Eternal Generation of the Son

There are many doctrines in the Old and New Testament scriptures. There are doctrines which are mentioned in the scriptures, but which were not part of the teaching of the apostles. One example of this is the reference (I Corinthians 15:29) by the apostle Paul to mistaken practice of some who were baptized for the dead. Some of these doctrines span from a virtual to an actual practice.

Sometimes, as for example in the case of sacrifice, the actual practice involves animal sacrifice while the virtual sacrifice, though by no means less real, of the disciple of Jesus is  to surrender his or her life totally to the Lord Jesus who is their savior. Another example of a doctrine is baptism. Whether one’s examination of the doctrine of baptism began with the baptism of Naaman, the Syrian, seven times in the Jordan River or the baptism of John, the baptism of Jesus himself, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, baptism for forgiveness of sins all of these, despite their differences, have one simple point in common: obedience. One last example is the doctrine concerning the coming of the Lord. It is neither more nor less important for the disciple in terms of the understanding of how he is to submit in obedience to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

These are merely three examples of sacrifice, baptism and the coming of the Lord, with the exclusion of the false doctrine of baptism for the dead, illustrate doctrines which span from the virtual to the actual practice and from the Old Testament to the New Testament scriptures. These doctrines and many others are found in the scriptures. Some with more detail than others. All are capable of being misunderstood and wittingly or unwittingly being misunderstood and which can subsequently result in a false or erroneous doctrine being taught.

eternal generation of the Son

The doctrine, or so-called doctrine, of eternal generation of the Son is not in the any of the above categories. Here is an excellent article on this doctrine. [1] [2] [3] [4] I encourage you to read it. There is an abundance of articles available. They reflect the same fundamentals of this doctrine and cite and quote most of the same sources. Basically, the doctrine purports to uphold the eternal generation of the Son. Clearly, the eternal aspect of this generation is to assert the truth of the existence of the Son, that is, Jesus before he came into the world and before the existence of the world.

None of this constitutes a doctrinal problem or even a heresy. The doctrine of eternal generation of the Son is not necessarily a false doctrine. Rather, it is a pointless and needless doctrine. It is an academic exercise begotten by men. Yet, there is a question which emerges and it is one which is untouched and circumvented by those whose scholarly works on this doctrine abound. The question and answer have historically unnerved the saints in Christ as well as scholars and theologians.

Arius

Arius (c. AD 256–336) was opposed to the doctrine of the apostles as revealed in the scriptures concerning the deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Specifically, Arius was opposed to the doctrine which asserts Jesus as being deity. Subsequently, he was labeled as a heretic following the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Although much of what we know of what Arius taught is limited to secondary sources which referred to his teachings it is not difficult to reason and trace back a fundamental tenet of his erroneous teaching. Arius denied the deity and pre-existence of Jesus; the latter of which has much consumed scholars and theologians with little clarification and less edification for the saints in Christ.

John, Elijah and pre-existence

Actually, God in his infinite wisdom provided for our learning a much overlooked, clear, hands-on experience and testimony of pre-existence. The experience was of John the baptist. The testimony was from Jesus himself when he declared that John was Elijah, the prophet. Elijah had preexisted centuries prior to the birth and appearance of John. This was not a reincarnation. Elijah did not die. He was taken up into the heavens before of eyes of his disciple Elisha. It is a simple primer lesson in pre-existence, not eternal existence or eternal pre-existence of Elijah as John. Therefore, it seems more than a mere peculiarity that immediately following the apostle John’s Prologue in chapter one on the eternal, pre-existent Word, the logos, that John the baptist appears along with the speculative, contemplative question from the priests and Levites who were sent to him: are you Elijah?

It is not difficult to surmise the likely and probable principal behind Arius’ denial of Jesus. Today the teaching of Arius is echoed by the disciples, namely, the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims and so-called unitarians. Here is the seemingly all-disarming question, often with a snicker, to the claim of the believer that Jesus is God: Are you saying that God died? The travesty here is the lack of knowledge and confidence by many disciples. They are not alone. Scholars and theologians are right there among them. This is the question which ancient and modern scholars and theologians circumvent. The so-called scholarly and wordy doctrine of eternal generation of the Son is a circumvention of that question. Whether or not that doctrine itself generated it the fact is that the shields itself behind these two familiar claims made by Christians, namely, the claim of the scriptures that Jesus is fully God and the extra-biblical man-made claim that Jesus is fully man.

Jesus, as a man, fully man

I readily understand, believe and teach that Jesus is fully God. I am also aware of the references by Jesus to himself as a man. (John 8:40) I am also aware of the apostle Paul’s reference to Jesus as a man. (I Timothy 2:5) Do these references represent teaching points about a human Jesus or do they represent both Jesus and Paul willingness to engage with people on their common knowledge and perception that Jesus was just another human being? Jesus did not cater to the Muslim and other so-called unitarians inexorable cry so memorably uttered by Philip: Just show us the Father. Actually, their cry is more like: Just tell us you are God. Yet, how many times did Jesus find himself declaring over and over even at his mock trial the things which he had said openly and multiple times. Yet, they did believe or accept it and if they did believe it because they heard it and saw with their own eyes (" But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done." John 11:46) they still chose to reject the truth.

The fact that they did not understand his words or that they rejected his words was not reason for Jesus or Paul to change their message. It is Paul who makes the distinct clarification concerning Jesus in his letter to the Philippians. (2:7, 8) Jesus, Paul asserts, took on the form of a servant, made in the likeness of man and being found in appearance as a man all of which are significant points that are blithely overlooked too often. A form, likeness and appearance of a man does not constitute a man. The external, outward appearance of Jesus was that of a man, although he was not a man. Why then would Paul refer to Jesus as a man? In Ephesus, where Timothy was located and where Paul had ministered for two years the man Jesus as mediator and savior stood in stark contrast to the female cult of Artemis (Acts 19) who throughout Asia was touted as the savior of women through childbirth. Paul proclaimed Jesus, unlike Artemis who touted herself as savior of women, as being the savior, not just of women or of men, but of all mankind. So, why did Christians and the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son resort to the expression of Jesus as “fully man” which no more appears in the scriptures than the doctrine which purports to uphold his eternal existence? Whether or not the expression of "fully man" was co-generated along with the doctrine or it emerged as a necessary appendage it is a vital part of the claims of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.

God cannot die

The reason for the dependence on the expression of Jesus as being "fully man" is that despite all of the Christian’s’ claims that death is not the end the truth is that when it comes to Jesus, that is, God, they can not fathom this blunt, inexorable and undeniable and glorious truth: God died. Of course, this is the fodder of Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and so-called unitarians prompts this retort from them: God cannot die. Says who? Hence, the Sunday morning Bible study weak assertion that it was “the human part of Jesus that died.” However, no matter how much they might sincerely and intellectually deny this about death the truth is that just as equally sincere and emotionally they live in the fear of death. Yet, what greater display of his sovereignty and power could God demonstrate than to, not merely restore life to a human (like numerous prophets) being like Lazarus, but that he himself, the Creator, Giver and Sustainer of life should lay down his own life and after three days take up his life again? This is the declaration of the writer in Hebrews 2:14, 15. God died. God did not remain dead. Amen! Hallelujah!

You have likely heard the question. Who was in control of the universe if God died? This question neglects another assertion and doctrine parroted, even if not understood by Christians, of God as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. What is three days in the grave but less than the twinkling of an eye for a God who is outside of time and space?

conclusion

There are many doctrines in the Bible for us to understand and teach. They are relevant and necessary, some unto the salvation of the believer, others unto the edification of the believer. This doctrines are capable of being misunderstood. If the apostle Paul himself was sometimes misunderstood on his teaching why would we expect any differently for ourselves? The so-called doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is neither of these because it is as pointless as it is needless.

This is not to say it is a false doctrine. This is not to label or malign those who write and expend their time on it as heretics. It is to say that there is a reason why the doctrine was begotten by men. It circumvents, even by its seemingly passing, casual reference to Jesus as “fully God” and “fully man” the age old fear of death which needlessly and pointlessly still haunts some saints. The doctrine of eternal generation of the Son, while not false, does nothing to build up the knowledge and confidence of the saints concerning the futile power of death in the hands of God. Jesus came into the world and asserted that death, that is, the ruler of this world (John 14:30) had no power over him and that he would lay down his life and take it up again.

Read More

Who Died?

professions of faith

Generally speaking, Christians profess to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. This is an ancient profession of faith from as far back as the first century. But, it is a profession which seems to take on a low-grade form of acquiescence get-around to making a bold assertion that Jesus is God. This latter profession of the deity of Jesus is not only resisted and opposed by self-described Unitarians, but it also constitutes a conception of deity as both Son and God which is a source of much confusion and difficulty for the saints in Christ to believe much less to proclaim with confidence. Those who lead, teach and preach and others to whom the saints look to or hope to gain some insight and understanding reveal that they are no less confused and uncertain. The weak disclaimer that this subject is a mystery and can not to be understood may be a fitting response from an agnostic like Bart Ehrman, but not what the saints in Christ ought to expect from those who teach the word of God.

How is it that Christians have come to such a bog in their faith concerning God and man with respect to Jesus?

Read More

Crucifixion: Blunt Heart Trauma

Trauma has a way of producing change, even a radical transformation, in the lives of those who experience it. Trauma may be physical, emotional as well as literal, virtual, or some would say; spiritual. This is true of the transition which a person undergoes from being one who does not believe in Jesus to who believes and puts his or her trust in Jesus. It is a blunt trauma of the heart to which the believer submits knowingly, gladly, resolutely, and sometimes, fearfully. Here is something to ponder: How then do some saints emerge from blunt heart trauma unchanged much less transformed?

no euphemisms

Crucifixion is a trauma. There are no euphemisms for it. There is nothing nice, pretty, presentable or acceptable about crucifixion. Despite the efforts of some saints to qualify and diminish the graphic imagery of crucifixion, especially for young children when they surprise their parents, by referring to it as a spiritual crucifixion or spiritual death it is no less a frightening specter than physical death.

Here are some of those efforts as they are reflected in the expressions which have come to displace such an unsightly thing as crucifixion and to be warmly embraced:  accept Jesus, ask Jesus to come into your heart, get saved, let us pray, get baptized, or a relationship with Jesus.

Crucifixion is what Jesus experienced literally. Trauma is what the believer who comes to follow after Jesus experiences when he takes up his cross; a reference to crucifixion which Jesus never hid or downplayed. He made it quite clear.

When a person emerges from a physical trauma there is a period of time before he/she can think and speak clearly and coherently. This may be even more so if there was therapy or surgery following a person’s emotional or physical trauma. It may take a long time and in some instances they never fully recover; they learn to carry on with their lives and make adjustments in their lives.

You say what? Does Jesus call the believer to experience a trauma? Well, as much as he does call the believer to be crucified Jesus also left it for the believer to ponder and make the call for himself or herself as to whether or not he would take up his cross and follow after Jesus. Blunt heart trauma is serious business. It is not for the weak-hearted. This is the simple, hard and clear test to which Jesus calls those who love him BEFORE they decide to follow after him. Their love is greater either towards Jesus or towards their own lives and if the latter, Jesus said, they cannot be his disciple.

This is how the apostle Paul related his life experience as a crucified man:

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Galatians 2:20)

no accident

What seems phenomenal and baffling about the trauma of crucifixion to the nonbeliever is that it is not an accident. Furthermore, it does not cause damage. It is incurred by the believer joyfully as his/her ultimate response of love with heart, mind, soul and strength towards God. Crucifixion is of oneself. It is not something done to anyone. It is not taking anyone’s life, but laying down one’s own life in obedience to Jesus as Lord and Savior when we discover the compelling power of the love and grace of God towards sinners.

The after effects of trauma of the heart, mind, or brain, while not necessarily damaging, can result in vast, radical changes especially if it involves the loss of memory. Sometimes memory may be recovered. Sometimes one can articulate something they were capable of doing before the trauma and that helps their recovery. Other times they may do things as they did them before they experienced the trauma, but have no memory or realization that what they are doing is exactly as they did it in the past.

an anecdote

What does all this talk about the trauma of crucifixion have to do or say to the saints in Christ? First, a brief anecdote. I remember a man who heard, learned and understood the gospel message. He declared his decision to be immersed for the forgiveness of his sins. I was struck by what I heard from him. I also failed to discern. It was something which I had heard before, but I still missed it. He would not stop his talk about all that he was going to do for the cause of Jesus and taking the gospel message to his friends and family. Sounds impressive doesn’t it. Sounds promising doesn’t it. Sounds exciting doesn’t it.

Yet what may sound and seem good to our undiscerning ears is that we are listening to is a dead making plans. Dead men do not make breakfast plans. What awaits the believers is the dawn of a not only a new day, but a new life. A new in which all things are new. A new day in which whatever noble or selfish plans, thoughts and memory of those things are simply not part of the new day. This is the effect of blunt heart trauma.

no trauma

How is then, that men and women, with no less seemingly good and noble intentions in Christ, go into the waters of their rebirth and emerge with the same mindset, same mentality, completed untouched, hardly changed and the transformation of blunt heart trauma of crucifixion being seriously questionable?

the walking dead

Is it any wonder why some saints will hold tenaciously to particular notions from their past? They mistakenly equate the teaching of scripture which they may have never read or never understood with what they had always heard. Dead men who have been born anew living with their notions and memory from the past? They walk in and among the assembly of the living as but as if they never experienced the trauma of crucifixion clutching in their hand the plans with which they went into their watery grave.

This is what he said to those in the church at Corinth whose confident boast was that they had known Jesus in the flesh during life and ministry:

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all,therefore all died;

15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. (II Corinthians 5:16)

Boasting has a way of displacing the love of Christ which controls us.

This absence of transformation of heart, mind, soul and strength was evident for Jesus in what he saw in the Sadducees, Pharisees and scribes who questioned him with their scenarios involving dead men and one woman. (Mark 12) The resurrection, in which the Sadducees did not believe, was at the heart of their question. The response by Jesus to them is one of my favorites because of the way he prefaces and ends (underlined) his response.

Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?

25 "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

26"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob '?

27 "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken."

conclusion

There are two things in the Mark 12 passage which are commonly heard from the walking dead who avoid and resist the blunt heart trauma of crucifixion of the heart, mind, soul and strength. It is that, like the Sadducees, they are much better at conjuring up scenarios in defense of their views. These are views which they held quite tenaciously before coming to Jesus rather than the teaching of the scriptures. This is not surprising. They do not understand the scriptures or the power of God, hence, they are greatly mistaken. This lack of understanding and mistaken characteristic of them is true and evident in a multitude of matters of doctrine and faith as concerns the building up of the saints and the glory of Jesus as our Lord and Savior of the body of believers. Do not expect to see or be refreshed by rivers of water flowing from their innermost being.

Second, like the scribe in verse 24 and 38, they parrot what is safe in the presence of men while thinking, like the scribe, to impress Jesus. True enough, there was nothing wrong in what the scribe parroted back to Jesus (Jesus saw that he answered him, intelligently) just like brothers and sisters who parrot/post a passage but have no more to contribute towards the understanding and edification of the saints than a nonbeliever.

The scribe is the example of a blunt heart trauma-free disciple in heart, mind, soul and strength. Granted the scribe was living in the time before the crucifixion of Jesus, but like blunt heart trauma-free disciples today he too played it safe and stuck to parroting his script.

This is not to say one has a duty to accompany every posting of scripture in social media with an in-depth or lengthy explanation and discussion. It is to say that the saints, as I am glad to see often happens in these Facebook boards, ought not hold back from confronting and challenge those who either care not to edify and enlighten the saints or they are interested merely in their appearance before men. The do not bear or show evidence of the blunt heart trauma of crucifixion.  Paul was able to say,  From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus. (Galatians 6:17)

Do not be afraid. The transformation in love towards our heavenly Father of our heart, mind, soul and strength is the call of Jesus for those who walk among the living in the Spirit and fellowship of the saints in Christ.

Read More

Image and Power

It is hard to look anywhere and not see it. It is seen from both the rich and the poor as well as from the school dropout and school graduate. It is a flexing, an exhibition, a taunting, a display, a flaunting. It may be through speech, actions or behavior. The sole purpose is to impress and shock through displays of image and power. It may be loud. It may be crass. It may be subtle. It may be manipulative. It may be forceful. It may be humorous. It may be violent. Image and power may even be, in this cyber age, virtual.

These two, image and power, as seen by the witting and the unwitting, the impressed and the shocked are not necessarily true, typically. These are not necessarily actual or substantive. These, whether or not it is intended, merely convey the desired effect on others what is the individual's desire and notion of image and power. These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and even though I have presented these two separate from each other they are very much intertwined. If these appear as negatively cast in this article it is not because image and power are wrong or evil. Rather, it is because this is the reality of what has become corrupt. These facades of image and power are represented and assumed as though these were real.

the image of attire and body

What are some ways by which image is conveyed? Here are two of those ways. The image of abundance, of affluence or simply having a little more than just barely enough on which to live, may be displayed through the clothes one wears. It may be the expensive brand which speaks for itself or how the clothes are worn. Clothes may be worn to reveal, (such as underwear; more on that later) to form-fit the body so as to accent the physical shape or to reveal as much flesh as the wearer wishes to expose and to elicit arrest for indecency. Image, such as through clothes, is not necessarily what one wears, but how one wears what he or she wears.

The image of rebellion such as against parents or society may be conveyed, for example, through leather, metal spikes, chains, tattoos and more. However, rebellion can and is conveyed just as well through nothing more than an attitude, speech and behavior. Additions to one's attire such as these are intended to project the desired image of being bad, a hard case, a bad-ass, or the neutral non-commitment of indifference and apathy. After all, what could be cooler in the eyes of the witting and unwitting than to project the image that, I don't care? Isn't this the shallow, empty image message of sagging pants? The exposing of one's underwear is to simultaneously reveal to the witting and unwitting the individual's great, abysmal facade and farce of an image of power. So, unlike affluence and abundance, or their seeming presence in the person's life, the image of rebellion, by its very nature, is not likely to be closely associated with clothes as much as it is behavior.

the need for image and image change

America is a consumer-driven society. Don't like your image? We'll find one for you. We'll get you one. We'll make one for you. It is not in society's interest, and quite understandably, it is not the business of society, to redirect the new-image shopper back to square one. So, why do you need an image?

What if image didn't involve succumbing to peer pressure, seasonal, annual refurbishing or reinvention? How about if it were detached, removed and free of all association with gender and the clothes you wear? Does this sound like a ridiculous and preposterous notion in our consumer-driven society? Yet, image as a reality and a discussion point appears in the dialog of the Bible in the book of Genesis, that is, the book of beginnings. It is there that after the narrative relates how God created man it also notes that God created man, that is, mankind, man and woman, and MADE them in the image of God.

This image of God in the man and woman had nothing to do with gender.

The reason it had nothing to do with gender is because whatever the image of God might be, for the moment and for later discussion, it is definitely not related to the physical features which define the male and female body. In other words, any view of the image of God which fails to account for the differences in the human male and female body is less than true to the image of God. What does this say about image?

It says that image is as embedded and is as permanent and non-removable as is our human DNA code.

The deception of image to which Eve succumbed unwittingly was not unlike women, and men, today. She desired what was 1) pleasant to the eyes (it looked good), 2) it was good to eat (it was filling), and 3) it would make her wise, or proud (something to boast about).

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6, also I John 2:16)

The reason why anyone would feel they do not have an image, that they need an image or that they need to upgrade their image like something from the American tech mall is because they either 1) never knew they were born with an image, 2) they forgot they were born with an image, or 3) they rejected the truth of the image with which they were born. Knowledge nor acknowledgment of God is not a prerequisite for anyone to ponder this reality.

The impudence of blatant consumerism! The business of image has gone, in the vernacular of technology, from the hardware upgrades of attire to the software alterations of gender image in complete oblivion as to the ramifications. The desire for mistaken notions of image by women and men today is no different than Eve's complete oblivion to the ramifications of her disobedience. The embrace and allowable peddling of image by therapists and surgeons is akin to accepting without question the salesman's pitch for a new computer when a simple removal of temporary files would have improved speed and performance.

made in the image of God

What is it about the image of God which can not be found, will not be found and can not be made in the American tech mall? How could a believer who once knew the image of God forget it? Why would he or she reject the image of God? The salient point of the human response to these questions is as understandable as it is undeniable. For example, a Ford does not cease to be a Ford with a new paint job. swapping an icon or by calling it a Chevrolet. These things do not change the fact that it is a Ford which has been altered to look like a Chevrolet. It would not take much for even a casual observer to discern that despite all efforts and appearances the car is, in fact, a Ford. Amazingly enough, what holds true of a metal and plastic car holds equally true of a flesh and bones human being.

It is not as though altering one's image hurts anyone else, as is so often heard, but what is it and how is it then, that image can be obscured and overlooked in favor of an American mall-purchased image? How is it that the image of God, that is, love, in which God made the man and the woman and which is certainly not available or found in the shopping mall, has come to be obscured and overlooked? Simply but truthfully stated it is a matter of looking of acceptance and love in all the wrong places.

This love is not to be mistaken for being loving which God is that, too. What the scriptures reveal is that it was the will and purpose of God to make the man and woman with this same love. It was his will to imbue the man and the woman with his love. It was this love which it pleased God to see in the physical love affection between the man and woman; the husband and wife. It is the love of God and towards God which becomes a far greater reality between the man and the woman when they reclaim the image of God for themselves and towards all mankind through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Love, not gender, is the image of God. Love is divine and not natural.

Love is greater than what is natural, that is, what is earthly. Love is not easy because it is not the mere appearance of image or a facade. It is, on the other hand, easier to alter and call something love than to submit to love itself. Love is two different persons, two different personalities, two different genders working diligently  over a lifetime together to go past their differences and to make and display the love and unity that is the God who is one. This is the mystery and marvel; that two different human beings strive to be one like God and with God. It is the mystery and marvel seen in the human interaction and relationship of marriage. The failure and shortfall of image is that it is a facade of what has been altered. There is no glory in deceiving or being deceived by an image of what is false. There is no lasting joy in facades.

the will of power and death

The flesh, Jesus said, is weak. The reason the flesh appears to exert its power over the spirit is not because the flesh is strong. It is not because the spirit is weak. It is because the spirit calls and waits for those who hear its call to come in obedience and submission without manipulation, compulsion or coercion. This is not the way of the flesh.

Power is, even more so than image, flexed and flaunted to create the desired effect; that is, to impress and shock the witting and unwitting. It is a visual, carnal spectacle. The visual nature of power and how it reveals itself in the flesh exposes, for example, the hunger of bankers, performers, athletes and others for power. The carnal desire for power is not unlike the carnal desire for image: Eve desired what was 1) pleasant to the eyes (it looked good), 2) good to eat (it was filling), and 3) would make her wise, or proud (something to boast about).

Carnal, as in, carnival. Originally, carnival, literally, a farewell to meat, was the celebration and joy of meat and drink before the beginning of the days of fasting from meat and drink. Carnal is used in the scriptures in the representative, or symbolic sense, for what is opposed to the spirit, the Holy Spirit or a mind set on the things of this world.

This power is no more real or substantive than the image much desired and pursued by some. It is loud. It is the brash, crass, crude, rude, vulgar and a bravado of defiance in the song playing, in the workplace exchange, and even as is often displayed, between the bond of husband and wife. Children in such families are often nothing more than insignificant collateral casualties to obscenities and vulgarities. Crassness and vulgarities which were at one time indicators that the power of physical aggression was soon to follow are the stuff of casual exchanges as much between friends as between lovers. Some of the devices of power, in addition to words, of those who seek power include weapons to hurt,  maim or kill stranger, friend or family alike.

The quest for power is as old as the quest for image. The irony and the travesty of the events in the Garden of Eden is that by forgetting, neglecting and dismissing for one brief moment the image in which they were made, Eve and Adam corrupted their image. While they were obedient there was nothing to fear. There was no power over them. Yet, in the aftermath of their disobedience the immediate result was, as God himself stated, that the man and the woman had become like God knowing good and evil. However, the price they paid was heavy. The price was they acquired the association of power, but it was not to serve them. It was to lord it over them. The power was death.

Those who believe they are powerful because they have power never realize and never ask themselves what is that vague, remote sense of awareness in their minds: What is the fear from which this false notion of power delivers them? What is the ultimate power from which this false power can deliver them? The lust and hunger for image and power in the unwitting Eve and Adam was that their confidence before the Lord was lost. They covered their nakedness as a result.

the power of God

The truth is the power of the flesh with all its bravado, violence, trash talk, weapons and devices may fend off momentarily the assault, but death will have the last word over those who crave and thought they had power in those false images of power. What is the purpose of an image which alters or conceals one's true identity? Why does one have a need to conceal their true identity? What is the purpose of power which is exerted over others? Is it not because they lack the power and confidence to face and confront what they fear?

Death is the great equalizer. It is the sobering agent for those who are drunk with mistaken notions of image and power. The power of death is, not unlike the image in which God made man and woman, as undeniable and non-removable. What is one to do when they come to the realization of the deceptive futility of image and power? This is the beginning, the genesis, where one examines closely the claims and fulfillment of the message of Jesus concerning his own death, burial and resurrection.

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 

15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. (Hebrews 2:14, 15)

The message (note the reference to power and the past tense of death) of this love of God, the apostle Paul wrote, is the power of God. More specifically and literally, the apostle Paul stated that the message of the gospel is the dynamite, (δύναμις, dunamis) , the power of God. The gospel has the explosive potential to transform the fearful and powerless into the image of God through the power of the gospel and the promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Be of good cheer.

Read More

Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist

Dr. Richard Carrier’s video message, “Why I Think Jesus Didn’t Exist” is a clear, clean academic exercise. This is not to say there is any completion to his arguments or that he even provides examples in those instances when he makes one of his abundant assertions. It is to say that his message is so abundant in assertions, short on substance that it seems a masterpiece of editing. All his points are the usual and familiar array to dismiss Jesus as nothing more than just a guy, or the idea/myth created in the minds of some people, about a guy who made some off the wall and historically familiar claims about his deity. It is not surprising that the same short list of ancient deities which he enumerates is the same as heard from Christians, whom, upon first learning about those deities often dismiss and abandon their faith in Jesus. Carrier, despite his high academic credentials, his much learning and much touted expertise has absolutely nothing more to say than those Christians with far less knowledge, education or touting.

There are a multitude of claims, according to Carrier, which reveal the development of the myth about Jesus, an ordinary guy who never existed. Carrier peppers his message with assertions without offering any substantiation. Instead, he repeatedly informs his listeners that there are many or the majority of scholars and mainstream scholars who agree with him in his dismissal of scripture passages as well as entire books of the New Testament. He would have the faithful believe him that those scholars who deviate from the faith and agree with him are otherwise strong, faithful adherents of the scriptures and the faith. However, if Bart Ehrman is any indication of those scholars who agree with him; Ehrman is quite outspoken in his unbelief and dismissal of the scriptures as being corrupted or fabricated. Even when something such as the resurrection of Jesus is referred to by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 15 as being, according to the scriptures Carrier dismisses it. It’s the proverbial predicament of being damned if you do, damned if you don’t; a catch-22. In other words, it is evident there is no answer which would satisfy Carrier, but . . . there is an answer. There are greater, weightier matters ahead for Carrier to consider and which he has, not surprisingly, avoided.

So, I will not dispute with Carrier about matters which may or may not have been written about long ago.

something in common

Instead, I prefer to address just one point, two actually, which Jesus stated and which is as readily dismissed by Dr. Carrier. There is no need to verify the authenticity of this one main point. It does not require sifting through ancient documents. It is something which Carrier has in common with every Christian, Muslim, animal and plant, atheist, and _ Jesus. All are born. All will die. What Carrier has in common with all these is birth, and specifically, death which obscures his academic, feeble efforts to dismiss the existence of Jesus.

Carrier can forget and dismiss the claims of the the virgin birth of Jesus. I can level the playing field for him because in the same manner as Carrier dismisses the extraordinary claims surrounding the virgin birth of Jesus the same dismissal can be applied to the birth of Carrier or any human birth. The truth is no one knows where they were born, when they were born or who are their parents. The fact that one does not know these things first hand or even if no one could attest to their birth does not invalidate or nullify the reality of their life. They may be despised and their humble origins questioned but they are no less a life regardless whether or not they leave a lasting impression or message. Humans can only acquire and accept the information about he place, time and parents and the beginning of their life from others as they grow older. Although we can only verify and authenticate our own birth through the testimony of others if we belittle, deny or dismiss someone else’s birth we have been most disingenuous. The same holds true of dismissing the birth of Jesus, but, frankly whether it is our birth or the birth of Jesus; it is a moot point really. Again, Carrier has some weightier matters than birth and the existence to which birth initiates into this world.

it’s alive; it speaks

Death, unlike any number of points concerning Jesus which Carrier can scrutinize and dismiss can not be dismissed. Death was the same reality which existed for all human beings two thousand years ago just as it exists for human beings in the twenty first century. No measure of  academic exercise or the collaborative work or say-so of numerous scholars can change that reality. None are necessary. Whether or not a real or created, mythic Jesus made those claims about his resurrection from the dead does not require an academic exercise to verify or invalidate those claims.

Fortunately, death is alive with us today. It stands ready to speak to us in the twenty first century. We can examine it ourselves as scholars, mainstream scholars or individuals, but even without the need for scholars or mainstream scholars. All that is required are those lives have been touched by the reality of death.

Carrier parrots the standard, familiar inclusion of the gods Horus, Mithra along with Jesus and states:

All these gods DO have in common: They all obtain victory over death which they share with their followers.

He is correct about their death.

death of a myth

Once again, lets leave aside the breakaway distinction of those claims associated with those gods and the same claims of Jesus concerning his own resurrection to friends and foes alike. Lets put aside also the fact that the narrative of Horus and Mithras died at birth. Why? Their narrative died simply because the undeniable reality became irrepressibly apparent to even their staunchest believers that they were not willing and able to sustain a myth which did nothing to affect a change, much less a transformation, of their lives.

Despite the connections which Carrier blithely, but rightly, makes between Judaism and Christianity (I will suffer this use of the latter term for which I have no use, but it’s Carrier’s use and it is in the vernacular here.) he is oblivious to a vital point and one which in no small part attests to the reason why the so-called myth of Jesus has survived. The message of the faith that is in Christ Jesus began well enough with the Jews, but it very quickly became apparent in the first century that this faith was not hemmed in, limited or characterized by Jewish culture, customs or language. Even Greek, which is the primary language of the scriptures was indicative of something bigger than any single ethnic group. The Greek people themselves never claimed nor has the claim ever been asserted by others that this message of faith was of Greek origin or that it was of the Greek people.

The fact that Jesus’ claims were not new and were centuries old has made them a favorite touchstone for sword sharpening and dashing for Carrier and his fellow scholars. However, by this same tactic the claims of Jesus’ would be just as readily be targeted for dismissal for no other reason than that those claims were new and never heard or attested to in ancient literature. Again, like a Catch-22; you can’t win for losing.

The Roswell Analogy

Carrier concludes his video message with the Roswell Analogy as his way of overlaying his mistaken notions concerning the mythic Jesus over the mythic gods of Mithra and Horus. Simply stated, just as the Roswell incident involving flying saucers and aliens never happened so too neither did Mithra, Horus and Jesus.

This is Carrier’s breakdown of the 1947 incident at Roswell, New Mexico.

What really happened: A guy found some sticks and tinfoil in the desert.

What was said to have happened: It was debris from an alien spacecraft.

What was said to have happened within just thirty years: An entire flying saucer was recovered, complete with alien bodies that were autopsied by the government.

Then, he overlay his Roswell analogy template over the Mithra and Horus gods with this explanation:

The “tinfoil in the desert” would be analogous to “the revelations of the archangel named Jesus”

and

“the flying saucer and alien bodies” would be analogous to the “historical Jesus of Galilee.”

Carrier is true to form,. Granted that to provide corroboration for his rejection of the entire Roswell incident would be tedious and outside the scope of his message. Nonetheless, this is the track record Carrier has established for himself, but if the corroboration of the incident is outside the scope of his message; why use it? Furthermore, the fact that Carrier should resort to something out of this world, literally, such as flying saucers and aliens is most tellingly disingenuous of him.

a trend

Carrier rejects the standard rebuttal by Christians who insist that Jesus was different from those gods, and thereby, he casts his own ensnares himself unwittingly. He states, “The differences are not the issue. Their similarities are what identify them as a trend.”

A trend towards what, Dr. Carrier? A trend, as your choice of words suggests, is a breakaway move from what has been seen and established as the track record. Yes, the resurrection, as one example, is one element held in common between all those different god myths. However, the claims concerning the resurrection of Jesus were made by Jesus himself in the presence and for the knowledge of his disciples as well as his adversaries. It was not a private secret. When his resurrection became a reality it was not denied by his adversaries. They elected to suppress it, but not to deny it.

death speaks

I expect Dr. Carrier remains unconvinced. Well enough. What remains is for Carrier to examine today what he has observed or what he might experience if a close, lovely family member or friend die. Never mind that the friend never said or made any claims that he/she would rise up from the dead.

It is safe to say Carrier would likely react with some modicum of astonishment were he to see his deceased family member rise up from the dead.

If his family member or friend had indeed stated he/she would rise up from the dead it is safe to say Carrier would likely react to those words with unbelief.

If his family member or friend indeed told Carrier he/she would rise up from the dead and then actually did it it is safe to say that despite the awesomeness and overwhelming joy of seeing his family member or friend back from the dead Carrier might still rightfully react with unbelief. His mind would likely be flooded with doubts and possible messages he missed concerning the loved one risen from the dead who is standing before.

None of these responses by Carrier would represent or constitute an outrageous or incredible response. They all represent a very human behavior response to an extraordinary phenomenon. It does not require the write testimony of ancient or contemporary scholars or mainstream scholars to validate or authenticate these responses.

This is no less what the disciples of Jesus experience. They had heard Jesus tell them he would rise up from the dead. They saw him after he was risen from the dead. They could not believe it even as he stood in their midst.

Now, what remained for them as well as Carrier is to consider what might be the implications and significance of one who said these things about himself and fulfilled them in the presence of his followers and adversaries alike. Suddenly, what someone wrote or did not write and whether or not it were corrupted or whether there were any witnesses all pale because death, Carrier’s own, stands before him and it speaks to him. It awaits your answer, Richard.

Read More