Part 1/3
INTRODUCTION
- The Biblical accusation against Canaanite religion and ban on inter-marriage
The overarching Biblical accusation against the Canaanites is that they were guilty of ‘abominations’. Amongst those abominations was that of human sacrifice – specifically child sacrifice, Deuteronomy 12:.32: ‘…for every abominable act which YHWH hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.’ Again, in chapter 18:9ff, we read of the practices of the Canaanites in relation to infant sacrifice:
When you enter the land which YHWH your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10.There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11.or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12.For whoever does these things is detestable to YHWH; and because of these detestable things YHWH your God will drive them out before you.
It is clear from these texts that the Canaanite religion was occultic in nature, and involved child sacrifice. From what is stated in Leviticus 18.21ff, it is appears that alongside child sacrifice, the Canaanites also practised homosexuality and bestiality:
You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am YHWH. 22.You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23.Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24.Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 25.For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
It also appears that that the Canaanites practised temple prostitution (of both sexes), Deuteronomy 23.17-18, cf. Genesis 38:21, 1 Kings 14.24: ‘There were also male cultprostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which YHWH dispossessed before the sons of Israel.’ There is a further implication in Leviticus 18 that the Canaanites practised incest, with the possible implication of paedophilia:
6.None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness… 7. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness… 9.The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. 10.The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
The very fact that the Israelites are commanded not to have sexual relations with their grandchildren may point to a ban on paedophile activity. What is significant is that v3 begins the passage with this injunction: ‘nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.’ Furthermore, v24, warns that the Canaanites practised these abominations: ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.’ Essentially, Leviticus 18 bans Israelites from performing sexual activities common to the Canaanites – and these included adultery, incest and probably child molestation. After all, if the Canaanites thought it right to sacrifice children, they probably would not have balked at sexually abusing them.
Thus, according to the Bible, Canaanite religion was devoid of ethical content. Harrison describes it as a ‘crude and debased form of ritual polytheism. It was associated with sensuous fertility-cult worship of a particularly lewd and orgiastic kind…’[1]This, as we have seen, involved the use of sacred prostitutes.[2]Wenham quotes G. E. Wright on this issue: ‘The amazing thing about the gods … in Canaan, is that they had no moral character whatsoever… Worship of these gods carried with it some of the most demoralizing practices then in existence. Among them were child sacrifice…’[3]
Such was the depravity of Canaanite religion, they were to be destroyed and no inter-marriage with them was permissible (save for people like Rahab who had already gone over to the side of YHWH):
When YHWH your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you,2 and when YHWH your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of YHWH would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.5 But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.
Given that Rahab and her family were taken into Israel, it is clear that the ban on inter-marriage was not ethnic, but religious. Canaanite religion and culture was not simply polytheist – it was sexually abusive, not least to children, and also abusive in that it practised child-sacrifice. Remember that it was no new cult but centuries old – an entire civilisation was committed to its values. It was irreformable, as were its people. Even its children were infected with its values – they were like ‘the Cubs of the Caliphate’ under the Islamic State group (IS) who actually participated in executions and boasted of their murderous intent. Again, unlike IS, the Canaanite culture and religion was centuries old, and the children thereof would have been infected with their religious, sexual and murderous depravity, and been a continual threat to both the spiritual and physical well-being of Israelite children.
To some extent, albeit perhaps not so great, such depravity also affected certain peoples neighbouring Palestine, e.g. 2 Kings 3: ‘26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom, but they could not.27 Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.’ From the Moabite Stone of King Mesha, which is dated c. 840 B.C., we know that their vernacular was very similar to the Canaanite language. It confirms that their god (or chief god) was Chemosh. Judges 11.23-24 indicates that Chemosh was also a god of Ammon. In 1 Kings 11.7 we read: ‘Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites…’ The same terminology ‘abomination’ is used for these two gods as for the religion and practises of the Canaanites, indicating the nature of their religion. In Numbers 25 it is implied that the Moabites also worshipped Baal – unless they identified Chemosh with him, perhaps. Deuteronomy 23 is clear about relations with Moabites and Ammonites, which affected marital relations – unless, of course, individuals from those nations forsooktheir religion for YHWH (e.g. Ruth):
3 “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of YHWH. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of YHWH forever,4 because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 But YHWH your God would not listen to Balaam; instead YHWH your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because YHWH your God loved you. 6 You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.
The Phoenicians, of course, were exactly the same people as the Canaanites in Palestine, and worshipped the same gods, principally Baal. The Aramaeans worshipped Rimmon, who was identified with Baal. The Midianites were not a single people but were at most, a tribal league dwelling in the region called Midian: …‘they are also related to or associated with the Edomites, Kenites, Ishmaelites, Hagarites and Kenizzites while there are at least connections with Amalekites and Moabites, and perhaps with Ammonites. All in all, they are an amorphous and complex grouping.’[4]Along with ethnic diversity, there was also religious distinction. Jethro seemed to have worshipped YHWH in some way. The reference to Baal-Peor in Numbers 25 suggests that some Midianites at least worshipped Baal. The context suggests that such worship involved sexual immorality:
While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab.2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel.4 And YHWH said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hangthem in the sun before YHWH, that the fierce anger of YHWH may turn away from Israel.”5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.”
6 And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting… 16 And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, 17 “Harass the Midianites and strike them down, 18 for they have harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the chief of Midian, their sister, who was killed on the day of the plague on account of Peor.”
Note that Israelites who committed whoredom with the Midianites were executed. The words of v18 imply that the Midianite women seduced the Israelites into both immorality and idolatry: the two were inter-connected – the idolatrous worship of Baal involved sexual immorality.
We will continue this discussion in part 2.
Find us on Twitter @DCCIministries and Facebook
[1]Harrison, Old Testament Times, p. 167.
[2]Ibid., p. 168.
[3]Wenham, John, The Goodness of God, (Leicester: IVP), p. 126, quoting Wright, G. E., and Filson, F. V., The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible, (London: 1945), p. 36.
[4]Dumbrell, William J., ‘Midian: A Land or a League?’, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 25, Fasc. 2, No. 2a. Jubilee Number (May, 1975), p. 323.
Aqathos vs. Kalos.
When Jesus asks: why do you call me good (Aqathos)? Of course the meaning of his question is “No”, he answers question with another question, as a denial, refutation, rejection (or prohibition). Interestingly, indeed Jesus never claims to be “aqathos” throughout the NT Bible.
Aqathos means essentially good, from one’s own character.
Evidence:
1. Jesus’ refusal to “judge” or carry out punishment:
Jesus refused bluntly and did not cast any stone at all at adulteress, hence he knows that he was not good, not sinless. An adulteress gets spared by same refusal of stoning by Jews and Jesus.
If he were sinless, Jesus would have carried out penalty:
Jn 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
It is also noticeable how shortly afterward, in John 8:46, Jesus asks: Which of you convinceth me of sin? Of course the real meaning of his question is “No”, he just tried to remind the same Jews again of his (and their) same refusal to cast a stone at an adulteress.
2. Absence of aqathos for Jesus.
Jesus never claims to be “aqathos” (essentially good), he just claims to be “Kalos”, i.e. functionally good, or habitually right.
Jn 10:14
I am the good (Greek: Kalos) shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Greek word “Kalos” means a functional good by the works, i.e. in habitual sense, just as other people with good works:
1Pet 4:10
As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1Tim 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ,
1Tim 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
2Tim 2:3
Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
But, the NT Bible acknowledges there are so many good people in essential sense, or Aqathos:
– In Luke:
Lk 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good;
Lk 19:17
And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little,
Lk 8:15
But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it,
Lk 23:50
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
-In Matthew:
Mt 12:35
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things:
Mt 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
– In epistles:
Acts 11:24
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith:
1Pet 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
If Angel of the LORD were a Christophany of the Word, why have Jews never known of the multipersonal God (Binitarian God or Triune God) before, even not for 3,000 years?
Curiously?
The Trinitarians just re-use (also misinterpret) the Old Testament’s verses for their multipersonal God.
1. Nobody of Judaism ever accuses Isaiah of prophesying a stupid silly Incarnation (Isaiah 9:6) that a Jewish virgin will give the birth literally to a Jewish God (a human boy named as “Mighty God”). But the Trinitarians say so.
2. Nobody of Judaism ever believes that there are 2 Yahwehs at time when Sodom was obliterated. But the Trinitarians say so.
3. Nobody of Judaism ever believes that the Angel of the LORD is a Christophany of the Word from the so-called “multipersonal God” (Binitarian God or Triune God) for 3,000 years.
4. On the contrary, the Trinitarians refuse to believe in several instances of “possible incarnations” before the conception of Jesus.
It seems, for the Trinitarians, Jesus has not “theologically” existed at time of manifestation (Christopanies), but he exists ONLY after Incarnation.
That’s why the Trinitarians concur that Jews do not worship several (even more than three times) “manifestations” of God, such as:
– burning bush,
– pillar of fire,
– pillars of thick cloud,
– angel of the LORD,
– one of 3 men,
– Ark of Covenant,
– even a “likeness of sapphire feet” (Exod 24:10) on Mount Sinai.
“[email protected] says: 1. Nobody of Judaism ever accuses Isaiah of prophesying a stupid silly Incarnation (Isaiah 9:6) that a Jewish virgin will give the birth literally to a Jewish God (a human boy named as “Mighty God”). But the Trinitarians say so.”
That Isaiah is the same person who quotes what Jehovah says in Isa 43:10 “there was no God formed, neither shall be AFTER me”, that absolutely denies any possible divine “Mighty God” of a boy who was born of a Jewish virgin:
Isa 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be *After* me.
Versus:
Isa 9:6
For unto us a *child* is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The *mighty God* (?), The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
“Anonymous says: That Isaiah is the same person who quotes what Jehovah says in Isa 43:10 “there was no God formed, neither shall be AFTER me”, that absolutely denies any possible divine “Mighty God” of a boy who was born of a Jewish virgin:”
Also, that Isaiah is the same person who quotes what Jehovah says in Isa 1:11, that is “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?”, that absolutely denies any possible sacrifice by “Suffering Servant” in Isaiah 52:10.
Isa 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Versus:
Isa 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Again, that Isaiah is the same person who quotes what Jehovah says in Isa 59:7, that is “they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity”, that absolutely denies any possible sprinkling of bloods by “Suffering Servant” in Isaiah 52:15.
Isa 59:7
Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
Versus:
Isa 52:15
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
The so-called Nahal Hever fragment with a naive misspelling of Hebrew word “Yadeha” (her hands) is oftentimes used by certain desperate Trinitarians to insist on the prophesy of crucifixion, which reads as “they pierced HER hands and feet”.
It is quite ironic how the Trinitarians have to rely on a corrupt fragment to argue for such a woman’s crucifixion, but they just dismiss and stand silent whenever the Jews and Muslims point to Jesus’ own prophesy of the “Sign of Jonah” in Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospel (Mt 12:39–41, Luke 11:31–32), that predicted rather the “safety” of Messiah.
Muslim apologists say that, if Jesus’ analogy is to be taken seriously, we must conclude that: since Jonah did not die, neither did Jesus.
Since Jesus’ death plays a very major role in Christian redemption, if Jesus did not die, then Christianity is grossly mistaken.
If God has allowed Christians to believe that Jesus was killed, it would reveal an embarrassment of Jesus’ deception.
Either way, Christians are still caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place with nowhere to go.
In other words, Jesus’ analogy in the “Sign of Jonah” is against the so-called Historical Jesus.
Let me tell you a “secret” (in case if you still don’t know it) of why the Leftists dislike Christianity a lot, and we Moslems do not take Christians seriously: it is because the so-called Christian theology is a theology of Enslavement and Guilt Mentality.
All things the NT Bible teaches are about being happy as a slave:
– Letting the masters (enemies of slaves) slap the Christian cheeks.
– Praying for, forgiving and loving the masters (enemies of slaves) who persecute the slaves.
– Forbidding the slaves to plan for tomorrow.
– Rendering all things what the masters have (taxation, slavery) to the masters, and rendering what God has to God alone (so that there’s no thing left anymore for slaves).
– Bringing back all the runaway slaves to the masters because the slaves are master’s property, and slavery cannot be broken.
– Agreeing with the physical and mental abuses on women and family of the slaves, such as by selling away the slave’s wives and daughters for paying debts.
– Agreeing to be scourged with many stripes by the masters without having any chance for liberation.
– condoning the violence and terrors committed by the masters upon the slaves.
In the real violent world where people have death-chanting Mullahs, suicide bombers, Russian mafias, Italian mafioso, Communist North Korea, Japanese Yakuza, Hongkong Triad, etc, the appeal of “love thy enemy” is a sign of weakness and capitulation.
During World War 2 the European Jews try to practice what Jesus teaches, but what they get? Holocaust.
Holocaust is a proof of failure of Jesus’ doctrine.
Is Matthew inventing the word of crucifying?
Do both Marks and Luke correct Matthew’s error?
There’s only one occasion in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 20:19) that talks about a prophesy of the Son of man’s crucifying (Greek: staurosai), whereas at the same exact context Mark’s Gospel (Mk 9:31, Mk 10:34) and Luke’s Gospel (Lk 9:22, Lk 18:33) as well as a previous verse of Matthew’s (Mt 16:21) omit the reference of crucifying:
Mt 20:19
And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
versus:
Mt 16:21
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mk 9:31
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mk 10:34
And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Lk 9:22
Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
Lk 18:33
And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
From psychological point of view, Christians actually need a symbol for the state of “contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17). For some folks, the sin just makes God a bit angry, that’s all. Sometimes, the sin just makes God quite disappointed. But for having such a contrite heart, one requires a heavy comparison to imbue or inject a sense of “guilt”.
What Gospels teach from cover to cover is that the sin eventually kills the Son of God. How could someone bear that heavy guilt upon his shoulder along his life?
Yes, that makes sense. It is quite weird how the Disciples in the Book of Acts never use the Old Testament (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, Gen 22) to argue for crucifixion, but they just use the crucifixion as an easy way to make the heart feel very much guilty, remorseful and repenting:
Acts 3
17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Acts 2
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their HEART, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Indeed, if early Christians were to use a mad argument of Human sacrifice, it does not work to convince the Jews. They may convince some pagans, but not the Jews.
Crucifixion is used by early Christians as a tool to imbue the sense of guilt as a contrite heart, per Psalm 51:17.
I think perhaps the Disciples in the Book of Acts also want to explain other additional hurtful losses the Jews have suffered: had Jesus been alive for a long long time among them (even though Jews didn’t accept him), a lot of miracles and healing from sickness or devils as well as good wisdom in parables would have been freely given and showed by Jesus.
Mostly the women are depicted in a very negative sense in Jesus’ Parables:
1. 5 out of 10 virgins are defamed as foolish ones, thus woman has a lower mind (Mt 25:2).
2. A stupid woman mixes a Jewish Passover bread with leaven, so that the bread becomes worthless (Mt 13:33).
3. A mother and her ailing daughter are defamed as dogs (Mt 15:26).
4. As man’s property, a wife and daughters were sold to the king’s slavery for paying man’s debts (Mt 18:25).
5. A divorced woman turns to be equal with an adulteress, but there’s no sin whatsoever for man who divorces her (Mt 5:32).
6. A widow is too demanding, troubling a lot, and putting much burdens on a judge (Lk 18:5).
On the contrary, Jesus shows a courtesy of being very much friendly toward men, including toward Judas who is betraying him at the night of betrayal, by still respecting Judas as “friend”:
Mt 26
49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Moreover, Most Christian apologists would mock Moslems with a gross misunderstanding of Qur’an Q.5, v.51 that according to their (Non-Moslem’s) reading there’s such a prohibition for Moslems to “befriend” Non-Moslems. But, they don’t know how the Moslem world has a duty to defend the dhimmis due to their loyalty, even during the war, so that actually Moslems fulfilled the word “beloved friend” (Greek: Philo) in John 15:13.
Jn 15:13
Greater love (agaphon) hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (Philon).
On other hand, since Jesus prohibits Christians to commit any violence, he suggests a cowardice for them by running away from a scene where the weak people are being victimised by the enemy:
Mt 10:23
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
It is cliche, Christians apologists turn into a SJW-mode when they criticise Hijab.
Christians apologists turn into a SJW-mode when there’s a non-white woman refusing to do a “patriotism test” by bowing down her allegiance to Israel.
It is Antisemitic and unchristian to not please Israel, but it is not unchristian to kill other minorities, such as black men and immigrants.
“Anonymous says: Christians apologists turn into a SJW-mode when there’s a non-white woman refusing to do a “patriotism test” by bowing down her allegiance to Israel.”
Who says there’s no slavery in America any longer?
— Question: Who Jesus thinks he is?
— Answer: Not that Jehovah in Joel 2:32.
Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
Names and titles of Jesus make of none effect:
Mt 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy NAME? and in thy Name have cast out devils? and in thy Name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Versus:
Rom 10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
“[email protected] says: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy NAME? and in thy Name have cast out devils? and in thy Name done many wonderful works”
Please, notice carefully, how Peter just puts a *limit* on the effect of Jesus’ Name: Under Heavens only, meaning that the Name still has a “wonder” indeed, but so limited in this world only. That’s why Mt 7:22 “in thy Name have cast out devils, and in thy Name done many wonderful works” can fully make sense and two verses can be harmonised, yet the Name cannot save anyone “in Heavens”.
That’s so obvious.
Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name *under* heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
I also read somewhere, that John 1:18 has two textual variants: Ho Monogenes Huios (THE begotten son) and Monogenes Theos (A begotten god) which is consistently similar to John 1:1 …and the Word was A god.
The group of Arians such as Unitarians and JWs choose “A begotten god” whereas the Trinitarians choose “The begotten son”.
Now the textual and theological problem for the Trinitarians is, they can accept citation of John 1:1 “A god” but somehow inconsistently cannot accept a similar citation for John 1:18 “A begotten god”. That’s a strong proof that the Trinity is a false belief.
Moslems and Unitarians believe that the person of Jesus is a human person, without any divine person.
Trinitarians believe that the person of Jesus is a divine Son, without human person.
Alright, this is interesting, I think we need to rewrite History of the Trinity again.
I concur with some researches of certain Biblical scholars and Unitarian thinkers :
1. The first Christians had been the Arians, at least as the semi-Arians (Subordinationism).
2. The term “Trinitas” coined by Tertulian is a loose word for 1 God (Jehovah) and two FUNCTIONAL Gods (having divine attribute only but without any divine person).
3. There had once a prolong “agreement of understanding” between Arians and early Church Fathers at time when there was no controversy over two theological terms, i.e. persons (hypostases) and natures (ousia).
It is notable, that Ireneaus (Against Heresies, Book IV, XX) and others (Ignatius’ Epistle to the Philadelphians, Clement, Origen, et cetera) use the Arian’s expression “A Begotten God” in their writings without any doubt.
If an Arian phrase “A begotten God” WERE NOT an orthodox Christian expression, we would not have found it being used by orthodox writers.
4. The Trinitarianism arises from within the Arians, in a form of “theological apostasy” from Arianism.
5. The first time or chance for the Trinitarians to lust for power occurs at a specific time when a Roman Emperor Constantine the Great wants to consolidate his power politically by inviting the Christians clerics into his grips.
A phrase “a begotten God” (Monogenes Theos) is represented in the most earliest manuscripts of Gospel of John, thus it is considered to contain a more “original” text, being most likely what John actually wrote.
Moreover, Monogenes Theos is suitable with and in accordance to John 1:1 of the Unitarian version “…and the Word is a god” (without article the).
Monogenes Theos in the Greek writings:
P 66/Papyrus Bodmer II (100-200).
P 75 (175-225)
Codex Sinaiticus (330–360)
Codex Vaticanus (325–350)
Codex Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th)
Apostolic Constitutions (375 -380)
Codex Regius (701-800)
Minuscule 423 (1556)
Monogenes Theos in the Non-Greek sources:
Syriac Peshitta (150)
Diatessaron (160-175)
Bohairic Coptic (300)
Adysh manuscript (897)
Opiza manuscript (913)
Tbet’ manuscript (995)
From early Christians:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XX.
But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father’s brightness, and explained His purposes, as also the Lord said : a begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him; and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great; not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel.
Clement, Stromata, Book V, ch XII.
No man hath seen God at any time; a begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him, calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God.
Origen, Commentary on John, Book II, XXIX.
No one hath seen God at any time; a begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. This whole speech is from the mouth of the Baptist bearing witness to the Christ.
Why the vicarious Atonement is a BIGGER nonsense.
Debating a topic of Human sacrifice with Christians is like talking with the silly uneducated pagans.
There at least 5 great errors of Christianity in arguing for vicarious atonement: Firstly, it starts from blindly bastardising and degrading a figurative or proverbial chapter Isaiah 53 down into a literal level for a literal Human sacrifice.
Jews believe that chapter Isaiah 53 is proverbial.
Secondly, just as many Jewish debaters showed, the Disciples of Jesus didn’t know if Isaiah 53 talks about a slain Messiah:
Mt 16
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
3rd. Jesus himself ironically condemns the effort of crucifying him as a great sin, and the Bible condemns it as a curse, even the Jews condemns Jesus’ own suicidal tendency as a devilish behavior.
Jn 19:11
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Condemning response by Jews:
Jn 10
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. 19 . There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. 20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
4th, Jesus gives a Sign of Jonah to illustrate his safety fate, meaning that he himself predicts that he will not die.
So, if Jesus died, it means he lies.
Mt 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
5th, the belief of Vicarious Atonement dismisses 2 important Functional things:
1. Sacrifice (such as Passover Lamb) requires the real physical death of ransom, which serves as a functional substitution for supposed death of sinners.
Therefore, now it ensures and proves that the person of Jesus truly “died” just like the death of other martyred Christians (1 John 3:16), but as consequence, he cannot be a God who must be NOT die.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.
1Jn 3:16
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
2. Christians have a great difficulty to argue, let alone to prove, that the functional redemption of the Jewish Sacrificial system could possibly be RETROGRADE.
Jewish sacrifice just atones all PREVIOUS sins “before” the time of substitution or penalty occurs, marked by a ransom’s death. It cannot have any redeeming effects anymore AFTERWARD.
Therefore, the later and current Christians cannot anymore “re-use” crucifixion AFTER the Good Friday for atoning their sins.
Moreover, additionally, mostly the Christians claim with baseless argument that so many early Christians dare to die or get martyred for the belief in Jesus’ vicarious atonement, but actually they just forget how lots of Jews also were similarly killed by the Romans in the revolt for a similar Jewish belief in a false Messiah Bar Kochba.
In relation with Qur’an, certain Christians argue that Jesus’ crucifixion is a fulfillment for “great ransom” in Q.37, v.107, but there’s no theological reason for arguing that fallacious nonsense (of “begging a question” style), because it is so obvious how Qur’an itself rejects occurrence of Jesus’ crucifixion.
“[email protected] says: In relation with Qur’an, certain Christians argue that Jesus’ crucifixion is a fulfillment for “great ransom” in Q.37, v.107, but there’s no theological reason for arguing that fallacious nonsense (of “begging a question” style), because it is so obvious how Qur’an itself rejects occurrence of Jesus’ crucifixion.”
The so-called “Great Sacrifice” clearly refers to two daily lambs on the Day of Repentance, or Yom Kippur, not the crucifixion.
Num 29
7 And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month an holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein:8 But ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD for a sweet savour; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish:9 And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals to a bullock, and two tenth deals to one ram,10 A several tenth deal for one lamb, throughout the seven lambs.
Anachronism in Genesis: From what and How does Isaac know that the lamb is one of proper kind of sacrificial animals for the burnt offering when asking “where is the lamb for a burnt offering”, or he just lucky-guessed it?
Gen 22
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
In reality, the selection of lamb among other sacrificial animals for the burnt offering was known later long time after the time of Isaac, even some centuries afterward, during the life of Moses.
Worse, the context of sacrifice is the particular offering for “Un-intentional Sins”only in partial sense, not for all kind of sins generally such as intentional and iniquity.
Lev 5
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. 7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
Maybe one has read thousands or more the articles about the importance of the blood atonement written by the Trinitarians, especially Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22, but so far, even till these days, none of the Trinitarians can answer or give satisfied response for a simple question to whom the payment of Human’s blood (Jesus’ blood) is given?
At most, their answer is: Mystery.
The Trinitarians are wholly ashamed of a horrible consequence that God is the main profiteer and accomplice of Satanic murder of Jesus.
On other hands, the Jews can loosely answer that indeed Satan was a real recipient of purchase in a bad “bloody business” involving the animals, between God and the sinful Jews, and that’s just fine. It is not a case of the 1st degree murder.
Jews also pointed out how God and Satan make a transaction of one Azazel goat annually on the day of Yom Kippur.
“Anonymous says: Maybe one has read thousands or more the articles about the importance of the blood atonement written by the Trinitarians, especially Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22, but so far, even till these days, none of the Trinitarians can answer or give satisfied response for a simple question to whom the payment of Human’s blood (Jesus’ blood) is given?
At most, their answer is: Mystery.”
Exactly.
The so-called “Suffering” servant has a limited efficacy for his suffering past only, not AFTER the release of his painful death.
Suppose that Jesus’ crucifixion is a typical of Jewish Passover and Jubilee Year, but so far, till these days, none of Christians can find any verse from the Old Testament to argue that a redemptive efficacy of sacrifice can include the sinners AFTER the sacrifice got finally slaughtered. In fact, the sacrificial atonement in the Old Testament is always linear until the very moment of death of ransom, and it cannot be retrograde.
Although we suppose a similarity between Christian theology of vicarious atonement and Jewish sacrificial system, Jesus’ death has no effects any longer. Since Jesus has not felt anymore any painful bruises, griefs, sufferings, after his death, all his redemptive role stops. There is no painful feeling any longer in Jesus after crucifixion:
Isa 53
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to BRUISE him; he hath put him to GRIEF: when thou shalt make his SOUL an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.11 He shall see of the TRAVAIL of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
To leave no stone unturned, I may add one explanation from a Jewish perspective, that actually in Psalms God openly declares his order to stop the rite of “sin offering” for the Jews, and still allows the burnt offering only.
God focuses the attention and energy of the sinful Jews into the free repentance with a contrite heart.
The words in Psalms 51:16-19 are quite puzzling, so ambiguous and little bit confusing, but the Jews have managed to grasp its understandings that God only selectively permits the burnt offering for the “righteous Jews”, not for Jewish sinners any longer, by degrading a rite of the burnt offering into some “Non-Redemptive” functions, i.e. for personal celebrations, such as:
1. appointment of a priest.
2. after recovery from skin disease, from abnormal bodily discharges, after childbirth.
3. Gentile’s conversion to Judaism.
4. Voluntary sacrifice.
The animals for the burnt offering could be a young bull, ram, year-old goat, turtle doves, or pigeons.
From Psalms 51:16-19, we can deduce the facts how God announces:
– The Termination of all activity for the sin offering.
– Permission to carry out the burnt offering only (but for Non-Redemptive purposes) by the righteous ones, not by the sinful folks.
Ps 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Ps 51
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest NOT in burnt offering.17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a CONTRITE HEART, O God, thou wilt not despise.18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of RIGHTEOUSNESS, WITH burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.