misquoted verses – baptism of fire

Posted on July 8, 2013 by christopher fisher

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

There are those who believe that the events of Pentecost in Acts 2 is a fulfillment of this prophecy that Jesus would “baptize with fire”. From Acts 2:

Act 2:3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

In Acts 2, we have both elements of Holy Ghost and Fire mentioned in Matthew 3. It is an attractive notion for some to see this as a fulfillment of Matthew 3, after all, when else did Christ “baptize with fire”? Is this a failed prophecy? How was it fulfilled?

There are glaring problems with this interpretation. Number 1, John was not teaching to the “disciples” but to common people who never heard of Jesus. When did they get baptized with fire? Number 2: Pentecost never attributes the tongues of fire to Jesus. Number 3: it was a onetime event. When John the Baptist taught Jesus would baptize by fire, did he mean only once to a select group of people? Number 4: the Bible does not describe the tongues of fire as baptism.

The immediate context of Matthew 3 is John the Baptist’s ministry. The very verse before this one states:

Mat 3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Here we have more traditional elements of Jesus’ ministry (although this was John, Jesus’ precursor). Jesus talks about “everlasting fire” (Mat 25:41). He claims to have come to set fire on the earth (Luke 12:49). He tells of “wrath to come” (Mat 3:7). Jesus’ ministry was all about a coming final judgment and a Kingdom of God on earth where the evil would be punished and the good exalted. When Matthew 3:11 is put in context, this theme is clearly present:

Mat 3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Mat 3:12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”)

So every tree that does not “bear good fruit” is thrown into the fire. Jesus will clean “His threshing floor” and “burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” This is definitely not Pentecost; this is death and/or hell.

This presents a real problem to those who are not dispensationalists, because Jesus never brought fire. When Christians claim he did (or will in the future), they play word games (“umm, well, at his second coming he will bring judgment), but this is not the meaning John the Baptist was communicating to his disciples and it was not the meaning that Jesus communicated to His disciples.

The gospel Jesus preached never came to pass, it was supplanted by Paul’s gospel of Grace. God did this to delay judgment for the sake of mankind. As Peter writes:

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Posted in Bible, Jesus, Misquoted Verses, Prophecy, Theology | 5 Comments

misquoted verses – the widows mite

Posted on July 8, 2013 by christopher fisher

Mar 12:41 Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much.
Mar 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans.
Mar 12:43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury;
Mar 12:44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”

When pastors preach on Mark 12:41-44 (or Luke 21:1-4) it is usually in the context of church offerings. The widow is shown as a truly righteous person to be emulated. They say, give as the widow gave. In this passage the widow gives over “her whole livelihood”. One Sunday, I was pleasantly surprised when one guest pastor pointed out his own error on this teaching. It takes humility to publically point out one’s own faults.

The point Jesus is making is not to give substantial amounts of money to the church. In the Luke passage the arbitrary chapter break muffles the context, but in both parallel passages it is clear: Jesus is condemning people who try to guilt people into giving money:

Mar 12:38 Then He said to them in His teaching, “Beware of the scribes, who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces,
Mar 12:39 the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts,
Mar 12:40 who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

So Jesus teaches about religious teachers who devour widow’s houses, and then illustrates his point with a real life example. This is not Jesus saying to give all you have to the church. When Jesus tells people to divest their property, he tells them to give it to the poor, see Mat 19:21 (not the government and not the church).

Posted in Bible, Misquoted Verses, Theology, Tithing | 1 Comment

the gospel of the birth of caesar

Posted on July 3, 2013 by christopher fisher

Gospel means literally “good news”. Even in the Bible it is used to communicate various meanings. For example, Paul uses it in Galatians as the message to Abraham about having his children bless the world:

Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

Gospel is a generic term, although Paul crafted his own meanings into the word. In the Greek world, gospel was considered more of a divine proclamation. We have evidence that the word was used in conjuction with the birth of Augustus. From a translation of the Priene inscription:

Since the providence that has divinely ordered our existence has applied her energy and zeal and has brought to life the most perfect good in Augustus, whom she filled with virtues for the benefit of mankind, bestowing him upon us and our descendants as savior—he who put an end to war and will order peace, Caesar, who by his epiphany exceeded the hopes of those who prophesied good tidings
[gospel]. . . . and since the birthday of the god first brought to the world the good tidings [gospel] residing in him. . . . For that reason, with good fortune and safety, the Greeks of Asia have decided that the New Year in all the cities should begin on 23rd September, the birthday of Augustus.

NT Wright, writes about this:

…in the context into which Paul was speaking, “gospel” would mean the celebration of the accession, or birth, of a king or emperor. Though no doubt petty kingdoms might use the word for themselves, in Paul’s world the main “gospel” was the news of, or the celebration of, Caesar.
… Politically, it cannot but have been heard as a summons to allegiance to “another king”, which is of course precisely what Luke says Paul was accused of saying (Acts 17.7). Practically, this means that Paul, in announcing the gospel, was more like a royal herald than a religious preacher or theological teacher.

This would shed some light on the use of the word “gospel” in the NT.

Posted in Bible, Church History, History, Textual Criticism, Theology | 2 Comments

all I really need to know I learned from video games – part 2

Posted on July 3, 2013 by christopher fisher

Another game I played during my summer months while home from college was RuneScape. In RuneScape, individuals can fish, mine, chop trees, cook, or pick from a dozen other skills to level. Each skill produces items which can be sold to a vendor or alternatively sold to other players. RuneScape is a Massive Multiplayer Online RPG, meaning thousands of people can play together at the same time.

Early on I decided on a path of leveling my mining and not increasing my overall level. This allowed me to focus all my play time into building one super skill. From there I could branch out to fighting skills.

My mining progressed rapidly; so much so that other players would claim I was a bot (a player character which uses a computer based script to use actions). Soon I could out-mine all my competitors. Reality would kick in from time to time, and I would leave my game to go serve tables at a local restaurant. I would return and resume my RuneScape profit making in mining (branching out to smithing). My profit was rolling in steadily (I could mine a load of iron in about 5 minutes and sell the load for about $4K each trip). I was no doubt the best miner around.

But then reality set in again, and I set out to work as a server at the restaurant. While working I thought to myself: “Playing RuneScape is fairly similar to working. I grind for money. I bet there is a way to convert my time working into time savings playing RuneScape.” Sure enough, I found out there are websites that sell RuneScape gold. Currently the price is $3 for about $10 million gold (I don’t know the prices for circa 2004). Because my server job netted me about $16 per hour, I did the math and found out that I could work for one hour as a server and use my real cash on the fake gold. Using one hour of real time to pay for fake gold would net me $55 million RuneScape gold. Using one hour of real time to earn money in RuneScape would net me $38 thousand RuneScape gold.

I learned Opportunity Cost: the cost of the next best alternative. My opportunity cost for spending 1 hour grinding for $38 thousand RuneScape gold was the $55 million gold I did not gain from spending my time serving tables instead.

How is this possible? Because people in China literally earn RuneScape gold for a living. Even though I might be a better miner than they, or quicker at making RuneScape gold (probably not the case), my time is better spent serving tables and using the earnings to enjoy a game instead of grinding. The Chinese, who earn 30 cents per hour, cannot get an alternative job (with the same benefits) for more than 30 cents per hour. I am best suited serving tables and outsourcing my RuneScape gold production to someone with lower opportunity cost (the cost of the next best alternative).

I learned Comparative Advantage: that although someone might be better at doing all things, they should still specialize where they can maximize their output value.

As I have written before, RuneScape also taught me the value of Middle Men. If someone specializes at producing Rune Scimitars, the time they spend selling the Scimitars is opportunity cost of building new Scimitars. Sometimes it is best to offload production to a Middle Man to maximize profit. Hypothetically, if it takes 10 minutes to build 1 Scimitar which can be sold in bulk to a Middle Man at $18k, but the producer instead takes 5 minutes to find a buyer at $25k, the profit is only $7k. Within the time it takes to make $14k by selling two Scimitars, the producer could have sold the middle man one brand new Scimitar at a profit of $18k. If the producer sells the Scimitar himself, he would have lost $4k.

I learned that Middle Men provide an important function in the economy.

Lastly, I encountered individuals who would sell me the same items which I was selling, but at a lower cost (if the market price was $100 per item and someone was selling at $90 per item, I would buy them out). Sometimes these individuals were independent merchants, and sometimes I just commissioned individuals to bring me iron at the below market price. Although I was a miner at heart, by outsourcing I gained extra income without must effort.

I learned that outsourcing is beneficial.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Labor, Trade, Video Games | 1 Comment

all I really need to know I learned from video games – part 1

Posted on July 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

From Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics:

If the entire contents of a store get sold out in about two weeks, then that penny on a dollar becomes more like a quarter on the dollar (26 cents, to be exact) over the course of a year, when that same dollar comes back to be re-used 25 more times a year.

In college I had plenty of free time to play video games. There was a week or two period when I focused my effort on the space adventure free play RPG called Privateer 2. In this game, the two main methods of making money are either trading (hauling goods from planet to planet) or running mercenary missions. I figured out fairly quickly that mercenary missions were not only dangerous, but also had extremely low pay. I then looked to maximize profit in trade.

There are about 35 commodities in Privateer, 30 if you do not count illegal commodities (with the number of police patrolling space, it is not a good idea to peddle illegal commodities). These commodities fluctuate in price. During my various visits to planets I mapped the average price of each commodity and then compared the various planets to each other to determine trade routes (see this spreadsheet).

My first mistake was attempting to peddle Bex Beer. Bex Beer is made on the planet Bex and the best trade partner is about 10 jumps away. While I could double my profit using Bex Beer, the game limits the total cargo capacity (your own ship plus one hired freighter). With 10 jumps, there was a good chance the freighter would be destroyed by pirates, ensuring me that I would have to reload my game and try again. This took an exuberant amount of time. Even though I might make a profit at 100%, with the same time that I was making 100% profit I could make more money at a lesser profit rate.

I learned that time must be considered as an input for profit.

I turned my focus to two planets only 3 jumps away from each other. After charting the profits of the various items, I began stocking my ships with the highest profit yielding commodities. At first, I was hiring the largest transports, but soon realized that I could not fill them to capacity depending on the planet.

I started saving money by hiring smaller cargo ships for smaller hauls. Even when I could fill a large cargo ship to capacity, I figured out that it would be only worth it to hire the larger cargo ship if the difference in price between the small ship and the large ship were exceeded by the nominal profit for the added cargo space. If hiring a larger ship created 1 more cargo space for $10, but the cargo that filled the area only created $2 in profit then that equals a loss of $8.

I learned that investments only make sense if the profits cover the cost.

After several jumps back and forth, it became apparent that I had excess money that just sat in my bank account after filling the ship with high profit commodities. Instead of focusing my money on commodities that yielded the highest percent profits, I began filling my ships with commodities that produced the highest nominal profit. Although Brikcrete could give me a 30.56% profit ($2), Solar Generators could give me a 17.2% profit ($12).

I learned that uninvested money is wasted money.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Trade, Video Games | 4 Comments

defining dispensationalism

Posted on July 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

Dispensationalism is the belief that “God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show Faith.” From a debate on theologyonline:

In other words, a more simplistic question might be, “Has the ‘gospel’ (good news) ever changed?” I would say it has. For example, if a person came to me and said, “Jeremy, what must I do to be saved?” Would it be reasonable to turn to back to Genesis and say, “Well, Noah and his family were saved by building an ark. I guess you should build an ark in order to be saved.” We all agree that the previous instruction would be foolish. No one disagrees that the “gospel” for today is, “Believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and was resurrected.” However, in the example of Noah, we have no record of Noah “believing” that Jesus Christ would die for Noah’s sins. We have no record of Noah “believing” that Jesus Christ would rise from the dead. We do have a record of Noah showing faith by doing a physical act (Genesis 6:13-22). Because Noah did the “faith work” of building the ark, he was saved physically and spiritually from the flood. I believe that this idea is foundational for our discussion. This simple example shows that God asks men at different times to show faith in different ways to be saved.

Dispensationalism is not defined by specific content of gospels, but merely by the fact that there have been different gospels (Good News) to different people at different times. Different people at the same time might have different gospels, and the same people at different times might have different gospels. Context is key (who, where, what, when and why). When individuals claim that all dispensationalists teach “salvation by faith alone” or that “God is going to re-establish the national kingdom of Israel” they are missing the real definition of dispensationalism.

I have met dispensationalists who believe Jesus taught a works faith salvation to spiritual salvation. I teach that Jesus was not proclaiming salvation to heaven, but salvation in the present life. I have met dispensationalists who taught that the apostles taught works-baptism-faith but not symbolic law. I teach that they apostles taught symbolic law to the Jews. I have met dispensationalists who claim that Paul and the apostles taught the same gospel, one without works. I teach that the apostles were still very much in favor of the symbolic law and this led to conflicts with Paul throughout his ministry.

To be a dispensationalist, one does not have to embrace a certain gospel. To be a dispensationalist, one just has to believe that God sometimes changes how he requires men to show faith.

Posted in Dispensationalism, Theology | Leave a comment

is God done with national israel

Posted on July 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

There is an interesting anti-dispensationalist text that can be found at monergism.com. It starts:

THE INTERPRETIVE grid which sees a literal fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies mandating a futuristic, national restoration of ethnic Israel as an earthly people of God enjoys much currency today.

Well, let’s see what the Bible says about that:

Rom 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “THE DELIVERER WILL COME OUT OF ZION, AND HE WILL TURN AWAY UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB;
Rom 11:27 FOR THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

Oh, I guess God IS returning to Israel. And if the text is not clear enough, Paul clarifies that he is talking about the true Israel in the very next verse (Covenant Theologians claim that Paul uses Israel to mean, symbolically, the Church):

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

So, Israel is enemies “concerning the gospel”, but they are beloved for the father’s (probably meaning Jacob’s) sake. God cast off Israel, but he is not done with the national Israel. Paul tells us not to be “ignorant” about this.

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

the secrets of the mystery cults

Posted on July 1, 2013 by christopher fisher

The mystery cults were the pagan secretive cults that flourished during the rise of Christianity. Many Christian fathers used mystery language or adhered to mystery teachings. Christian similarities to mystery cults might even explain Christianity’s rapid expansion. But several teachings of the mystery cults tainted Christianity and have stayed ever since. It is important to understand who the mystery cults were and what they taught.

Plato details one of the primary goals of the mystery cults in Phaedo:

And I conceive that the founders of the mysteries had a real meaning and were not mere triflers when they intimated in a figure long ago that he who passes unsanctified and uninitiated into the world below will live in a slough, but that he who arrives there after initiation and purification will dwell with the gods. For “many,” as they say in the mysteries, “are the thyrsus bearers, but few are the mystics,”-meaning, as I interpret the words, the true philosophers.

Here Plato is saying that the mystery cults had one of their primary objectives to “purify” the soul. He explains how this is achieved:

But he who is a philosopher or lover of learning, and is entirely pure at departing, is alone permitted to reach the gods. And this is the reason… why the true votaries of philosophy abstain from all fleshly lusts, and endure and refuse to give themselves up to them-not because they fear poverty or the ruin of their families, like the lovers of money, and the world in general; nor like the lovers of power and honor, because they dread the dishonor or disgrace of evil deeds.

The first step is poverty, throwing off the things of this world. The next step is casting off the body:

…I will tell you, he said. The lovers of knowledge are conscious that their souls, when philosophy receives them, are simply fastened and glued to their bodies: the soul is only able to view existence through the bars of a prison, and not in her own nature; she is wallowing in the mire of all ignorance; and philosophy, seeing the terrible nature of her confinement, and that the captive through desire is led to conspire in her own captivity… philosophy shows her that this is visible and tangible, but that what she sees in her own nature is intellectual and invisible…

…because each pleasure and pain is a sort of nail which nails and rivets the soul to the body, until she becomes like the body, and believes that to be true which the body affirms to be true; and from agreeing with the body and having the same delights she is obliged to have the same habits and haunts, and is not likely ever to be pure at her departure to the world below, but is always infected by the body; and so she sinks into another body and there germinates and grows, and has therefore no part in the communion of the divine and pure and simple.

A final step, as detailed by Plotinus and alluded to in Plato, is an upward ascent of the soul. But I will cover that later.

A key teaching of the mystery cults was that our human bodies are prisons. The goal of true religion is to cast off the body, disdain fleshly desires, and return to a state of purity. To the early Christians, this took the form of chastity or asceticism. While, not popular in modern Christianity, it is important to note that all early Christian fathers were tainted with these particular teachings. For example, Origen castrated himself and Augustine considered his conversion from sex as his conversion to Christianity. While these particular doctrines are not strong in modern culture, it is important to realize that more dangerous mystery cult teachings have persisted (notably the teachings about the character of God).

Posted in Augustine, History, Mystery Cults, People, Plato | 2 Comments

why I oppose handicap parking spaces

Posted on July 1, 2013 by christopher fisher

About 4 years ago, I was attending a mandatory “leadership” course. With all such courses, they like to throw in games about value systems. One such game seemed to try to make the point that although people are extremely contentious about some issues, other issues share wide consensus.

People were directed to stand under signs that said “Agree”, “Slightly Agree”, “Slightly Disagree”, and “Disagree”. As issues were offered up, people shuffled around the room and defended various sides. That is, until the question came up about handicap parking spaces. “It is wrong to park in a handicap parking space.” The entire class shuffled over to “agree” while I stood alone at “disagree”. The teacher, apparently wanting to show people that consensus could be reached, just passed me up on the chance to defend my stance (a typical teacher tactic).

Later on, the question came up “it is wrong to bring more than 20 items to an under 20 item checkout”, where I stood under slightly agree. One student, after class, asked me to explain my seeming “contradiction”.

When someone drives to a grocery store and sees two signs, one for “expecting mothers” and one for “handicap people”, only one of those spots is placed there willingly. Every store owner, despite how handicapped or not handicapped his customers might be, is forced by the government to designate parking spaces to those the government decides are “handicap”. The government, in turn, awards handicap parking stickers to whomever they favor. Often those with handicap stickers have zero discernable disabilities. Infuriatingly, those who are overly obese seem even seem to qualify. The government, in essence, created a special class whose privileges are handed out to favorites and then are manically enforced by overzealous police men.

The “expecting mothers” sign, however, was placed there willingly by the business. The business wanted to encourage families to shop at their store. They realized that certain individuals should be shown courtesy, and proceed to do so. The business owner picked the description of favored individuals and the number of spots to give them. The parking spaces are not enforced with fines and jail time, but with social stigma. Ever actor is acting on their own free will using their own judgment. Everyone involved feels good about seeing mothers parking in those spaces.

Without handicap parking spaces laws, would handicap parking exist? Probably it would, but one might not expect the number of spaces found today’s society. The spaces might be designated as “wheelchair” parking, or “elderly parking”. No one would see “obese” parking. Most importantly, business owners would be free to choose the makeup of their own parking spaces. The government would not be persecuting individuals, and there would be less social anger in society.

Perhaps a better title for this post would be: “why I oppose government coerced handicap parking spaces”.

Posted in Goverment, Human Nature | 1 Comment

plato on immutability

Posted on June 26, 2013 by christopher fisher

Compare this dialogue in Plato’s Republic to modern Calvinists:

And what do you think of a second principle? Shall I ask you whether God is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in one shape, and now in another–sometimes himself changing and passing into many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of such transformations; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in his own proper image?

I cannot answer you, he said, without more thought.

Well, I said; but if we suppose a change in anything, that change must be effected either by the thing itself, or by some other thing?

Most certainly.

And things which are at their best are also least liable to be altered or discomposed; for example, when healthiest and strongest, the human frame is least liable to be affected by meats and drinks, and the plant which is in the fullest vigour also suffers least from winds or the heat of the sun or any similar causes.

Of course.

And will not the bravest and wisest soul be least confused or deranged by any external influence?

True.

And the same principle, as I should suppose, applies to all composite things–furniture, houses, garments: when good and well made, they are least altered by time and circumstances.

Very true.

Then everything which is good, whether made by art or nature, or both, is least liable to suffer change from without?

True.

But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect?

Of course they are.

Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes?

He cannot.

But may he not change and transform himself?

Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all.

And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly?

If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.

From Norman Geisler in Creating God in the Image of Man:

Briefly put, whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since he is absolutely perfect; he could not be better. Therefore God cannot change.

God is by his very nature an absolutely perfect being. If there were any perfection that he lacked, then he would not be God. However to change one must gain something new. But to gain a new perfection is to have lacked it to begin with. Hence, God cannot change. If he did, he would not be God. Rather, he would be a being lacking in some perfection, not the absolutely perfect God that he is.

Does Mr Geisler sound more like the Bible or more like Plato? The reader can decide.

Posted in Calvinism, People, Plato, Theology | 1 Comment