did paul have access to the gospels

Posted on March 6, 2013 by christopher fisher

Many, if not most, Biblical scholars advance a theory that the apostle Paul did not have access to any of the Gospels, at least how we know them today. Bart Ehrman states this explicitly:

Paul really did not know that there were any written Gospels, since in his day, they hadn’t been written yet. This includes Luke, probably written around 80-85 CE, some 15 or 20 years after Paul’s death.

This makes sense, being as most scholars date the four gospels to well after Paul’s death (64 AD). But the interesting thing is that Paul gives a fleeting reference to Luke:

1Ti 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

The statement that a laborer is worthy of his reward is not an Old Testament teaching, but a teaching unique to Christ:

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Of course, some might claim Paul was quoting from a pre-gospel document or floating sayings of Christ. But what is more likely, that Paul is quoting the sayings recorded in a Gospel by his historian travel companion, or that Paul is quoting a never-referred-in-antiquity source documents or floating sayings? The reader can judge.

Posted in Bible, Ehrman, History, People | Leave a comment

sequester roundup

Posted on March 6, 2013 by christopher fisher

1. The sequester represents 2.3% of the entire budget. Reason Magazine mocks this by offering a sequestration sale, 34 cents off the price of a subscription.

Putting this in perspective, this is $120 billion per year out of a budget of $3.7 trillion.

2. Sequester is not spending cuts, but cuts in the planned increase in spending.

3. It could all be paid, if the government recalled the bailout funds.

4. The defense cuts will be pork

5. Reason.com lists 5 other facts

6. The current set of things to cut is a political ploy. Obama could have targeted the cuts differently, but seem to be targeting service employees to maximize damage and political gain.

7. David Henderson lists 7 government implications. David Henderson also analyzes these.

8. Economist Garett Jones asks why not salary cuts. The answer, which he seems to not know, is that furloughed employees traditionally get back pay for time not worked. Paid for not working!

Posted in Economics, Goverment | Leave a comment

false brethren in acts 15 and galatians 2

Posted on February 16, 2013 by christopher fisher

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

These events in Acts 15 is parallel to events described in Galatians 2. In Galatians 2, Paul is recounting the reasons he journeyed back to Jerusalem to meet with the church leaders. He writes of these “certain men”:

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

He calls them false brethren. So we know they were representing themselves as brethren. It also appears from the Acts passage that they accept the authority of those in Jerusalem. Why else would a journey to Jerusalem solve the issue? Even if the journey was intended to satisfy Paul’s converts, and not the false brethren, the false brethren must have accepted the authority of those in Jerusalem, how else are they convincing those who are Paul’s converts and who do accept the authority of Jerusalem?

Once in Jerusalem, two more contextual clues tell us about these false brethren. The first is that an entirely new contingent arises preaching the exact same thing. Luke, the author of Acts, calls them believers:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Compare the teachings of this sect of “Pharisees which believed” to the teachings of these “false brethren”. We know from Gal 2:3 that it had to do with circumcision, and we know from Acts 15 that it definitely was about needing circumcision to be saved:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

The next piece of evidence is that Peter claims the men were from the congregation headed by him and James. These very men were believers who communed with Peter and James:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

I had a conversation with a pastor who claimed that these were heretics that were casted out by Peter and James, but the text in no way indicates this. The text indicates that they are still accepted (just not their proselytizing Paul’s converts), not to mention that a contingent of James and Peter mentioned in Acts 15:5 preached the exact same thing and are considered believers. The men from Judea were brethren. Why does Paul call them false? Because Paul was extremely protective of his converts:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul states that even if he was preaching another gospel that they should not believe him. He states that even an angel from heaven were preaching another gospel, not to believe him. Paul curses these people. Is it any stretch of the imagination to contend that he would call James and Peter’s acolytes false brethren if they attempted to preach a different gospel to Paul’s converts?

Note that Paul says the gospel they teach is “not another”. This makes sense of James and Peter’s converts. They are still teaching the death and resurrection of Christ (the gospel), only they are adding in conditions for salvation. Paul goes on to label the gospel being taught as the “Gospel of Christ”, only perverted.

One further clue is that Galatians describes an incident well after the events in Acts 15 in which “men from James” came again to Antioch, but this time Peter is there. Peter, it seems, pre-emptively withdrawals from the Gentiles and the following happens:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Who is this “them which were of the circumicision”? It is the same as the men from James. What are they teaching and what do they believe? Could it have to do with circumcision? Why does Peter, a leader in the church, react to what these certain men would think? Paul refutes Peter to his face:

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Peter was compelling Gentiles to be circumcised, through withdrawing from uncircumcised Gentiles. Paul links this to the gospel. Paul claims Peter did not live according to the truth of the Gospel. Paul goes on:

…Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified…
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God…
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Paul talks about Law and Works. This is how he is withstanding Peter to his face. So men from James came, and Peter responded by mimicking a gospel of law and works. Isn’t this is a settled issue? Doesn’t James and Peter teach salvation by faith alone and that works are dead? It is obvious that they did not. Both James and Peter, and their converts, seem to have been teaching something which Paul did not teach.

Paul spends Galatians 3 then explaining further that works and law are not required. With all this in mind, we can get a clear picture of who the false brethren were, where they came from, who their teachers were, and the extent they were affected by the Jerusalem council (not much).

Posted in Dispensationalism, History, Theology | 22 Comments

best door to door preaching tutorial

Posted on February 15, 2013 by christopher fisher

Pastor Anderson has been “soul winning” more than anyone else I know. He probably has the best salvation message I have seen of any of these outreach preachers. He emphasizes the gospel: Christ, the son of God, died for our sins, was buried, and rose. That act paid for our sins and salvation was a gift to us who would receive it. He points out future works, a change in lifestyle, or going to church are not relevant. He does this all in 10 minutes. Worth a watch:

Posted in Theology | Leave a comment

of mystery cults and baptism

Posted on February 14, 2013 by christopher fisher

A while back Huffington Post had an article concerning baptism in the time of Augustine and Ambrose. What it describes is remarkably similar to the rites of the Mystery Cults. From the article:

In early Christian communities — in fourth century Milan, for instance — it was the day when, normally, all new Christians were baptized, and it was the deepest spiritual experience most of them would ever have… things like their being stripped naked in church and then anointed with oil all over their body, or going naked into a pool where their heads would be held under water three times for “total immersion”…

Baptism then involved, for those seeking it, a long Lent of fasting and penance, during which Ambrose preached twice a day on the meaning of baptism… Ambrose said that passage through the waters of baptism was the culmination of a whole series of biblical signs and prophecies — riding with Noah through the Deluge, crossing with Moses through the Red Sea, receiving healing words from Jesus at the Jordan River and the Pool of Bethesda.

By going into the healing waters of the very pool we can see today, Ambrose taught, his flock was dying into Christ, to be resurrected with Christ on the other side of the pool, and then to be “clothed in him” as the white robes of a newfound innocence were donned…

The white flock of renewed souls sang their way into church with the hymns that Ambrose had composed and taught his congregation… At the first Mass these new Christians were allowed to join in, they heard for the first time the Lord’s Prayer (a treat that had been kept secret for them) and received their first communion of the Body and Blood of Christ…

Even then their spiritual instruction had not ended. Still clothed in their white garments, they heard a sermon a day for another week as Ambrose “debriefed” them on all that they had undergone, bringing out deeper and deeper meanings in the mystical rite of rebirth that is baptism.

So here we have a description of the Baptism practiced by Ambrose. It sounds remarkably like an initiation to a Mystery Cult. In The Golden Ass by Apuleius, he describes a lot of similar features. Initiates wore white robes:

Then came the throng of those initiated in the mysteries, men and women of all ranks and ages in shining robes of pure white linen.

These initiates were told to fast and prepare for initiation:

Meanwhile, like her other votaries, I should immediately abstain from unholy forbidden foods so that I might the better attain to the secret mysteries of this purest of religions.

He meditates:

The priest having put it like this, I did not allow my impatience to affect my obedience but, calmly and quietly and maintaining a commendable silence, I devoted myself in earnest to the sacred worship for some days.

When the day has come he is baptized:

Then, when the priest said the moment had come, he led me to the nearest baths, escorted by the faithful in a body, and there, after I had bathed in the usual way, having invoked the blessing of the gods he ceremoniously aspersed and purified me.

He then goes through more instruction, including secret teachings and continued fasting:

Next I was taken back to the temple, the day being now two-thirds over, where he made me stand at the goddess’s feet and privately gave me certain instructions which are too sacred to divulge. Then with everybody present he ordered me to abstain from the pleasures of the table for the next ten days and not to eat the flesh of any animal or drink any wine. This abstinence I observed with reverential restraint as instructed.

The initiation cumulates with another secret teaching:

Then the day came which was fixed for my pledged appearance before the goddess. Towards sunset there came flocking from all sides crowds of people, all bearing different gifts in my honour, according to the ancient practice of the mysteries. Then the uninitiated were all made to leave, I was dressed in a brand-new linen robe, and the priest took me by the hand and conducted me to the very innermost part of the sanctuary.

I dare say, attentive reader, that you are all agog to know what was then said and done. I should tell you if it were lawful to tell it; you should learn if it were lawful to hear it.

What is that secret teaching? We do not know for sure, but is about death, rebirth, heaven, and hell:

I came to the boundary of death and after treading Proserpine’s threshold I returned having traversed all the elements; at midnight I saw the sun shining with brilliant light; I approached the gods below and the gods above face to face and worshipped them in their actual presence. Now I have told you what, though you have heard it, you cannot know. So all that can without sin be revealed to the understanding of the uninitiated, that and no more I shall relate.

As explained before the initiation began:

For the keys of hell and the guarantee of salvation were in the hands of the goddess, and the initiation ceremony itself took the form of a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace. Such as might be safely entrusted with the great secrets of our religion, when they had passed through life and stood on the threshold of darkness, these the power of the goddess was wont to select and when they had been as it were reborn return them to a new lifespan.

Ambrose and Augustine were practicing a baptism, not described in the Bible, but one resembling the mystery religions. We see in Paul a baptism that happens the very hour a new believer comes to salvation. Paul’s jailer in Phillippi asks what he can do to be saved:

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

After baptism, the jailer returns Paul to jail that very night after which Paul refuses to leave jail until the leaders of the city beg him to do so. In the gospels, Jesus and John baptize all that come to them without any initiate process. There is no special clothing. There is no fasting and reflecting. There is no secret teachings. It is a simple and straightforward rite.

The baptisms performed by Ambrose and Augustine are additional evidence that the Church, very early on, became heavily paganized.

Posted in Augustine, History, Mystery Cults, Theology | 1 Comment

Jesus was dirty

Posted on February 14, 2013 by christopher fisher

Over at CNN there is an excellent article on dismantling the clean image of Jesus. Literally speaking, Jesus was dirty. He suffered human problems, which could include things such as dysentery.

One paragraph reads:

To that end, I suggested recently to several astounded colleagues of mine that Jesus actually had to go to the bathroom, perhaps even on the side of the road between Capernaum and Jerusalem.

Although true, this instantly reminded me that some early Gnostics (Valentinus) thought Jesus did not go to the bathroom:

He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.

Posted in History, Jesus, Theology | 5 Comments

abimelech changes God’s mind

Posted on January 29, 2013 by christopher fisher

Abimelech is mentioned in two different passages in Genesis. Both passages cover peculiar events concerning potential wife swapping. Possibly 90 years elapsed between both events, so it would be safe to assume these are different people.

Sarah is said to be around 90 years old at the time of the birth of Isaac (Gen 17:17), this is when Abraham is 100. In Genesis 25:7, Abraham dies when he is 175 years old, when Isaac is 75. Gen 26 speaks as if Abraham is dead. At minimum, assuming no anachronistic verses, the minimum time between events (Gen 20 and Gen 26) is 75 years.

Theoretically, Abimelech could be the same individual in both passages (considering the age of Abraham’s death). But then one would have to account for the ages of Abimelech in both stories (75 years apart). It seems more likely to be one of two alternative explanations. It should be noted Abimelech literally could mean “My father is King (Molech)”. This seems to be a title of a king, not unlike Caesar or Pharaoh. It seems also to have been used in future generations, often among kings (see Jdg 8 and 2 Sam 11). A second possibility is the human tendency for fathers to name their sons after them. See the confusion surrounding Herod.

If Abimelech is a king’s title (and a different individual than Gen 26) then Abimelech in Gen 20 is the only reference to this particular character in the entire Bible. We know he was the King of Gerar, had many wives/concubines (v 17-18), and he had absolute power over his lands (v 15). We also know Abraham feared being killed by the people under Abimelech’s rule (the land was wicked). We know Abimelech would not hesitate to collect women against their will (or else Sarah could have politely declined be taken). We know Abimelech had enough slaves to give them at will to people he offended (v 14). In other words, Abimelech was a powerful pagan king who reigned over a pagan people.

When Abimelech hears of Sarah, Abraham’s wife, he takes her (thinking that Sarah is Abraham’s sister and not his wife). God then intervenes in a dream to Abimelech.

It is interesting that God has a dialogue with this pagan King. Calvinism teaches “Total Depravity”, that without God no one can be pure or come to God. But in these verses a pagan king reasons with God about morality, directly and unapologetically. Interestingly enough, God agrees with the pagan king:

Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
Gen 20:4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
Gen 20:5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

Note that Abimelech does not throw up his hands and say “your ways are higher than my ways.” Instead he defends himself and accuses God. He says “will you also slay a righteous nation?”. Abimelech is calling God out on morality. He is defending his actions as done through ignorance. Abimelech has a conscience, and Abimelech has standing to discuss morality with God. God agrees with his reasoning:

Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Gen 20:7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

Some people say God never intended to kill Abimelech and that Abimelech never convinced God of anything. This does not fly. First God threatened to kill Abimelech not for having relations with Sarah, but for taking her from Abraham (we know it because God accuses Abimelech of having, past tense, done the deed). This would be kidnapping another man’s wife, a capital offense.

Abimlech points out he did not sleep with her. He then adds that he did not know she was betrothed and is not guilty. God states for this reason he kept him from sleeping with her, a different offense than kidnapping another man’s wife. Then God follows this up with another threat to kill Abimelech.

Then why does God follow up the averted threat with another death threat? This does not make sense unless God was not sure how Abimelech would respond. God did not enter Abimelech’s dream knowing for sure Abimelech would not chose to rebel. After all, Abimelech was arrogant enough to take women from strangers, and he was spectacularly wealthy. These two traits do not endure God’s morality to people. Abimelech could reject God, and likely so.

God merely postponed any adulterous sin so that Abimelech would not sin through ignorance. To say God threatened to kill Abimelech with no thought that he could possibility kill Abimelech, is to make God a liar (in the same sense of 1 Jn 5:10). We learn from Genesis 20 that pagan kings can reason with God and change God’s mind.

As a side note:

To those who think the story is false because Abimelech might be lusting after a 90 year old woman, they don’t seem to understand the relative ages of death. What does the normal female look like at that time? How fast does the body decay when people are living to 175? Is it possible that different cultures have different standards of beauty? I once heard an overweight missionary to Africa state that her body type was in demand because weight is associated with riches. Different cultures value different things and we should take caution when projecting current environments on ancient peoples.

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Calvinism, Morality, Open Theism, Theology | 7 Comments

Christian cliches – God is above logic

Posted on January 27, 2013 by christopher fisher

The other day, one Christian wrote to me “God is above logic”. This seems like a emotional trump card to play when losing a debate. In this case, the Christian did not like my reasoning when it came to morality and that I quoted no Bible verses. Forgetting the fact that Abimelech also didn’t seem to quote Bible verses when he persuaded God on his take on morality, I would like to address the claim head on. I wrote the following in what was to be a larger paper on Logic, Reason and Interpreting the Bible:

Christians, along with the secular world, often confuse logic with reason. Images of Spock from Star Trek are evoked when talking about a logical being, but the fact is that Spock is not a logic driven creature. Logic knows no values. Logic does not tell us how to live our life, or even how to act. All logic gives us is a framework in which we can function.

“Reason” is the word which should be used in conjunction with normative issues, such as if the needs of many outweigh the needs of the one or whether to charge into a Borg controlled ship armed only with a potato gun. Spock is a reason driven creature.

Reason is not absolute. We do not know the infinite variables which add to the costs of taking certain actions. Reason is a best guess on the costs of actions preformed based on what evidence is available. It is about taking best probabilities of a good outcome. It might be reasonable to buckle up whenever riding in a car, but not if the seatbelt strap was made from razor wire. Reason can be wrong, and often is because we are flawed creatures. We do not know everything; we are not omniscient.

The truth is that while we may not all be reasonable and some of us may think illogically, we all live according to the laws of logic. It is impossible to do otherwise. We will examine this further after establishing some laws of logic.

The three most basic laws of logic are: the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Exclusive Middle, and the Law of Identity:

1. The Law of Identity: For things, the law asserts that “A is A,” or “anything is itself.” For propositions: “If a proposition is true, then it is true.”
2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things: “Anything is either A or not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, such as P, is either true or false.”
3. The Law of [Non-]Contradiction: For things: “Nothing can be both A and not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false.”

As any good computer programmer knows, A and B are just placeholders for any conceivable thought. They are variables meant to hold anything. Using the 1st Law: a cat is a cat. Using the 2nd Law: something is either a cat or not a cat. Also: Bob Hope is either a cat or not a cat. Using the 3rd Law: Nothing can be both a cat and not a cat. Also: Bob Hope cannot be both a cat and not a cat.

Someone might object and say Bob Hope can be both a cat and not a cat if he dressed up like a cat. In that sense the statement: Bob Hope is a cat would be valid. But he also would not be a physical cat.

This reasoning is fallacious because it changes meaning of the word halfway through the dialog. This is known as the logical fallacy of Equivocation. To be intellectually honest one should be consistent with the terms being used, not attempt slights of hand in word usage. Bob Hope cannot be both a cat and not a cat at the same time in the same sense. It is a logical impossibility.

The Bible cannot be Christian’s axiom for knowledge. An infinite number of truths must be established before we can even begin reading the Bible. If logic is not necessarily true, then A does not have to equal A. Therefore the Bible, if true, might also be false. The phrase “Jesus Christ” in the Bible might actually be the phrase “David Hasselhoff”. It might also be both “Jesus Christ” and “David Hasselhoff” or neither. Anything is possible without a basis in the laws of logic.

Likewise, if the Bible was a basis for logic then establishing logic would in turn negate itself. Simply, if you do not have the laws of logic established before you read the Bible, then you cannot apply the laws of logic to the Bible. If the Bible stated the 1st Law was true then it might in fact be false; the Bible could not establish anything without the Laws of Logic. Logic is the axiom to all we know and do. Without it we know nothing and can establish nothing. This point is crucial because it is so often repeated in Christian circles that God himself is above logic.

If God is good and God is above logic, that means that God might not, in fact, be good. If A does not necessarily have to equal A, then “good” does not have to equal “good”; “good” might equate to “evil”. Likewise, if God tells man that he will save us if we believe in Christ Jesus, then he might really be saying he will not save us if we believe in Christ Jesus. He might really be saying he likes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There would be no way to know. Anything that God would say is untrustworthy, not because he is a liar, but because lies do not exist without a foundation in logical principles.

If God was above logic that would mean that logic was a creation, logic does not have to exist, and logic’s laws are arbitrary. In other words, A does not necessarily equal A. This means that God is not God; it would be a total fantasy on man’s part to believe that God even existed. This would also mean that existence does not equal existence; we wouldn’t even exist.

There is a reason man thinks using logic; it is because logic is necessarily true. It is not true because God says it is. To believe the laws of logic are arbitrary is question the very existence of God.

Posted in Christian Cliches, Theology | 1 Comment

the christian case against copyright

Posted on January 22, 2013 by christopher fisher

How would someone convince someone else there is no Biblical prohibition on eating dogs? How would someone convince someone else that eating a dog is not immoral? As per celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall:

It’s an artificial construct of our society, a cultural decision, to make pets out of dogs and meat out of pigs. Both animals could be used the other way round, although pigs probably do make better meat than dogs and dogs better pets than pigs, but it’s not a foregone conclusion.

The statement might be at first, appalling, but is it true? In order to address issues like these, it is important to set aside culturally based beliefs. In China, dogs are often on the menu. In the United States, the practice is outlawed in many States. Who is right and who is wrong, and how would one convince the other?

To those who care more about tradition than morality, it does not matter that God himself commanded us to eat dogs:

Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

When God abolished the Kosher food laws, this included the prohibition on eating dogs. Paul follows this up by saying do not let people judge you in what you eat (Col 2:16). If using the Bible as the source for right and wrong, eating dogs is definitely not wrong, despite the inclinations of American culture.

In order to address concepts from a neutral point of view, it is important to isolate and remove cultural prejudices. In regards to copyright, the same must be done. When the Bible talks about stealing, we cannot just assume this applies to intangible concepts in addition to physical property. We cannot just assume when the Bible talks about workers and what is owed, it applies to those who create art and other media who have no agreement with the end user. We cannot assume that when the modern world includes copyright violation in their definition of theft, that is also applies to the Biblical concept of theft. We cannot assume that which we are trying to prove.

Starting at the ground up, the proponents of Intellectual Property rights have a lot of work to do. They first need to define Intellectual Property. This is an impossible task in and of itself. They then need to show that there is such thing as concepts, patterns, or processes which can be owned. This is a concept foreign to the Bible. The Bible is replete with references to inventions, songs, and artisan works which today would be deeply copyrighted. Paul, himself, carries around books and was a tentmaker. The psalms in the book of Psalms are both poetry and songs. The Israelites created works of art (such as the golden calf and the Ark of the Covenant), they created writings and songs (as evident from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible), and they used innovative technology (such as Iron).

Iron is a particular example of Intellectual Property because for a long time Israel did not use or have access to it, and that fact impeded their military efforts. Genesis records the first (recorded) teacher of the art of Ironmaking:

Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Tubalcain might or might not have invented Iron Working, but he definitely did not invent the myriad of uses of it. The Canaanites eventually figured out a way to apply it to their chariots and were able to overcome Israel:

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Other nations figured out how to craft iron weapons such as swords and arrow tips. The Philistines used iron to overcome Israel. They had a monopoly of the sources and manufacturing techniques of this metal. The Bible records in Judges how the Israelites lost wars and were oppressed due to lack of iron technology:

1Sa 13:19 Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

And,

Jdg 5:8 … was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?

Israel had to eventually adopt the practices of their neighbors to become militarily sound, definitely violating some individual’s “Intellectual Property” in the process. Once Israel started using Iron, it never went out of use. In Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions the author uses arrow tips as an example. The Israelites did not invent iron arrow tips or iron chariots. They “stole” these technologies from their neighbors.

If someone wishes to argue that the Canaanites first stole the technology and then Israel stole it from them, this is precisely what proponents of Intellectual Property wish to stop on P2P technology. Those hosting the files are not the original “thieves” but are well down the chain. Secondary stealing, such as if a stranger steals my car and then another stranger steals it from them, does not give the second person any right to my property.

The point of all this is that Israel adopted many customs, processes, and intellectual properties of their neighbors. Did they pay the originators? Is there any hint at owning someone something for adopting their ideas? Intellectual Property is just not found in the Bible, despite consistent references to technology, innovation, and art. This becomes even more glaring of a problem for proponents, when one considers that over 600 rules are listed in the Old Testament, none of which hint at anything approximating Intellectual Property.

Stealing is used often. It is used both figuratively and literally. In both uses, it is never used for Intellectual Property. When the Bible states “thou shalt not steal”, it is referring to tangible goods that can no longer be used by the owner. The Hebrew word for “steal” is used in the Bible as follows:

Cattle – Gen 30:33, Exo 22:1
Idols – Gen 31:19, Gen 31:30, Gen 31:32, Gen 31:39
Humans – Gen 40:15, Exo 21:16, Deu 24:7, 2Ki 11:2, 2Ch 22:11
Money – Gen 44:8
Stuff – Exo 22:7, Exo 22:12, Jos 7:11
Bones – 2Sa 21:12
Water – Pro 9:17
God’s words – Jer 23:30
Figurative: To win over – 2Sa 15:6
Figurative: Carry Away – 2Sa 19:41, Job 21:18, Job 27:20
Figurative: Sneaking – Gen 31:20, Gen 31:26, Gen 31:27, 2Sa 19:3

This list is fairly exhaustive, only excluding general statements without indication of item being stolen. The only reference that can conceivably be linked to intellectual property is the one about God’s words. This is referencing false prophets parroting God’s prophets. In this case, is this a literal or figurative use of the term? Can it be applied to works such as novels and paintings? The verse alone is not a compelling argument that God has copyrighted his words and that others can do the same. Instead God is concerned about plagiarism and misattribution. It seems people were taking God’s words, maligning them, and vulgarizing them. To settle the question of Intellectual Property, we might ask “would God be for or against these false prophets repeating the words of Jeremiah and sourcing Jeremiah?” If the answer is no, this is not about Intellectual Property.

The fact that any of these “stealing” verses do not apply to Intellectual Property is compounded by the prescribed penalties for stealing. The penalty for stealing, in the Bible, is paying back a multiple of what was stolen:

Exo 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep…
Exo 22:7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

How does this apply to Intellectual Property, which can be multiplied at whim? If one person copies one mp3, do they have to send 3 mp3 copies back to the owner? The payments are always “in kind”, sheep for sheep, ox for ox, and money for money. The penalties for theft just do not apply to Intellectual Property. Notice also, the restitution is based on current value, not future projected value and not guestimated losses in projected earnings.

It should also be noted that stealing implies loss of the original to owner:

Oba 1:5 If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough?…

It is telling that the Hebrew word for Robber, literally means “destruction”. The Hebrew word for Thief is from the Hebrew word for Steal, literally meaning “to carry away”. Both these imply a loss. A robber does not steal a chair and then leave the chair at the house for the original owner to use. Something must be taken or destroyed for theft to occur. Ideas, concepts, and words cannot be lost. A physical book might be carried away, but if someone memorizes the Bible (imagine if the King James copyright did not lapse) then they are not stealing away the words.

It is often claimed that copyright violations, such as printing off a book or duplicating a song, are defrauding a workman of his wages. But this is not a solid interpretation of the verses. Let’s view one claimed in support of copyright:

Jer 22:13 Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

The Jeremiah verse deals with using a neighbor’s service without wages. This is in direct context of “building his house”. This is not about getting tangential benefits from someone else’s work. If my neighbor cuts his lawn and repaints his house, my house’s value goes up. Do I then owe him anything? No, he is doing a job from which he should not expect any compensation from others. He is not working for me in any sense of a contract. I never agreed to pay him and he never agreed to work. If I then proceed to paint my house and mow my lawn to increase my property value even further, I do not owe him anything for the idea.

If he takes it upon himself to come over to my house and mow my lawn, again I do not owe him anything (think of the news story in which a robber cleaned someone’s house and left them an invoice). In Jeremiah, it is implied that there is mutual consent or some sort of agreement. Working on your own does not entitle you to someone else’s money, no matter how much it benefits them.

Take then the music artist whose mp3 is downloaded for free. Some might argue that you are building up your standard of living by consuming free entertainment, and that you are defrauding your neighbor who provided that entertainment. But imagine I visited a tourist destination. These places are filled with street performers. They dance or do tricks for money. If I stop and watch them, am I now obligated to pay? By the nature of their work, they have no expectation of compensation. There are natural spill-over effects of art (including software development, painting, and music). People, because they have thinking minds, will catalogue, reproduce and modify their experiences. People have the right to their own perceptions. It is unreasonable to use the state to then force payment between individuals for these effects.

It is likewise immoral to have the state use theft to enforce copyright restrictions. Remember, real theft involves taking or depriving use. If the state says that there are only certain data arrangements of 1s and 0s that someone can have on their computer then this is tantamount to theft. People no longer have full use of their computer. If the state confiscates a contraband football jersey, again, real theft is taking place. Ironically, supporters of copyright support theft of real property.

The Bible does not teach intellectual property. Copyright and patents did not exist in ancient Israel (or the rest of the ancient world). Instead they are a modern conception, forced into the Bible by modern Christians who think that their ways are higher than God’s. Instead of defending property rights, they destroy property rights to further their need to control people. They are like the Pharisees who built man made laws on top of God’s laws. Let Matthew 15:8 be the warning:

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Posted in Intellectual Property, Morality, Theology | 14 Comments

Jesus and his secret teachings

Posted on January 21, 2013 by christopher fisher

There are some dispensationalists who believe that during Jesus’ own ministry, Jesus converted his teaching from a works based salvation to a faith based salvation. They point to Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection as evidence of this. But the fact is that Jesus’ gospel remained unchanged during the entirety of his ministry. He always taught an imminent Kingdom of God on earth. When we encounter his later teachings about his own death and resurrection, it is always to his disciples, he often tells them to tell no one, and they generally don’t believe or understand him.

The first prediction is recorded in Luke 9, Mark 8, and Matthew 16. Here is the first indication that Christ gives to his disciples that he is going to die. Each text makes clear that Jesus is alone with his disciples. He then asks them who he is. When they respond he is the Christ, he tells them to tell no one. This is critical, because we learn this is a secret teaching to only 12 individuals. Both Matthew and Mark record further that one of his disciples (from other scripture we can infer all the disciples were perplexed), Peter, begins to rebuke him. Jesus then counter-rebukes Peter.

Luke’s account is the most concise:

Luk 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?
Luk 9:19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.
Luk 9:20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.
Luk 9:21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

All three authors saw the most important elements as those contained in this little section. Jesus was teaching his disciples (not the public). They stated he was the Messiah. Jesus then told them to tell no one. Mark further elaborates Jesus’ teachings:

Mar 8:27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
Mar 8:28 And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
Mar 8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Mar 8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

The basic intro is the same, but then it goes into detail about what he taught next:

Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mar 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them…

Mark shows that he was preaching a Christ that would suffer and die. This is not what any Jew expected from a Messiah, so naturally his disciples rejected it. Peter rebukes him, gets called Satan and the story shifts to Jesus talking to the multitude (as contrasted only to his closest disciples). The story gives us no resolution as to the thoughts of Peter or any other disciple. In Matthew we see the same pattern:

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

This gospel expands on his blessing to Peter (remember that Matthew is a Jewish gospel so wants to reinforce Peter’s authority), but keeps all the same basic elements. This gospel turns the next section into long term summary of his teachings. Jesus is said to teach only his disciples about his coming death and resurrection. There is reason to think his prohibition on telling others carries over to these teachings as well (see further down).

Mat 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.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Matthew marks this event as the turning point when Jesus begins telling his disciples about his death and resurrection. Jesus attempts at great cost to keep this a secret from the general population. In Mark we see that Jesus uses subterfuge to remain unnoticed in order to teach these things (to his disciples):

Mar 9:30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
Mar 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.
Mar 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Jesus did not want any man to know it. Was this a legion of disciples he has been teaching all this time, or does the Bible use the word as we do, in order to mean the 12 disciples? It is hard to keep secret and remain hidden when multitudes know a secret. And if not, what does Judas betray to the High Priest, if not for his secret teachings that he is the Messiah and will die and rise again? Note also that none of the disciples understood his teachings. If Jesus was changing his ministry, it is odd that no one understood it. Compare this to Mark and Luke’s version:

Mat 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
Mat 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

Sorry here means vexed. This teaching unnerved them. Mark emphasizes they didn’t understand it while Matthew states they were troubled by it. Luke adds that this teaching was hidden from them (either reinforcing that they didn’t understand it or implying that Jesus actively tried to be ambiguous (both good indications that Jesus was teaching something secret, instead of a new gospel)):

Luk 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
Luk 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

Matthew 20 records a third instance, this time leaving out anything about them not understanding or being sworn to secrecy:

Mat 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
Mat 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
Mat 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.

It cuts off after this, not elaborating on the events around this (similar to Mark 10:33). Luckily, Luke does that for us:

Luk 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
Luk 18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
Luk 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
Luk 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Again, the disciples do not understand.

So every time Jesus talks about anything related to the gospel as we know it, it is always to his disciples, it is never understood by anyone, it is widely rejected, and never is it tied to salvation (redeeming blood, a blood sacrifice, redemption, propitiation, or grace). Instead, the four gospels are laid out in a fashion we would expect. Jesus is introduced. His general gospel is explained. And any nuanced or secret teachings are revealed later. His public ministry was always about a coming Kingdom of God. It was never about his death and resurrection.

Posted in Dispensationalism, Jesus, Theology | 3 Comments