The Mystery Satan Did Not Know

Satan presumed to know what he did not know. Satan’s first appearance in the scriptures was to reveal himself as a liar. He lied to Adam and Eve about the truth God had told them. God had told them they would die on the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Satan thought God did not want the man and woman to become like him. Yet, that is precisely (and not to God’s surprise) what happened. God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:22)

What Satan did not know was what God had already purposed and chosen since before the foundation of the world. The apostle Paul spelled it out in the first chapter of Ephesians. This mystery, unknown to Satan, was according to the good pleasure of God. What was that mystery?

Paul’s explanation of this mystery in Ephesians (1:9) was that it was per the desire (1:5) and will (1:9) of God. It was in accordance with God’s good pleasure. It was his good pleasure to adopt children unto himself through faith in Christ Jesus.

The language Paul uses is reminiscent of Satan’s lie to Adam and Eve: Your eyes will be open. (Genesis 3:5) While Eve TOOK and gave some of the fruit to her husband Paul’s prayer language is that, the Father of glory, may GIVE to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of [Christ]; (v. 17)

And

having the EYES of your hearts ENLIGHTENED, that you may KNOW what is the hope of his calling, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (1:18)

God GAVE us the favor of being blessed with every spiritual blessing in the Beloved, that is, Jesus. This was even before the foundation of the world. We COULD NOT have TAKEN it even if we had wanted, but he GAVE it freely.

The lie Satan spoke was exposed. Adam and Eve did die. The initial death, that is their spiritual separation from God, eventually manifested itself in their physical death when the breath of life left their bodies. What does a liar do when his lie is exposed? He changes it. Satan's lie is well known today. It is the belief held by those ignorant and mistaken that death is final. It is for this reason that Paul continues his message in Ephesians:

and what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might 20 which he worked in Christ, when he RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. (1:19, 20)

Although Satan knew God as creator he did not know the exceeding greatness of his power. Satan learned of God's power over death. When God himself put on a human suit and triumphed over death, as he said he would, Satan changed his lie again.

Those who submit to the one who sits far above all rule, authority and power, and dominion (v. 21) are those who at one time were unenlightened and without hope. The mystery, Paul explains, is that God purposed in accordance with his own good pleasure to call those who were without hope in life. Now, having believed in the historicity and reality of the power of the resurrection of Jesus they are called to make known life and love in the Son.

Read More

Sound bites in politics and religion

There's a radio program on religion and politics which comes on at night. I've never listened to it. I do not even know the day or time, but it's the voices which play at the start of the show which I have heard. They are the voices of young and old, men and women and boys and girls. They all parrot similar phrases at the start of the show: "I don't discuss politics and religion." These represent what is for many people their total contribution in the arena of politics and religion.

Politics and religion seem to have a magnetic attraction for sound bites. These are one-word or one-liner messages, such as, I don't discuss politics and religion. There's nothing inherently wrong with one-word and one-liner messages. It’s just that too often these reveal either an unwillingness or inability to express in an understandable manner anything more than sound bites especially when the topic demands an explanation. Whether they involve a cause or one's personal life they are not new. They are tossed like chips at the discussion table. They require neither (much) thought nor explanation; kind of like a shout and run from across the fence. Here are two examples on the use of sound bites.

Two sides of the fence

You can’t shout out a sound bite with a full mouth. I am referring to the recent show of support and the contributions by some Americans on behalf of Chick-Fil-A and its CEO Dan Cathy on biblical marriage and stand against homosexuality. The dining out demonstration with the buzz of sound bites (even if muffled) made me realize something about the two sides of the fence.

First, the necessity on one side of the fene to describe marriage under a one-word sound bite: gay. Gay is not just the shout and rally cry for all things political or religious. It's been the defining term for over thirty years. This pride term is the first and last word. Even the absence of the term gay/homosexual in the scriptures is a cause for joy. This alleged absence relies on some seriously mistaken claims Jesus did not say one word about or against homosexuality. The reason it is mistaken is because 1) Jesus did speak on marriage as between a man and a woman as it was in the beginning, and 2) what the apostle Paul wrote on homosexuality was in context of a list of sins by which, he said, those who practice those things will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Paul, and all of the apostles of Jesus, did not speak on their own authority, but by the authority of the Holy Spirit. This evasive reasoning is as juvenile as that of a child who's instructed to play in the front lawn, but replies to his parents, you didn't say I couldn't play in the street. Whether in politics or religion there is every reason to hope that no one THINKS or SAYS anything about, for or against marriage of a moral, political or religious nature. Just say the word the word and be _ gay.

Second, the other side of that fence where I find my brothers and sisters in the faith that is in Christ Jesus is similarly equipped with one word: love. Granted there's not much dialog at a dining out demonstration it does not preclude the need for understanding and discussion of weighty matters. Did anyone thing to invite their gay coworker for some chicken? Lets take a closer look at the earlier mentioned example on the claim that Jesus did not say a single word about or against homosexuality. How could anyone understand what Jesus said and learn anything from mere a one-word yes/no or true/false responses?

The substance of two sound bites: love and hate

Jesus had a way of evoking awe. He did so not with one-word nor one-liner sound bites. He enlightened all who would even think to follow him as to the cost they were to count before making such a claim or decision. He boldly and confidently drew a focus from two different perspectives with a single purpose of creating understanding of love and hate. Matthew's gospel account focuses on love. Luke's gospel account focuses on hate.

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matthew 10:37-39
“If anyone comes to me, and doesn’t disregard or hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can’t be my disciple. 27 Whoever doesn’t bear his own cross, and come after me, can’t be my disciple. Luke 14:25-27

These words are a contrast between love and hate much like apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but they are unmistakably different fruits. Similarly, anyone who loves parents, children and siblings and comes to Jesus does so in love. However, that love between family and Jesus is as different as apples and oranges. They are unmistakably different.

Someone might say they are orphans, without offspring or siblings. They mistakenly believe they can count the cost of following Jesus without any great sacrifice. They might think, they have none of these human relationships to stand between them and their decision to follow Jesus. But, the call of Jesus to anyone who would profess to follow him did not stop short like a one-word or one-liner sound bite. He impressed and challenged would-be believers to hate all things and love him. No wonder that he included this disregard: yes, and his own LIFE also. It is a simple, but troublesome reality to understand how one who is not worthy can not be a disciple because he is not prepared to accept these words spoken by Jesus.

Awestruck

The one-word, one-liner sound bites by gays as their politics and religion seem plain enough. The National Same-Sex Kiss Day (talk about one-liners) display to show the country Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) love is as valid as heterosexual love is like others trying to demonstrate their politics and religion with a mouth full. Even the flippant glibness with which such a same-sex kiss day is declared and presumed to be of national import seems a grasp for an absent political/religous authority. The reason a kiss-in, like dining-out, is a feeble grasp is that it reflects an inability to speak with understanding or conviction what one professes. There is no awe in these things.

No one comes to Jesus as long as they value their own identity above all. Does a man come to Jesus proudly declaring and boastfully identifying himself as with a one-liner slogan: “husband of one wife”? Yet, this is the one-liner boasful pride of gays when they profess foremost their identity as, “gay and proud of it.”

There is no more to fear or to hate in shallow charges of being homophobic and hateful anymore than for gays to fear or hate the words and teachings of Jesus or his disciples who profess and teach those words. Anyone who after hearing and understanding, not sound bites, but the words of Jesus and is awestruck determines whether or not they will count the cost and follow Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Read More

110% Proof Jesus is not God - - a response

(I informed the author of this video of this response on the YouTube video and on Facebook where I first saw it. Readers are encouraged to view the video. gt)

First, what is readily apparent is that those things about which you were ignorant during your days as a professing disciple of Jesus remain with you in your embrace of Islam.
Specifically, your glib, but ignorant claim of Jesus as prophet. Yes, this ignorance is too common among many Christians, but the Muslim claim of Jesus as prophet has its own motives. What motives are those you might ask? It is that if Muslims associate and align their self-prophesing prophet with one, such as Jesus, who is well known, revered, adorned, respected and mistakenly regarded by some as a prophet it could only be good to associate Muhammed with Jesus.

The qualifications of a prophet were defined by Yahweh to Moses and Miriam and Aaron who had spoken against Moses in Numbers 12.

He said, “Now hear my words. If there is a prophet among you, I, Yahweh, will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream.

Additionally, note how Yahweh distinguishes Moses from a prophet. While you acquiesce to Jesus having MUCH knowledge like any prophet with your free, lax tendency to attribute prophet status; you neither understand what constituted a prophet and how that individual received knowledge as to the will of God. The significance of this definition by Yahweh is for you to ask yourself when did Jesus receive ANY message through from God through a vision or a dream.

Second, you are correct there are multiple and various explanations from my saints in Christ as to Jesus' seeming lack of knowledge in Mark 13:32. This is another instance which reveals your ignorance of days past and which remains with you today.

But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Watch, keep alert, and pray; for you don’t know when the time is.

No, Jesus did not know the day of his return. This is what he said.

My question is what bearing does this supposed lack of knowledge have or what it effect does it have, 1) on his imminent return, and 2) our being prepared for that day?

This seeming lack of knowledge by Jesus, which you seize as the opportune case for denial of his deity, is a complete on-your-ear throw down from what had happened in the garden of Eden. Despite Adam and Eve being told by the God of knowledge of good and evil not to eat the forbidden fruit they did so. He knowingly had told them what would happen, - they would die – on the day they ate of it.

Do you similarly question or deny it was God who called out to Adam and Eve, “Where are you?” because he didn't KNOW where they were in the garden? Do you think God didn't KNOW who had told Adam and Eve they were naked?

The response by Jesus that he did not know the time of his return is nothing less than God's call, a reverse action from what the all-knowing God had done in the garden, to TRUST. Jesus had previously sought to ease the disciples' anxiousness about his imminent departure. They could not understand exactly where he was going, but he reasurred them telling them to not let their hearts be troubled and that he was going to prepare a place for them.

Your attempt, with your own seeming knowledge, to scrutinize the Mark 12:32 verse for a discovery that's not there, but which is actually revealed much more clearly and without uncertainty in a later instance. Interestingly, this later instance is wholly explained and shrouded in a web of deception and lies, as I learned according to Muslims, and with which I am sure you are quite familiar. As in the beginning, the all-knowing God has declared, “Unless you believe I am He, you will perish,” but the response is not much different than what happened in the garden.

Read More

The problem with fundamentalism, part 2: Religious fundamentalism - - a response

(This is my brief response to the article which I encourage you to read in its entirety. gt)

Really, there is no problem. Yes, I can appreciate if that sounds simplistic, but it's more in the interest of brevity. I have read both parts of your series.

The things you enumerate: the imperfect nature of words, translations and trinity are the old wheel-spinning rut of best-selling book stuff by Ehrman and others.

You are correct words are imperfect and as such incapable of delivering perfection. It is the dialog of discernment and the resultant understanding which delivers perfection; the completeness by which anyone is able to coherently express their own understanding of a word in context of a passage or a life situation.

As many times as I have heard anyone reject my teaching because of a particular Bible translation in my hand I have been just as quick to ask for their own translation. Why? Because the point to be made can be just easily made from any translation. Yet, the translation scramble remains a favorite to create the impression the presenter has any understanding or in any case to create the desired confusion in the faith of those who have heard their words.
Personally, I have no need, use or desire for the term trinity. It suffices for me as a reader of the New Testament that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are alluded to, spoken of and manifested in different ways as different, distinct entities. I have no problem with any who uses it. I do reject the favorite charge often made that I am merely parroting what Constantine and the council of Nicea delivered to the church. This is a common falsehood and error.

It is a falsehood because the council merely acted on what it acknowledged was already common knowledge and practice throughout the churches all over. It is in error because I am able to speak of and teach the realities of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as they are presented in scripture without any reliance on a document from the Nicean council. If, and I emphasis IF, what the council determined and what I speak and teach are the same it is not because of the council, but because, as I said, the NT is permeated with these things. There is no need for a catchy and perhaps well-intentioned term coined a body led by a emperor with little to no knowledge of scripture.

Read More

The Problem of Paul - - a response

This is my very brief comment on Hyam Maccoby's book, The Mythmaker: Paul and the invention of Christianity, excerpt as posted in Facebook.

The late Hyam Maccoby (1924-2004) believes the apostle Paul was not a Pharisee. In fact, he states, in his book The fact that this question is hardly ever asked shows how strong the influence of traditional religious attitudes still is in Pauline studies. Truth is this is not a particular point of contention among believers. However, I would like to bring out out these three points from his argument and invite anyone who adheres to his argument to respond. I would like to look at 1) His handling of some of his sources, 2) his advocacy for the Pharisees, and 3) why it is no small matter for Mr. Maccoby to understand or accept the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

Mr. Maccoby's sources, in the excerpt from his book, include the book of Acts and some (except Colossians) of Paul's letters in the New Testament Bible and the testimony of the Ebionites. Although he touches briefly on other sources these represent his major focus. These also represent some serious oversights, errors, inconsistencies and peculiarities by Mr. Maccoby.

I need to emphasize the article is merely a twelve page excerpt from Maccoby's book. However, those oversights and errors in the article seem fair indicators of the makeup of his book, especially because although he has opportunity to correct or modify his comments he does not do so. Take the time to read the excerpt, as I did several times, before rushing to comment either on his excerpt or my comments. His book is on my must-read list to obtain through my local library.

As early as page two Mr. Maccoby makes the statement as he ventures into the New Testament as one of his sources and declares, Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them. Did he not know, did he forget or did he choose to ignore two letters written by Peter and three letters, a gospel account and the book of Revelation by John? I can't be sure whether he means James, the brother of Jesus according to the flesh, or the apostle. Between Paul's own letters and Luke's account of Paul in Acts Mr. Maccoby sees Paul as making claims his visions and transports were actually superior to the other apostles' acquaintance with Jesus during his lifetime. The instances in Acts 9 & 22 cited by Mr. Maccoby, make mention of the vision, but readers can judge for themselves if there is an emphasis or much less a boast by Paul about the vision when Jesus appeared to him.

The second matter which underlines Mr. Maccoby's approach to Paul clashes with his overall view to position the Pharisees in the best light. I am not interested in Mr. Maccoby's personal regard or view of the Pharisees or Pharisaism, but it is his own contradiction on this point.

Information given by a person about himself, Mr. Maccoby claims, always has to be treated with a certain reserve, since everyone has strong motives for putting himself in the best possible light. I agree, and yet, although Mr. Maccoby sees Pau's Pharisee claims as being for the purpose of enhancing his status it makes no sense and backfires on him. Why would Paul portray himself as a Pharisee, whom Mr. Maccoby states were highly esteemed at the time, who persecuted and killed Christians? On one hand Mr. Maccoby attributes the claim by Paul in Acts 22 of being a Pharisee as being Luke's embellishment for his hero Paul. Yet, when Paul does mention his past as a Pharisee in his own letters Mr. Maccoby dismisses it. However, it is these incidental claims by Paul which have a dismantling effect on Mr. Maccoby's charge against Paul because Paul makes no effort to gloss over his lowly Tarsus origins nor does he engage in any embellishment of Pharisees or Pharisaism. Paul does not speak favorably of himself as a Pharisee which, as Mr. Maccoby expects, one would definitely do if they were speaking for themselves and wanted to highten their esteem among men.

It is this matter of the esteem of the Pharisees which underpins Mr. Maccoby's entire scrutiny of Paul. It is also what casts a shadow and serious doubt on his criticism of Paul. He takes great exception, better yet, is incensed, at the scathing of Pharisees as hipocrites by Jesus according to the New Testament gospel writers. He rejects the allegation of hipocrisy by the Pharisees and wonders how the book of Acts, describes the Pharisees as being friendly towards the early Christians, standing up for them and saving their lives? Really?

This assessment of the Pharisees as friendly, standing up and saving the lives of the disciples is oblivious and a stretch given the earlier threat they handed the disciples in Acts 3. At that first clash the disciples were taken into custody by the priests, the captain of the temple and the Sadducees and were merely threatened. In the second clash which Mr. Maccoby cites as his example of the Pharisees' friendliness the friction escalated into a beating. The friction would soon escalate into the death of the first Christian martyr at the hands of a Pharisee by the name of Saul of Tarsus.

It's not difficult to understand Mr. Maccoby's view of Paul and what Paul and Christians testify as being the work of God. He is at as much of a loss with the deity claims by Jesus and the apostle Paul. He is not alone in this struggle to understand and accept the work of a God who does not act as humans think or expect that He ought to act. He goes as far as to state Jesus taught in the style and manner of the Pharisees and was indeed a Pharisee and that the apostles were Pharisees too. As much as this is a stretch it does not pose a problem. Jesus did admonition his disciples to “DO” as the Pharisees “SAY”, but NOT to DO as they DO.

No wonder that Mr. Maccoby cannot fathom how Saul, a persecutor of Christians, became such a messenger for the Good News of the love of Jesus. It is called repentance. It is called conversion. It is called the new birth with neither conversion nor the new birth being a part of the Jewish mindset. All Jews were born, according to the flesh, as children of God. The prevailing mindset was that although a Jew sinned he was not a sinner as all other people of the world.

God did not call a strong, notable leader from among the suffering tribes of Israel when they were in Eygpt as the Hebrews might have thought or expected. He called Moses, a Hebrew, but he was one who had grown up in the home and comforts of Israel's oppressor. He did not call, with Isaiah being a noteable exception, distinguished individuals in Israel to proclaim the will of the Lord to an apostate Israel. Even Israel was often reminded by God, much to their loathe, through his prophets, that He had not chosen them because of any righteousness or anything pleasing about them, but because of his covenant with Abraham.

Certainly, what Israel thought and expected as a messiah was not what they saw in Jesus. No surprise.

Blessings to you in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior.

Read More

Christianity Unmasked

Note: I encourage readers to read the complete article by Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. This article, more than any other on this blog, has a thread of extended, amiable comments shared between Yisroel and me. I have denoted those clips from his article with italics and asterisk (***) marks. The section headings are from his article. gt

***The Church has enjoyed the credibility associated with these truths because people failed to discern between that which is originally Christian and that which is the true possession of all mankind.

Christianity has also falsely claimed to be the originator of certain truths that do not belong to her.

And finally and most seriously, the Church has set herself up as the sole distributor of truths that belong to everyone.***

The Universal Principles of Justice and Charity

***This literary device accentuates the fictitious notion that Jesus is the originator of these universal truths and that they were unknown to mankind until Jesus uttered them to his audience.***

Read More

Rush Limbaugh: The mockery of mockers

I have never been a follower or listener of Rush Limbaugh. I have not become one. His message may be different but his mindset is no different than the likes of Howard Stern. Over the years I doubt seriously if my total listening time of Rush Limbaugh amounts to one hour.

He may imagine himself, even as some Christians do, to speak of or for the faith that is in Christ Jesus, but that is his delusion. He may speak for conservatives, as some of them claim, but the designations of conservative or liberal,whether touted or rejected, hardly serve as biblical describers of what it means to be a Christian, a disciple of Jesus; one who has crucified the flesh. These are the matters of the world in which many a disciple entangles himself. These are the terms taken up and embraced by many to clothe themselves as righteous or right, but which can blithely and easily amount to mockery.

My first comment to one of Rush Limbaugh's rants was concerning President Obama speaking at a Miami fundraiser. Limbaugh was incensed at what he described as Obama's mockery of the American tax payer. What neither Limbaugh nor many self-professed Christians, of conservative and liberal variety, recognized was Limbaugh's own mockery of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. This from a man (I don't know if he still does) mockingly boasts he is, "on loan from God." Limbaugh likened one of the Obama administration's measures with these words to a particular miracle sign performed by Jesus: "The recovery act stimulus bill it's more like loaves and fishes." . . . "It is all bogus." Limbaugh effectively mocked the miracle of Jesus. He equated the miracle of the loaves and fishes with the stimulus bill describing these as bogus.

Now his mockery on government subsided birth control is being eaten up like loaves and fishes by many for whom Limbaugh speaks. I heartily concur with him that one whose choice to engage in sex should hardly be the responsibility of the American citizen to fund the cost of birth control measures that person incurs for themselves.

As a margin note I refute the argument of politicians who wonder if coverage of medicine may fall on employers' chopping block under the guise of religious belief: Well, we believe in prayer. This does not equivocate with funded birth control. By way of an illustration, the enslaving vices of tobacco and alcohol are not similarly funded. There are two noteworthy points of distinction between these and birth control. When those who are enslaved to tobacco and alcohol determine to be free of these vices they may, as some are able, severe cleanly and abruptly their use of tobacco and alcohol. Others can seek medical solutions or support groups to aid them in their quest to be free of their addiction. The choice tobacco and alcohol users made years before and which they maintained over the years was not dependant on and did not require the necessary engagement and participation of another person as in sexual unions for which some demand the entitlement of birth control.

There's litte reason to doubt Christians (those professing themselves as conversative or liberal) heartily embrace this latest rant of Limbaugh of alleged mockery on Americans. There's another mockery, I allege. Since Limbaugh's rant concerns sexual promiscuity I will reference the passage in the gospel according to John 8. A woman caught in the act of adultery, hence, the sexual promiscuity, was brought before Jesus. I allege there is a mockery, not only by Limbaugh, but by those who have been stirred without discernment to rally behind him, much like the Pharisees who brought the woman to Jesus. They were no more interested in keeping the law of Moses than to see the restoration to faith of their fallen sister. If their interests were truly in keeping the law they would have stoned the woman, according to their law, without consulting Jesus. Their consultation of Jesus was a mockery. Their supposed interests created a carnival spectacle around the adulteress not unlike the insipid voyeurism of recorded video sex demanded by Limbaugh mockingly from the sexually promiscuous on supposedly on behalf of the American taxpayer in exchange for funded birth control.

If you can state unequivocably your interests to restore those enslaved as much to tobacco and alcohol as sex than in all likelihood you are not so blithely or easily taken in by the mockery of mockers.

Read More