reversing the curses of God

Posted on January 23, 2014 by christopher fisher

God curses mankind in various ways throughout the Bible. But mankind is innovative. Once a curse is given, mankind usually focuses his effort and innovation into undoing the curse. Three such examples are as follows:

1. Working to survive
2. Pain in Childbirth
3. Multiple languages

1. In Genesis 3, God curses man that man will have to perform physical labor to survive:

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

In America, this curse has long been nonexistent. Farmers make up less than 2% of American families, and even then they spend their time plowing while sipping on beer and sitting in cushioned chairs. Whereas farmers in ancient times used hoes, plows, and worked real backbreaking labor, modern farmers grow a thousand times as much with incalculably less effort. In fact, without government price supports and trade barriers, American farmers would not exist. What this is saying is that farming is a leisure (!) occupation. Talking to farmers about switching their employment should convince anyone of this fact.

Other manual labor jobs are equally labor free. Lumberjacks have chainsaws (have you ever tried to cut down a tree with an axe?). Modern carpenters have electric saws, pickup trucks, wood sanders, and the like. Modern miners have dynamite. And if any laborer really thinks they perform backbreaking labor, they can literally drop out of the workforce and still be fed. If the government doesn’t enroll them on the dole, they can always take to begging. The largest health issue in the homeless is obesity!

Americans literally stare at computer screens to earn wealth that was unimaginable only 50 years before.

2. In Genesis 3, God curses women that they will have pain in childbirth:

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

Since ancient times, men have sought to offer anesthetics to women for childbirth (see “Childbirth in Ancient Rome” by Donald Todman). Today, women are regularly given epidurals to eliminate all pain. They usually have to specifically refuse the drugs, if they want natural childbirth. In the article listed above, Todman states that 300 out of 1,000 children died in antiquity before reaching adulthood, whereas fewer than 10 out of 1,000 die in contemporary times. Other estimates, which I have cited in the past, place the number of ancients who died before adulthood at 50%.

We are currently living in a child-rearing wonderland.

3. In Genesis 11, God curses man that they would not be able to communicate through voice

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
Gen 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.

Of course, mankind instantly began undoing the curse, as evident by the Rosetta Stone. In today’s world, people can literally copy and paste text from one language and instantly translate it into another (using services such as the aptly named Babelfish and Google Translate). I do not doubt that within my own lifetime the curse will be undone altogether with instant in-ear translators.

Posted in Bible, God, History, Standard of Living | Leave a comment

Jesus and his twin brother

Posted on January 23, 2014 by christopher fisher

In John we find one of the 12 apostles is referred to as “the twin”:

Joh 11:16 Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.”
Joh 20:24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.

Although the Bible does not identify of other individual to whom Thomas was a twin, it is safe to assume that Thomas in fact was a twin. People called him the “twin” probably because he had an identical twin brother.

The Gnostics looked at this word “twin” and some variant gnostic sects began to identify Thomas as the twin of Jesus. In the gnostic text, the Gospel of Thomas, the author claims to be Didymos Judas Thomas. In the Book of Thomas, it is even more explicit:

The savior said, “Brother Thomas while you have time in the world, listen to me, and I will reveal to you the things you have pondered in your mind.

“Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself… So then, you, my brother Thomas, have beheld what is obscure to men, that is, what they ignorantly stumble against.”

This has perplexed scholars: How could early Gnostics believe that Jesus was divine yet have a twin brother who was not? Perhaps Bart Ehrman gives the best explanation: It was not uncommon in Greek mythology for a divine son to have a human twin brother. After all Hercules had a mortal twin brother, Iphicles. Leda was said to have born four children at once, two moral and two divine. This was a belief that could be held by the common people.

Posted in Ehrman, Gnostics, Jesus | Leave a comment

omnipotent versus almighty

Posted on January 22, 2014 by christopher fisher

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God.

This quote comes directly from the Catholic site, New Advent. God is claimed to be omnipotent based on “what is fitting”, based on “what is perfect”. The power is “absolute”. Notice the philosophical undertones. This is close to the classical understanding of the term.

Here is Augustine:

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.

Augustine ties God’s omnipotence to God’s aloofness from man. If God suffers in any way (if God’s will was contradicted), God would not be omnipotent. The concept of omnipotence is tied inseparably from the concept of immutability and perfection.

Here is Calvin:

God is deemed omnipotent, not because he can act though he may cease or be idle, or because by a general instinct he continues the order of nature previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his providence, he so overrules all things that nothing happens without his counsel.

Calvin uses the term to mean that God controls everything. This is in the same vein of Augustine’s claim that if God suffered anything against His will, then God would not be omnipotent. This is the classical understanding. In fact, the word used to describe this (omnipotence) is not found in the Bible. The Latin word only became popular after Christianity was thoroughly Platonized. When the Latin Vulgate was published the word “omnipotens” was forced over the Hebrew “shadday”. As such, the word “omnipotent” is inherently wedded to Platonic concepts.

The one time English editions tend to use the word is in translations of Revelation 19:6:

Rev 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

This is being translated from “pantokrator”, meaning “All ruler”. While omnipotent is not a terrible translation, the modern understanding of omnipotence is wholly unsuitable for the context (in which God retakes control of the Earth). “Almighty” would have been a suitable translation. In fact, of the ten times the Bible uses the word “pantokrator” an entire nine are translated as “Almighty”. The translators must have been drunk on the day they penned Revelation 19:6.

In contrast to “omnipotent”, God is called “Almighty” 57 times in the Bible. Often, it is a nominal adjective that is used in place of God’s own name. The Bible seriously identifies “Almighty” with God; this is what God wants to be called. God illustrates His Almighty-ness with examples of Him being Almighty.

Gen 15:7 Then He said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”

Gen 26:24 And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham; do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for My servant Abraham’s sake.”

Exo 6:7 I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the LORD your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

God connects Himself with His creative action. God is Almighty because He does powerful things. God is the “living” God, often contrasted to stone idols that have no power. God is active and working in creation. This is the context of God calling Himself “Almighty”, not philosophical proofs invented by human beings. So I do not use the word “omnipotent”. In fact, I will mock those obsessed with the word when possible.

So while man might be omnipotent, God is Almighty.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

omnipotent man

Posted on January 22, 2014 by christopher fisher

In Genesis 6 God learns mankind’s unlimited potential for wickedness. In Genesis 11, God learns mankind’s unlimited potential for innovation. After the flood and in an act of defiance, the people of the earth band together to build a large waterproof tower that reaches into the heavens. God responds:

Gen 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
Gen 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.

Here God says that mankind can do anything that they desire. He was impressed by their architectural talent and angered by their defiance. To confuse the people, he instantly cuts their communication by confounding the languages.

God’s assessment of mankind reminds me of the late economist Julian Simon. Simon, ever the optimist, stated about mankind’s limit to the resource of “copper”:

Even the total weight of the earth is not a theoretical limit to the amount of copper that might be available to earthlings in the future. Only the total weight of the universe.. would be such a theoretical limit.

To an Augustinian Theologian, that would mean man is omnipotent. Mankind really can do anything. This is God speaking. God says: “nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.” He then takes measures to impede our progress. Because with great innovation, often comes pride, hubris, and rejection of God.

On a side note: when an Augustinian Christian sees statements like “nothing” or “anything” applied to God, they will not even listen to anyone say that the statement is a generalization and does not mean literally “nothing” or literally “anything”. Those Christians have a second standard for when statements of the same type are made about people.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, God, Omnipotence, Open Theism, Standard of Living, Theology | 2 Comments

Jesus asks God to change

Posted on January 21, 2014 by christopher fisher

Luk 22:41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed,
Luk 22:42 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”

One obvious implication of Jesus’ prayer to God is that Jesus had a separate and unique will than God. Jesus contrasts the two wills by saying “not my will, but yours”. Jesus did not want to die on the cross, and petitioned God to change God’s plan. Jesus sought to find out if God was “willing” to change His plan. Jesus appears also not to know exactly God’s overarching plan or if Jesus’ request would be granted.

Jesus was under the impression that there was a possibility that God would choose a different plan. Jesus was not stuck in a Calvinist mindset. And when Calvinists claim Jesus was omnipresent or omniscient or any other Greek attribute, remind them of the time Jesus asked God to change and did not know if the request would be granted.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Jesus, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

calvinist anthropomorphism meme

Posted on January 20, 2014 by christopher fisher

reality is not optional

At Facebook Group: realityisnotoptional

Posted in Humor | Leave a comment

gnostic morphing of the sheep

Posted on January 19, 2014 by christopher fisher

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells a parable about a lost sheep:

Luk 15:4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?
Luk 15:5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
Luk 15:6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’
Luk 15:7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.

In this parable: A man has 100 sheep. One sheep is lost. The man finds that sheep. And then rejoices.
We can assume that the man values all sheep equally. It did not matter which sheep got lost, the shepherd would throw a party for saving any one lost sheep. In other words, the value is in restoring that one sheep to the status of all the other sheep. The value is not because that sheep was a particularly special prized sheep.

The Gnostics took a Calvinistic spin on this parable. From The Gospel of Thomas:

107 Jesus said, The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety- nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, ‘I love you more than the ninety- nine.’

To the Gnostics (and modern Calvinists) there was a select (elect) number of individuals who were given special knowledge and allowed to progress to another state of being (salvation). Their spin on the lost sheep parable was emphasizing being set apart from the group (not being restored to a group). To the Gnostic or Calvinist, God has selected individuals, not based on criteria that can be achieved by anyone.

In other words, the Gnostics reversed the meaning of the parable of the lost sheep. It is exactly what Calvinists do with the Potter and the Clay.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, Gnostics, Theology | Leave a comment

God can be influenced

Posted on January 19, 2014 by christopher fisher

Jer 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, “Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favorable toward this people. Cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth.

In the middle of Jeremiah there is a verse in which God laments over how evil Israel had become. To reinforce this, God proclaims that even Moses and Samuel could not convince Him to not destroy the people. Both Moses and Samuel were known in antiquity to have influenced God. This is apparent to any casual reader, just not the Calvinist who claims that God cannot be influenced in any way.

But God does not agree with the Calvinists. In this one verse in Jeremiah, God gives testament to two individual that had powerful sway with God. They could literally convince God to spare wicked people. The Bible described them as doing so.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Immutablility, Jewish History, Omnipotence, Open Theism, Theology | 1 Comment

we work all things together with God

Posted on January 17, 2014 by christopher fisher

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Tim Geddert explains that Romans 8:28 is about man working with God:

Now to the second time I changed my understanding of this verse! Even the translation that is given in the NIV needs to be reconsidered. The biggest problem with the NIV version is that it still misunderstands what the verb “sunergei” (“work together”) really means. Even if “God” is the subject, the NIV translation treats “sunergei” as though it means God is “working things together” i.e. “forming a pattern” or “mixing ingredients together” so that something new emerges. “Sunergei” in Greek is not about one party working various ingredients together; it is more than one party working on a common project. It means quite literally “work together.” If Romans 8:28 says that God “works together . . .” then the obvious question to be asked is “with whom?” If we read the text differently, the answer is clearly supplied in Romans 8:28.

…

Unless “sunergei” is being used here in a way completely unprecedented in the NT, Romans 8:28 is not about God fitting all things together into a pattern for our benefit. It is rather about God and those who love God working as partners, “working together” to bring about good in all situations. While we (i.e. those who love God and are called according to God’s purposes) may at times also be the beneficiaries of “God and others” working together, this verse is probably not primarily about the benefits we receive from God’s action on our behalf. It is rather a clear indication that those who are “foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified” (see the context of Romans 8:28!) are being transformed, not only in order to receive God’s grace, but also in order to become channels of God’s grace to others. We were called by God; we love God; and thus we join God’s work in the world. God is working to bring about good, and we are God’s fellow-workers. God’s good purposes will often come about in terrible situations, not because someone “sat back and trusted God’s promise” but because someone “joined God’s work in the world; became God’s hands and feet; became a tangible expression of God’s love and God’s caring.”

HT: Jess in Process

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Open Theism, Theology | 3 Comments

the communion fraud

Posted on January 16, 2014 by christopher fisher

Every Christian is familiar with communion. We all sit through it as the elements are being passed around or collected in long lines. We take the stale wafer or bit of cracker and fondle it in our hands waiting for the pastor’s cue. The bit we taste feels like wood scraps. We supplement this with a lukewarm thimble of grape juice, while the pastor repeats the same couple verses. And Christians endure this every month.

Is this Biblical communion? Did God set up this horrid system?

Paul gives modern Christians a good understanding of communion as it was practiced in early Christianity. He does this through criticizing the way communion is being held in a particularly unruly church:

1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Paul here is indicating that there is an abundance of food and alcoholic drink at communion. The communion was a feast, as one would expect of people recreating the last supper. In the text Paul says what the Corinthians were doing it is “not the Lord’s Supper” and he explains why. It is not because they were eating and drinking but it was because they were doing it in a blasphemous and selfish way. Paul continues:

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
…
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Paul explains that the purpose of communion was to remember Jesus and his Last Supper. The feast was a side issue. In fact, Paul still assumes that the same amount of food and drink would be available in a proper rendering of the Lord’s Supper. He reinforces this point when he states: “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home”. There would be enough food available to quench hunger.

What modern Churches do is very contrived. They limit costs of communion by making it unrecognizable as communion. Instead of a feast to remember the Last Supper, it becomes a timble and flake of bread. The feast, the brotherly communion, and a picture of Jesus’ last days are all sacrificed in the name of cost.

I did visit one Church which used Pot Luck dinners as their Communion. Perhaps this is a way for churches to remain true to the spirit of the event.

reality is not optional

Posted in Bible, Church History | 3 Comments