consider that two million years is ten thousand times as long as two centuries yet still a drop in the bucket or cosmic time. Just imagine what we will accomplish in such a time period.

We will not only explore outer space, but inner space and eventually we’ll figure out how to extend our lives as long as we want, becoming virtually immortal. Sure, we’ll build bigger and better rocket ships, but we’ll eventually figure out how to travel without them and teleport ourselves from one place to another.

Two million years from now we will be so advanced that if we were to go among a civilization like ancient Israel or even twenty-first century humans we would most likely be seen as gods with supernatural powers.

It is not only logical, but it is indeed true that in this ancient universe there exists many lives that have progressed far beyond our primitive state of existence. Sometimes these exalted beings decide to help us out and, when time permits, they will assist us in our spiritual progress.

If this sounds fantastic consider this. Many ancient teachings tell us that this is not the first universe but there have been innumerable ones before this. Even many scientists now believe this is the case.

If this is true then life has an unlimited amount of time to evolve into states of consciousness and power that is far beyond our comprehension. It is completely within the limits of reason to conceive that one of these could pay us a visit and part the Red Sea.

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Question Twelve

Is God a Democrat or Republican?

Does he support my favorite football team?

Throughout history, as humans have taken sides in battles ranging from words to politics to war, both sides have generally maintained that God is on their side. It has mattered not whether that side was obviously wrong from our point of view, whether it was a fight for the right to commit human sacrifice, to own slaves, or to support a tyrant. No matter how outrageous the objectives of the conflict has been, both sides have always maintained that God was with them.

It is understandable that conflicts have resulted in both sides proclaiming to represent the will of God.  After all, what would happen if your rank and file soldiers feared that they were going against God?  How motivated would they be to fight to the death?

Not that much – and that is why leaders have always done everything in their power to convince their supporters that they are doing God’s will.

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln was the first leader in history to openly question this, even a little.  He is reported to have said:

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side.”

This statement opens up another avenue of questioning.  Does God even have a side, or is he too far removed from us to even care?

Some philosophers have maintained that God is not polarized in one direction or another. Many maintain there is no good or evil, that God just lets us have our little belief systems and in the end everything will be just as it should be (whatever that is).

Let us look at what we accept to be obviously true as we seek for greater light here.

Both God and humans are lives possessing intelligence, though obviously God has a lot more of it than you and me.

As we observe intelligent lives in action we see that they always take sides in areas that interest them. Yes, some will maintain that they are above side-taking, or conflict, but when you examine the whole of their decision-making we always discover this is not the case. The person who says he couldn’t care less whether a Republican or Democrat wins will be found to be taking sides in some other area. We may find him rooting for the Seahawks or possibly championing the preservation a species, wanting to save them from extinction.

Life is about taking sides.  If there were not such a thing as decisions placing us on one side, or one path over another, then we would die as a species and disintegrate into oblivion.

“Are you maintaining then that even God takes sides?” asks the skeptic. “Where is your evidence?”

The most striking evidence is that the universe exists. In the beginning God had a choice to make, to create or not to create. Obviously he took the side of creation for we see that we are in the midst of a grand universe of all there is.

Then, after he got the universe to appear he was faced with taking another side.  Should he place intelligent life within it?

Obviously, he took the side of life for reasonably intelligent life forms live on planet Earth.

Then, many who believe the Bible think that God takes the side that favors love, freedom, peace, helping the poor and comforting the afflicted, to name a few.

So as we move into the modern world Lincoln’s question comes into play.  Which side of the various stances is God on so we can join him? Does he support the Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals? Does he like the Mormons, Catholics, Protestants – or maybe he’s a Muslim or Buddhist? Is he a Yankee’s fan or does he prefer the Red Sox?

When you think of it, it seems silly to consider that the God that occupies the entire universe is concerned about our trivial matters.  After all, this entire planet is less than a speck of dust in his realm. But there is a hierarchy of lives and those directly responsible for humanity do pay attention as the eyes and ears of God.

The fact that there is hierarchy in all things is referenced in the Bible.  It is written:

“If thou see the oppressions of the poor, and violent judgments, and justice perverted, in the province, wonder not at this matter:  for he that is high hath another higher, and there are others still higher than these.”   Eccl 5:8 Douay

No matter how high we get in the hierarchy of lives there is another higher until we get to the One Great Life we generically call God.

To understand how God or any greater intelligence that seeks to serve humanity would support our views it would be wise to consider how a father or mother deals with their children.  After all, Jesus called God our Father, so this is a good way to see him.

Let us take sports, for example. If a father has two kids sword fighting each other his main concern is that they both have a good time and do not injure each other.  After all, he loves them both. Who wins the battle is not that important.

There are many things that are of great concern to children that are of little concern to parents.  On the other hand, there are some things that are of great concern to parents such as getting their kids established in a positive belief system, career choice, marriage partners, etc.

Even so, it is with humanity. God’s representatives are concerned about our choices in politics if those choices affect our happiness and our freedom. A parent is concerned about a child’s choices that determine his future state of happiness so obviously God would be similarly concerned about his children.

Does this mean that God, or his representatives are Democrats or Republicans? No, but what higher intelligence will do is support a position from either side where the greatest good is the result.

Political thinking is basically divided into conservatives and liberals.  Here is the basic rule of thumb that will draw support from a being of high intelligence.

He will support those things, which are conservative, or part of the present or past system that has worked well for humanity and is still beneficial to us in the foreseeable future.

Example: Laws against murder, rape, theft have been very useful in the past and the present and it is logical to keep them in place for the foreseeable future.

He will not support those things we may have held on to in the past but may not work well for us in the present or future.

Example: Speed limits as low as 20 miles per hour were seen as essential when the automobile first arrived. Now all realize that type of thinking needs to be discarded.

On the liberal side that wants change, higher intelligence will support change that will benefit the whole

Example: They would support the advance of technology that would make our lives easier.

On the other hand, they would be against change that would restrict freedom, happiness and be to our detriment in the end.

Example: Allowing our leaders to become dictators and micromanaging our lives.

Most would agree with the above examples.  The problem with us humans is that we have strong disagreements in many gray areas and are constantly fighting over who is right.

The greater intelligences look down on us and smile.  To them the truth is as plain and simple as the need to have a law against murder, but to humans as a whole it is complicated.

Perhaps our goal should be to raise our intelligence up a notch so we can see with accurate vision. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where we are all on the same page, and it’s a page leading in a positive direction that will benefit us all?

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Question Thirteen

Is Jesus a Socialist?

There are many who claim that Jesus was a socialist because he advocated that the rich share their money with the poor. In other words, they make the case he was a redistributionist.

One of the problems with labeling Jesus or anyone else a socialist is that the word is used very broadly.

The problem was pointed out in the introduction of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism by Peter Lamb & J. C. Docherty – 2006

“Despite its importance in history since the early nineteenth century, socialism eludes simple definition…  As G. D. H. Cole suggested in the first volume of his monumental History of Socialist Thought (1953), the early socialists opposed the individualism that had come to dominate modern thinking and stressed that human relations had an essential social element that needed to be emphasized. Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was. Variety has always been an outstanding feature of socialism. In his Dictionary of Socialism (1924), Angelo S. Rappoport listed forty definitions of socialism.”

40 different definitions! Wow. Obviously we can call anything to do with sharing or cooperation socialism if we use the right definition.  It looks like we need to fine-tune what we are talking about when we ask if Jesus was a socialist.

Those who say Jesus was a socialist are not merely saying that he admonished sharing the wealth through giving but use him to support their ideology of current day state run social programs which includes.

(1) Taxes to support redistribution

(2) Sharing the wealth through government programs

(3) A large percentage of the money going to administration and bureaucracies to handle the programs.

Theirs is no evidence that Jesus supported redistribution through the force of taxation. He told the people with means to give to the poor of their own free will.  If they refused he did nothing to force them but let them alone.

In the other hand if a wealthy person does not want to pay taxes to support a social program he will not be left alone but someone will come after him and force him to pay.

Let us look at a scriptural argument used to justify the government confiscating wealth and then sharing it.

One of the most popular is the story of the rich young man who came to Jesus and asked him what he needed to do to obtain eternal life. Jesus responded by telling him to keep the Ten Commandments.

To this the man responded:

“All these I have kept … What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Matt 19:16-23 New International Version

“So there you have it,” says the aspiring socialist. “The rich are supposed to give away all their money to the poor so we are just following the teachings of Jesus in advocating sharing or redistribution of wealth.”

I find it amazing that this comparison can be made with a straight face because there is a big difference between what Jesus advocated compared to the socialists and communists of today.

Jesus advocated sharing through free will.  Socialists of today advocate sharing by force. – two very different approaches.

Let us suppose that after the rich man talked to Jesus he went home to discover that a thief had broken into his house and stole all his wealth.  The thief then shared that wealth with his family and friends who were in need.  Do you suppose the rich man then obtained a spot in the kingdom of heaven because his wealth was shared by force with the poor?

Such an idea obviously makes no sense, yet this is what modern day redistributionists want us to believe when they quote this scripture. They think they are helping the rich toward the path of righteousness through taking their wealth by force.

If the taking of wealth by force helps people enter heaven then the churches ought to hire burglars to rob from their rich members. They’d kill two birds with one stone.  They will fill their coffers with cash while assisting those resisting rich on the path to heaven.

Notice that the advice of Jesus to the rich man had nothing to do with force.  Did he tell the man to go to Caesar or the government and donate his money so the welfare programs of Rome could be enhanced?

No.  He did not hint that he should give his wealth to government through either force or free will.  Jesus did not even ask him to give to himself or his group.  He simply told him to give directly to the poor through his own free will.

Then when the man refused, Jesus let him be.  He did not lift a finger to force the man to comply.

This is a difficult scripture for Christians as it is a hard thing for all of us to part with our money. And it is quite possible that Jesus never intended for all the rich to part with their money.  Perhaps this particular individual was corrupted by wealth more than most and parting with it would help his mind focus on spiritual things.

Joseph of Arimathea was a rich friend of Jesus who donated his burial tomb.  He never gave away all his wealth but is considered a saint. Perhaps Joseph’s wealth did not corrupt his soul and he used it toward a good end – making it unnecessary to give it all away at once.

Here is the effect Jesus said we must have upon the disadvantaged if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven:

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Matt 25:35-36 NIV

Again the socialists say, “See. Jesus wants us to share the wealth if we are to get into heaven.”

But again there is no mention of Caesar or force involved.  Those who attain the prize are those who are benevolent through their own free will.

There are numerous scriptures admonishing the rich to share, but not one that indicates forced sharing benefits the soul.

It is interesting to note that the authorities were concerned that Jesus was delinquent in taxes or perhaps avoiding them altogether.  It is written:

…the collectors of the two drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax’?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. (He apparently lied here to protect his master)

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes— from their own sons or from others?”

“From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him.  “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” Matt 25:24- 27 NIV

Here we learn that Jesus didn’t pay this tax because he didn’t think it applied to him but when accosted – to keep himself and Peter out of trouble – he went ahead and made the payment.

Word must have gotten out that Jesus was dragging his feet in paying taxes for the Pharisees approached him about his view on them in the hope of getting him in trouble with the authorities.

 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.”

They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 22:17-21 NIV

He avoided saying no, which would have led to an early arrest.  Instead he told them it appeared the coin belonged to Caesar since it bore his image.  If it belongs to Caesar then let Caesar have it but give to God that which belongs to God.

This confused them enough to leave Jesus alone for a while but word must have gotten out that he wanted the rich to give directly to the poor instead of sharing the wealth through taxes. We find this accusation made at his trial:

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar… Luke 23:2 NIV

It should be crystal clear to any honest thinker that Jesus would not be in harmony with today’s tax and share the wealth socialists.  If something belongs to an individual it was up to him whether he shared with others or not.

Because of inefficiencies of bureaucracy today it often costs a lot of overhead give away to people in need.  The philosophy of Jesus not only operated on free will but was much more efficient. He told the rich to just give their money directly to the poor.  Under the plan of Jesus three dollars out of three went to the poor compared only a fraction.  Which makes the more sense?

Most Christians today follow the example of Jesus and pay their taxes to keep out of trouble, but as far as helping the disadvantaged goes, in most cases, they would rather have the extra money and help of their own free will rather than being forced to share. A thief with a gun can force you to share but that doesn’t even get your big toe into the Kingdom of Heaven.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Benjamin Franklin, “Management of the Poor” (1766)

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Question Fourteen

Does God love harmful people? Should we?

One of the more difficult admonitions of Jesus to incorporate into our lives is this verse:

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Matt 5:44

Then he gives the interesting reasoning behind this:

“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?” Matt 5:46

In other words, he was telling his disciples that everyone loves and blesses those who love them in return. That certainly does not set anyone apart as being more loving than average. If they expected to be judged as better than their enemies they needed to go a step farther and love their enemies.

He ended with a comparison of their duties with that of God:

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matt 5:48

They were expected to do their duty even as God does his.

Even the stricter Old Testament backs this up:

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Leviticus 19:18

Let’s be real here.  Does God really love the bad guys, even murderers, rapists and thugs? And how about us?  Aren’t there a lot of people that are beyond being loved? After all, even Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the temple.  It didn’t look like he was giving the hypocrites much love, now did it?

Again, the key to understanding God is to understand ourselves as we are in his image.

To explain this conundrum ministers have often used this phrase as an explanation.

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

Still… this does not supply a satisfying direction. If someone were to steal $1000 from you it is indeed easy to hate the sin of theft. But who did the stealing?  It was the thief and without him there would be no sin to hate.

There are two things we need to understand.

(1) What loving your enemy really means.

(2) How loving your enemy benefits you.

First, to love your enemy does not mean that you love or accept what he does. It does not mean that you have to be the guy’s best friend. And, finally, it does not mean that you will not be emotionally affected by his actions.

Jesus, who was the best example we have of perfect love, did not accept the actions of his enemies, nor is there one example of him hanging out with them. He was also not beyond being emotionally affected by them. We mentioned his anger at the hypocrites in the temple but Matthew; Chapter 23 tells us that he was emotionally exasperated with the false teachers of his day. He wrapped up is view of them saying:

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matt 23:33.

So, did Jesus really love his enemies that he condemned and who got under his skin?

To answer this accurately we need to first comment on point number two:

“How loving your enemy benefits you.”

It is easy to see how loving your enemy benefits the enemy, but how does it benefit you?

To answer this we must first understand how hating your enemy and feeling a grievance over what he has done causes you harm.

Woody Allen, of all people, gives us a clue as to what that harm is on a physical level. When Diane Keaton in Annie Hall asks him why he doesn’t get angry he replies,  “I don’t get angry, I grow a tumor instead.

Numerous studies have indicated that negative emotions and emotional suppression does indeed contribute to health problems. For instance, a Finnish study reports in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics that people with a diagnosed inability to express emotions, have much higher levels of inflammatory chemicals in their bodies that can lead to disease.

It is a pretty common for average people to observe and comment on the correlation between people’s emotional state and health. Most of us do not need much proof that it happens.

When we allow ourselves to be offended by someone we consider to be an enemy, or even just an irritating person, and allow ourselves to hang on to that offense and nourish it, we not only lower our resistance to disease, but the quality of our state of mind goes way downhill.

In other words, to hate our enemies is the same as choosing to be an unhappy person. How can you be unhappy if you love all people?

I know, I know, that loving some people is difficult but we get a little help from examining the Greek word for love, which is AGAPAŌ.  It is used with in a similar fashion to the modern English word, “love,” but with more inclusiveness.  Thayer’s Greek Lexicon tells us it also means “to be full of goodwill and to exhibit the same.”

We see then that the love Jesus was talking about was not limited to passionately wanting to be with someone because they are wonderful, but also extends to goodwill and friendliness.

When he said to love your enemies he was telling us to drop all harmful grievances and send then goodwill, or wish them well.

When Jesus encountered the moneychangers in the temple he found himself full of offense. If he would have done nothing he would have been in a negative state of mind. He released that negative emotion in a powerful way, but not in a manner that caused harm to his enemies. He still wanted what was best for them and if any would have befriended him afterwards he would have immediately responded with goodwill and friendship.

We must also keep in mind that his reaction to the moneychangers was a rare exception and an example that there is a time and place for all things, as written in Proverbs.

There is another important point to consider. Jesus said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matt 25:40

Most people read this and assume Jesus is talking about the poor, the sick and afflicted, but who is it that we really esteem as “the least” in our eyes? It’s not the poor homeless guy, but it is that person who aggravates you the most. That could be someone who has done you great harm or merely an irritating friend or spouse.

The way you treat this person who is least in your eyes is considered by Jesus the way you would treat him.

The book, A Course in Miracles puts it this way. There is, in most of our lives, one particular individual who infuriates us and seems almost impossible to love. This person is your savior, for the moment you see the Christ in him and send love or goodwill, instead of hate, you have saved yourself from a painful life of harboring grievances.

This person gives you an opportunity to become like the Master and walk in his footsteps.

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Part Two

Questions on The Bible

Question Fifteen

Is the Bible Infallible and Literally True?

A Gallup poll released July, 2011 tells us that 30% of the population of the United States believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. 49% do not take it all literally but see it as inspired. Then there are 17% who see it as merely a book of fables and legends.

The idea that every word of the Bible is literally true and comes from the actual mind of God is not logical and not supported by the Bible itself. In this case the majority of the people have the closest approach to the truth – which is the Bible is an inspired book and should be read and interpreted with good judgment.

Those who see the Bible as infallible and literally true will often quote this verse:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” II Peter 1:20-21

The idea often taken from this is the reader should not use his mind and attempt to figure out the meaning of scripture but just read and follow it literally.

The problem with this idea is we get hundreds of different interpretations of the Bible from those who take this approach. Obviously, reading the Bible literally doesn’t lead to consensus and judgment still must be used.

But… Is the scripture really telling us to not use our own minds to interpret scripture?

Of course not; the writer is merely telling us that we cannot make the scripture say whatever we want it to but should go by what it actually says. If the meaning is obscure then, of course, we must use our best judgment.

Here is another scripture quoted by literalists:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” II Tim 3:16-17

The idea here is since the scriptures can make the man of God “perfect” they are also perfect and infallible.  On top of this they see God as perfect so anything he inspires would be perfect also.

The word “perfect” here is from the Greek ARTIOS.  This is the only time in the entire Bible this word is used and doesn’t mean flawless but more like “fitted” or “complete.” Most modern versions do not use the word “perfect.”

Here is a better translation from the New International Version:

“So that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Outside of the Ten Commandments, there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that the scriptures were written by the finger of God or that they are infallible.  A work that is inspired still has to be put into words by a fallible human and then interpreted by another fallible human.

Most of the Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and the original manuscripts are long lost. Scribes made many handwritten copies over the centuries and changes have been made. When translated into English judgments had to be made and some of them were wrong.  The King James is a beautiful translation that has been used for centuries but it has many glaring mistakes in translation.  That is one reason why so many modern versions have appeared. No one seems satisfied that there is a perfect translation of the Bible available.

Logic therefore tells us that the Bible cannot be interpreted literally, or as infallible, for two reasons:

(1) Even if God himself came down and wrote the  text with his own hand we still have a problem. We do not have the original text.

(2) No translation is flawless.

There are numerous examples of where believers get into trouble by taking the Bible too literally. For instance, in the first book of Genesis we are told that on the third day God created the earth with all it’s vegetation, but then on the fourth day he created the sun, moon and stars. This is of course an impossibility as the creation of the sun had to precede the creation of vegetation.

Then the Bible has a few very odd admonitions that are problematic to take literally. Here’s just one:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience.” I Cor 14:34

Fortunately most churches, even the ones who say they literally believe, ignore this and other teachings that are obviously flawed.

Another problem with inerrancy, even if one believes an inspired work to be flawless, is this question:  Which books are inspired?

This was a question that puzzled church fathers for the first 500 years of Christianity and, even after the dust settled, the Catholics wound up with books in their Bible that are missing from the Protestant one.

There are 28 Books of scripture mentioned by Biblical writers that are missing. Most of these are lost but several are extant.

In addition to this there were numerous books of scripture used by the early Christians that didn’t make it in the Bible. One of these is the Book of Enoch, which was accepted by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian and actually quoted in the New Testament as follows:

“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,  To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Jude 1:14-15

This quote is very close to one from the first chapter of the Book of Enoch which has surfaced in our day and readily available on the internet.

So, a major problem we have in taking the Bible literally is this consideration:  The canon of scripture has varied over the centuries and popular opinion has decided which books were to be included. Is popular opinion reliable enough so we can be sure all the books included today are inspired?  And did we leave out some books which were inspired?

Neither the Bible, or God or any prophet has given a solid answer on this so we are left to our own judgment to come up with the answer. We must remember that when the ancients talked about the scriptures they weren’t talking about the Bible but were referring to a handful of scrolls at their disposal.

A final point to consider is this. If truth is written as clear as word can be it is still dangerous to take a literal approach. Even the simple words of a plain spoken person like Jesus can be interpreted several ways by those who take them literally and wars have been fought over who was correct.

Conclusion: The Bible is not infallible because our language is not infallible and our ability to interpret language is not infallible. Even if one considers the Bible to be inspired throughout one must still use his own mind.  If something doesn’t sound right, question it, and see what does register as correct to your own soul. “To thine own self be true.”

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Question Sixteen

Does the Bible really say the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

The first item to understand when asking this question is this:  Where does this idea come from?  Most people have heard this figure from various believers but many are unaware of how it was derived.

The first step was to figure the time period between now and the birth of Christ, which is a little over 2000 years. In addition to this, Bible students have studied the genealogy of Bible names from Christ back to the time of Adam.  The Bible gives enough lifespans of individual to enable students to calculate that Adam began mortal life just over 4000 years before Christ. The 2000 years to Christ plus the 4000 years to Adam equals 6000 years.

So far so good as far as most Bible students are concerned. However, the time lapse from the beginning of creation to the beginning of Adam’s life is problematic.

Many literalists say that before Adam all creation took place in just six 24-hour periods so the earth and the universe itself is only around 6000 years old.

Others will say that perhaps Adam’s life began when he was expelled from the Garden of Eden and became mortal. Maybe he lived a couple thousand years in the Garden that need to be added to the age of creation.

Still others quote Peter who said that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. (II Peter 3:8) Therefore, they reason that the creation days could have been a thousand years apiece rather than 24 hours.

Taking these things into consideration most literal believers think creation began 6-12,000 years ago.

On the surface, this seems to be what the Bible is saying, but if so it is certainly at odds with science and observed fact. For instance, the Hubble telescope has observed galaxies so far away that their light has taken 13 billion years to reach us. It is really stretching reality to say that such far away light has reached us in less than 10,000 years. Believers say that the speed of light was much faster at creation but the evidence doesn’t support this idea.

Let us see if the Bible really supports such a conflict with science.

The English translation, “day”  comes from the Hebrew word YOWM. This doesn’t necessarily mean a 24-hour day but can also be translated as “time” implying an unspecified period of time.

This makes sense since the first three days of creation took place before the sun was created.  Therefore the first three days could not have been days as we see them in our present.

Then the scripture makes this interesting use of “day.”

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen 2:17

Adam lived over 900 years after he ate the fruit so he obviously didn’t die within a 24-hour day from that event. But if we use the more generic Hebrew meaning which is “a period of time” for the meaning of YOWM, or “day,” then it makes sense.

So, the Bible tells us that God’s period of creation was six periods of time.  It doesn’t say how long those times were.

The first couple verses of Genesis give us extra material to ponder:

 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”  Gen 1:1-2.

Generally, these two verses are read as if they are taking place in the same time sequence, but such is not the case.  Verse one describes an event that took place billions of years ago and verse two describes a scene that has existed periodically on the earth over millions of years, the most recent of which took place prior to the beginning of our present civilization.

In examining this scripture one may wonder how it is that the earth can be “without form and void” after it is created.  It could not even be considered a planet if it was truly without form and void.  Fortunately, to the justification of the original author, this is a grave mistranslation.

The words “without form” are translated from the Hebrew TOHUW which literally means “to lie waste” or implies a “desolation”, or “destruction”.

This sheds an entirely different light on the subject and Isaiah gives evidence that there was a time lapse between verses one and two;  “He (God) created it (the earth) NOT in VAIN (“Vain” comes from the same Hebrew word TOHUW)  but formed it to be inhabited.”  Isa 45:18.  Since the earth was not created in a state of TOHUW or destruction, but was formed to receive inhabitants then the period of destruction described in verse two had to take place after a significant time lapse.

The Bible thus tells us in the first verse that God created all there is but gives no time reference when that happened.  It could have began 13.8 billion years ago as science teaches.

But then in verse two we are told that the earth was laid waste indicating that a great destruction occurred.

Was the six days of creation merely representative of six time periods where God was working to restore the earth to a habitable state?

Was the Adam and Eve of six thousand years ago merely a new beginning, the start of rebuilding a civilization that was lost? Many ancient records and teachings support this idea and amazingly, so does the Bible.

 

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Question Eighteen

Was There an Adam and Eve?

 

Essentially, when we are asking if there was an Adam and Eve we are asking if there was a couple who were the first among us as self conscious humans, distinguished from animals – who are not self conscious and capable of logical thinking.

The answer is there had to be the first of every species, including the human race. Undoubtedly there was a male and female that was the first of our species. In other words, there was without question an Adam and Eve if we merely define them as the first among us.

The question on the minds of many extends beyond this.  They want to know if there was an Adam and Eve as described in the Bible. Here’s the answer.

Humans have been on the earth, not for 6000 years, but for millions of years and during this extensive time period there have been numerous cataclysms, new beginnings and racial changes. Indeed, there was a first Adam and Eve about 18 million years ago, but since that time there have been many disruptive events and new beginnings. Each new beginning had a new Adam and Eve.  The last time this happened was about 6000 years ago as related in the Bible.

The Genesis story was written to represent all the Adams and Eves in the history of the planet as closely as possible, but was not meant to be exact as in each new beginning humans have had has been a different story.

The last Adam and Eve, which was far from the first, appeared on the earth about 6000 years ago and the history in the Bible is basically an account from that time period onward. There have been numerous lost civilizations whose history is not mentioned in the Bible but many legends of them still persist in Hindu scriptures and other writings and traditions.

 

Question Nineteen

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

In Genesis, chapter four we read;

“And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”

The orthodox explanation is that Cain married his sister or niece. This would have to be the case if Adam and Eve were the only humans on the planet at that time but this does not seem to be the case.

The Bible indicates that Cain was the firstborn and Abel the Second.  We are given the impression that Cain killed Able when they were young men and then shortly after Abel’s death it is written:

“And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” Gen 4:25

The Bible tells us that Adam fathered “Sons and daughters” after Seth but none others are mentioned before that time.

But here is an interesting point and that is right after killing Abel and being cast out Cain went to the land of Nod got married, had a child and built a city.

How did he get married and build a city in an outcast land separate from Eden where Adam, Eve and their family lived?  There would have had to have been people available outside of Adam’s children for that to have happened.

Yes, there indeed lived other humans outside of Eden. After a time of great destruction most of the human race was killed and Adam and Eve in Eden represented a new beginning of a new race of humans to be cultivated by the guides of the race toward a higher consciousness.

There were numerous other survivors reduced to primitive living outside of Eden and this is where Cain found his wife.  Cain gathered these survivors and built a city.

 

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Question Twenty

Is the Bible Anti-Science?

Many nonbelievers and skeptics make fun of believers as well as the Bible as being anti science, anti reason and thinking that is contrary to common sense. The basic idea is that anyone who gives the wisdom of the Bible any weight belongs with the flat earthers of the Dark ages.

And speaking of the flat earth, perhaps that is where we should start because one of the main accusations against the Holy Writ is:

“The Bible teaches the earth is flat, covered by a solid dome called the firmament.”

And why do skeptics think this?

They quote this scripture from the King James version:

“And he shall … gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” Isaiah 11:12

From this they assume the Bible teaches the earth is a flat piece of ground with four sharp corners at each end.

The first point to make is that this phrase is still in use today by people who know the earth is round.  It is used as a figure of speech and not intended to state the earth has four actual corners.

On top of this the word “corners” is a mistranslation from the Hebrew KANAPH. This is more accurately translated as “extremity, farthest reaches or border.” In this context the prophet was merely saying that Judah will be gathered from the farthest places they have been scattered from all directions.  Nothing about the shape of the earth is indicated here.

Critics say the Bible teaches the earth is covered by a great solid dome which it calls the firmament and the stars are tiny lights in it.

Many ancient peoples thought the earth was flat and was encircled by a dome.  Some ancient books that didn’t make it into the Bible indicate the writers had some odd beliefs like these but the Bible itself does not.

Obviously the firmament mentioned in the Bible was not a solid dome.  We are told that God created the birds that “fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” (Gen 1:20) Obviously the birds do not fly in a solid dome, but the atmosphere which is part of the firmament.

The dome idea is reinforced by this scripture from the King James:

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” Isa 40:22

They say “the circle of the earth” is the dome but to many it sounds like a description of the rounded shape of the earth.  Job reinforces this:

“He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness.” Job 26:10 New king James.

Sounds to me like the ancient prophets saw the circular form of the earth on the horizon of the waters and were commenting on it.

The critic notes that the Bible says God created the Moon as a “lesser light.” They say that God didn’t seem to know that the moon doesn’t have a light of its own but reflects it from the sun.

This is a weak argument. Even today most people talk about the light of the moon, but that doesn’t mean they are saying it creates its own light.

Contrary to popular belief the Bible supports many scientific beliefs that have only been proven in recent times.

Here are a few.

(1) The Expanding universe. This was discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble but the Bible made references to it thousands of years ago.

We just quoted Isaiah saying that God “stretched out the heavens.” The Bible says this several times.  Here is another:

“I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens and caused all their host to shine…”  Isaiah 45:12,

Astronomers are now telling is that the universe is “stretching” outward like a balloon.

(2) The earth is suspended in the vacuum of space, or virtual nothingness.

Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

(3) Instead of being the center of the universe the Bible teaches the earth is governed by the heavens.

“Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?” Job 38:33 New American Standard

(4) Matter and form were created from the invisible:

“…that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Heb 11:3 New American Standard

Science now teaches that the universe came from a singularity that had no visibility.

(5) The universe will have an end.

Einstein has recently been proven wrong about the steady state eternal universe, but the Bible, thousands of years ago, told us that the universe is not eternal.  It says:

“Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.” Psalms 102:25-26 New American Standard

The Bible seems to tell us here that when the universe dies it will be replaced by another.

(6) The air around us has weight.

Ancient man thought that the air and wind didn’t weigh anything but the Bible says:

“When He imparted weight to the wind and meted out the waters by measure.” Job 28:25 New American Standard

(7) Water on the earth and sea is recycled into rain.

“He draws up the water vapor and then distills it into rain.” Job 36:27 New Living Translation

“…who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land– the LORD is his name.” Amos 9:6, New International Version

None of the Bibles are perfect in their wording as the wording within it was created by fallible humans, not attempting to be scientific, but to present spiritual truths.  Even so, the Bible is amazingly accurate for a book containing writings that are thousands of years old.

 

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE