Two wrongs make a right

I listened to a christian try to explain to an obstinate questioner why God doesn’t save everyone. For me, it was obvious that the questioner would never be satisfied with the answer. The way she kept interrupting, her tone and her final words gave away that she already had a conclusion she wasn’t budging from. She reminds me of the modern feminist. That’s not a compliment.

But something in the christian’s speech caused my ears to perk up. I know I’ve probably written about this before, but I don’t mind writing about it again.

In order to answer one of the questions, he attempted to briefly share the gospel. I’m going to put in my own words. You can check the original video to see if I was accurate. Or maybe I’ll do such a good job here that you’ll see I’ve already got the main gist of this part of the gospel.

This christian said that in order to get to heaven, we must be perfect; only perfect people go to heaven. But we all have done wrong, broken God’s law. God is holy and perfect, so any infraction of his law is seen as punishable, worthy of temporal and eternal punishment, meaning a physical death and an eternal torment in hell. And, most importantly for the point of contention I have, God couldn’t simply forgive the sins as if they didn’t happen because that would make him unjust. He must punish wrongdoing to be perfectly just. Not punishing wrongdoing is unjust. So what God did was have a plan set from “eternity past” (that’s the meaningless phrase the christian used). In this plan, he would send his son “in the flesh.” This son would live perfectly. Because he was in the flesh, he could be the representative for every human. And this son would take the punishment we all deserve, but as a perfect person. So now, we’re given a choice that, if we believe in him, his perfection is credited to us, and we are made perfect. Thus, under that “credit,” we can make it to heaven.

Again, you can check if I got that wrong.

That part, “making us perfect,” sounds so Pauline. I’m sure I wrote about recently. But that’s not the point of this article.

Look at what is claimed. If God simply forgives sins, that would make him unjust. Ok, let’s pretend that’s true. It’s not, but let’s pretend. So what does the christian claim is offered as an alternative? God planned to kill a perfectly innocent man. Think about that. God can’t forgive the wicked which goes against the christian’s notion of perfect justice. But is it then fair and right to punish an innocent person for a crime or crimes that person never committed? That’s just? That’s fair? Is the christian sense of perfect justice that as long as someone dies, then justice is served???

The fact is that the slaughter of the innocent is injustice. Killing one person for the crimes of another is injustice.

I believe certain christians put their personal axioms in front of God’s revelations. That may go without saying for some who see christians as putting Jesus before God. But, in this case, there is this idea that forgiveness without punishment or sacrifice is unjust. This is not an unshakeable rule formed from the Jewish Bible. The way how God reveals his rules and standards demonstrates an opposition to this idea.

Search for God while he’s available! Call him while he is near. Let a wicked man abandon his way and a man of iniquity his plots, and let him return to the Eternal and he will have compassion on him, and to our God because he is abundant to pardon. Because my thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not my ways, declares the Eternal. For the sky is higher than the land. In the same way, my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Yeshayahu [Isaiah] 55:6-9

And my people upon whom my name is called shall be humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their evil ways, then I, I will hear from the skies, pardon their sin and heal their land.

Divrei HaYamim B [2 chronicles] 7:14

The Eternal says, To what ends is the multitude of your ritual slaughterings to me? I am full of the ascent offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I take no pleasure in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When you come to appear before me, who sought this from your hand, to trample my courts? Don’t continue to bring worthless offerings. It is an incense of abominations to me. New moon and shabbat and calling convocations, I cannot [endure] iniquity with assembly. Your new moons and appointed times, my soul hates. They have become a burden upon me. I am weary of carrying them. When you spread you palms, I will hide my eyes from you. Also when you increase prayer, I will not hear. Your hands are filled with blood. Wash! Clean yourself. Put away the evil from your deeds from before my eyes. Cease doing evil. Learn to do good. Seek out justice. Set right the violent man. Give justice to the orphan. Plead for the widow. Please, come, and let us reason together, says the Eternal. If you sins shall be like scarlet, they shall be whitened like snow. If they are red like crimsom, they shall be as wool. If you consent and obey, you’ll eat the good of the land. But if you refuse and rebel, you’ll be devoured by the sword, for the mouth of the Eternal has spoken.

Yeshayahu [Isaiah] 1:11-20

This last quote, although long, spits in the face of the doctrine of christianity. The “plan of God” according to christianity is this: when the unrepentant keep sinning, just add a “sacrifice,” the unjust execution of the innocent. The God of the Jewish Bible says, “if you keep doing wrong, I don’t want your sacrifices.” In fact, as Mishlei [Proverbs] teaches in chapter 15 verse 8, the sacrifices of the wicked are disgusting and destestable to God. But Isaiah teaches different. He prophesies that sacrifice, prayer, worship, all of that “religious” or ceremonial stuff is irrelevant in the midst of evil-doing. The only remedy is repentance. As David wrote in Psalm 51, it is only once a person turns from his sin that any sacrifice is accepted, not beforehand.

It would be easy to focus on christianity’s twisting of God’s justice to make it seem like he cannot forgive without bloodshed, as if every sin is worthy not only of death but of eternal torment. But the main thing here is that it is silly to claim that, on one hand, simply forgiving sin is unjust, whilst, on the other hand, claiming that executing an innocent person is just.

Just as aside, did you notice the missing piece … I mean, another missing piece, from the christian’s argument? So Jesus is supposed to take our punishment, right? He’s supposed to take our punishment so that we can be “credited with righteousness.” But let me remind you of what this specific christian said we deserve for disobeying God: temporal and eternal punishment. So if Jesus only takes the temporal punishment, i.e., death, then … what happened to the eternal punishment? Isn’t he supposed to burning in hell forever?

You know what? I’m not even gonna try and figure that one out.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

You keep missing the point

Powerful Nashville Debate! Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? Rabbi Tovia Singer vs. Prof. R.L. Solberg

The professor kept repeating that Tovia Singer was missing some point that he had said, but, for me, watching this debate, I think he really didn’t have a real clue what he was doing.

As, in a number of months, it will be 20 years since I rejected Jesus, I sometimes cover old ground, look again at the christian argument. Some of them haven’t changed at all. The attempt at guilt-tripping done by Ray Comfort and that lot at “Living Waters” is still mainly the same. I did a series covering their deception.

But as I listened to the above professor try to build a case for Jesus being the messiah, it only highlighted the chasm between me and those who use such efforts to draw in more “fish,” to make more christians.

The debate should have been whether Jesus was the messiah. But instead of building a case for who the messiah is according to scripture, what he should do according to scripture, and how Jesus fulfils those criteria, the professor goes on about how Jesus is so popular for just another Jewish preacher amongst many, how the resurrection validated his claims, and how different parts of the Jewish oral tradition can fit Jesus.

It’s like there was a direct question on the table, “is this the guy who did the job?” and the professor is dancing around the issue, throwing red herrings, not caring about criteria but his own subjective desires and having them fulfilled.

There was a time when he shoots himself in the foot and thinks he can carry on running. To quote, this is what he says.

Now I can hear Rabbi Singer right now …, He’s thinking, “Nice try, Solberg, but you’ve (sic.) completely forgetting that Jesus didn’t do anything that the Messiah was expected to do. And guess what! I’m gonna admit that, ok? His followers were even confused on this issue.

ibid. time stamp 19:15

He then proceeds to try to build the case that Jesus would do all the things he hadn’t done in the second coming.

In my mind, I just saw this:

Naked Gun – Epic Facepalm [1080p]

In case you can’t see it, it’s a clip from the movie “Naked Gun” where everyone facepalms at something stupid that was done.

It’s sad that the professor doesn’t know that he wrecked his own case for Jesus being messiah by openly admitting that Jesus didn’t do what Messiah was supposed to have done. God, in effect, says that we’ll be able to recognise the promised Davidic king because certain things will happen in his time. Some guy comes along and those things don’t happen but claims to be the promised Davidic king. Unfortunately, he must be rejected because he didn’t do the job.

And that’s why I think christians will always fail with me. They’ve done such a good job at satisfying their own desires for some saviour-figure that they neglected to make sure that Jesus satisfied God’s criteria. Now when guys like the professor try to prove the case for Jesus to those who fear God, he misses the mark and openly admits to Jesus’ failure while secure in his own emotions. It’s sad. When I say “sad,” I mean pitiful and pathetic.

I think Tovia Singer is a wise debater even if I don’t appreciate all his ways. When I want him to beat the guy over the head senseless with the facts, Tovia is being playful, humourous, or trying to come across as having a sincere desire for those he is talking to. That may be partly why he’s the successful debater and I’m the nobody on the keyboard. I have no gripes with admitting that. He also knows what points to attack. He doesn’t have to pile on the fact that the professor has lost the case. Tovia can point to the fact that while the professor has been quoting so-called scholars, rabbinic literature and hardly building a biblical case, he has just focused on dealing with what the Jewish Bible actually says about the meaning of texts and what the promised Davidic king should do that Jesus did not do.

This debate reemphasised for me why I’m not going back: because christians cannot deal with the Jewish Bible. And when I did, that only helped eject me from the christian faith.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The man of Tarsus: Sin wasn’t imputed before the law

To quote the man from Tarsus:

Because of this, just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin and thus death was transmitted to all men, upon the fact that all have sinned; Because sin was in the world even before the law, but sin was not ascribed [to people], there not being a law. But death ruled from Adam until Moshe, also over those who hadn’t sinned in a similar fashion to the transgression of Adam who is a symbol of the one to come. But likewise, the gift is not like the fall, because if many died by the lapse/mistake of one, much more the grace of God and the gift in grace abounded to the many by the [act of] one man, Jesus Christ. And [likewise] the gift is not like through one that sinned. Because, on one hand, the judgement [which was] out of one [led] to condemnation, on the other hand, the gift [which was] out of many lapses/mistakes [led] to justification. Because if by the lapse/mistake of one death ruled through the one, much more those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness with rule in life through the one, Jesus Christ. Therefore then, as through one lapse/mistake to all men to condemnation, in the same way also through one righteous act to all men to acquittal of life. Because just as through the disobedience of one man, the many were designated sinners, in the same way through the obedience of one, the many shall be designated righteous.

Romans 5:12-19

For me, that was a great experience. I love attempting to read and translate ancient Greek. Of course I needed a lot of help, the experience is wonderful. I know my translation is clunky, not a flowing type of English. For me, it reflects a hint of the structure of the underlying code. When you see the flowing English, it does make the text more understandable. But something is always lost in translation.

I was confronted by this text, read in the King James Version, and parts of it caused me to tilt my head, and screw my face, partly from disgust and partly from concentration, wondering if the conman from Tarsus really meant what he wrote. Thinking about it more after, it struck me how ignorant the conman appeared, how opposed to the narrative of the Jewish Bible he was.

Now I know I’ve written a book about the guy, going through all the books he’s supposed to have written. But what’s to stop me writing a bit more when it hits me?

In verse 12 of chapter 5, the conman makes a strange statement. He writes,

Because of this, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin and thus death was transmitted into all men, upon the fact that all have sinned;

Does this make sense to a person reading Biblical history? Death passes through every person and is transmitted to all men in that we all sin. It sounds like Paul’s conclusion that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). It’s as if the reason we die is because we sin, and if we didn’t sin, we wouldn’t die. But the conman has misrepresented the story.

The first man and woman were not created immortal. How can I know this? In the garden of Eden there were two trees of note, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and the tree of life. The tree of life would bestow immorality, everlasting life. When the first couple made their error, they were evicted from the garden with God saying, “now, so that he doesn’t stretch his hand and eat from the tree of life and live for ever …” (Bereshith [Genesis] 3:22). Man would have only lived forever if he had eaten from the tree. Therefore he was not innately immortal. He needed an external supplement, the fruit of the tree of life, to give him immortality. Mortality is our default state.

So humans do not die because we sin. Sin is not the cause of death. Instead, we were always naturally mortal and limited in lifespan.

The conman has committed and promoted the fallacy of mistaking association with causation. Yes, humans sin. Yes, humans die. But the concept that sin is the cause of our individual deaths is fallacious and not in accordance with the Jewish Bible.

In addition, “sin entered the world through one man?” What does that mean? Sin is not some spirit, some abstract entity that wanders the world. Sin, in the Jewish Bible, generally is something more concrete. It’s the act of disobeying God or go contrary to his commands and principles. We have a choice in life: to live in compliance with God’s expressed will concerning morality; or not to live such a life. If God gives a command, we can either obey it or disobey it. And from the beginning, God has given that choice. The only way to make righteousness meaningful is for there to be a choice.

In light of this, the notion of disobeying God did not occur when the first couple ate from the tree. The very act of God giving a choice between obedience and disobedience is the introduction of the notion or possibility of “sin.” Adam’s act wasn’t like some permission that we all can do it now. Some people are ignorant of Adam. Adam didn’t open some floodgate. Adam didn’t make sin real. As I’ll show later, there is always a moral choice in front of a human being, and we all have the choice to make, regardless of Adam.

So I believe Paul’s reasoning here to be fundamentally flawed. But, of course, he doesn’t stop there.

Because sin was in the world even before the law, but sin was not ascribed [to people], there not being a law.

The law Paul is referring to is the law God gave to Moshe. I know this because he mentions that death ruled from Adam to Moshe (v.14), the time when there was, according to the conman from Tarsus, no law.

The question could be asked what is sin if there is no law at all, no righteous principle, sin necessarily being the act of going against God’s laws and principles. There is something inherently nonsensical about what Paul is saying, especially when one considers the history in Bereshith (Genesis) before the Mosaic law existed. I believe this written history will show that there must have been an unwritten divine code of morality before and external to the law of Moshe. This written history in Bereshith will also show that, contrary to the liar of Tarsus’ claim, sin was ascribed to, “imputed to,” charged against people before the law of God through Moshe.

It should be noted that if people can’t been ascribed with being sinners before the law God gave to Moshe, then the opposite is true as well: people cannot be called “righteous” without a standard to live up to as well. So in the worldview created by this conman, no one can be called righteous or wicked with no law.

Let’s put that to the test in Bereshith.

Firstly, Qayin (Cain) is judged for murder in Bereshith chapter 4. The people of the Catastrophe (the worldwide flood) are charged with wickedness and violence in chapter 6. Noah is called righteous in chapter 6. The thoughts of man are judged to be wicked from or because of his youth at the end of chapter 8. The people creating the tower of Babel were judged in chapter 11. The people of Sedom was called wicked and sinners in chapter 13. Avraham in chapter 18 has a conversation with God that I’ll bring up a little later, but I can say that God says that he knows that Abraham will command his household in the ways of righteousness and judgment, but with what law? Avimelech knew, as was confirmed by God in a dream, that having sex with someone else’s wife was wrong in chapter 20. Avraham is praised in chapter 26 with God saying Avraham had listened to his voice, obeying God’s judgments, commandments, statutes and laws. Wait, but there was no law, right? According to conman Jones from Tarsus, right?

I know that isn’t exhaustive, but there should be enough examples to show that .. Oh yes! Avraham’s discussion with God in Bereshith 18.

So in this chapter, God has declared to Avraham that He’s gonna wipe out the region of Sedom because of the outcry of evil coming from it. The argument that Avraham gives to this must be set in contrast to Paul’s notion of “no law before Moshe” and sin not being attributed to people without law.

And Avraham drew near, and said: ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there be fifty righteous within the city; will you indeed sweep [them] away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are within it? Far be it from you to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked! Far be it from you! Shouldn’t the judge of all the earth do justice?’

Bereshith 18:23-25

So here Avraham recognises the existence of good and bad people, righteous and wicked. There must be a standard, a law, a principle to distinguish one from the other. And take note, God was using his messengers to go and inflict his judgment on the place due to its wickedness, again necessitating a law, and not just a law, but a law that they must have been in the position to be responsible for upholding. God attributes guilt and sin to them, sins worthy of death. But the worst part is at the end. “Shouldn’t the judge of all the earth do justice?” How can there be a judge and justice without law??? Paul’s logic is nonsensical!

On a side note, this also necessitates that there was and is an unwritten law or code of righteousness for the world, an expectation of behaviour that humanity must fulfil. This may put a dent in the notion of “sola scriptura,” that all of God’s revelation is only in written form if the passages pre-Moshe refer to a law code or a moral code not codified in the text of the Jewish Bible. Some code must have been extant even before Qayin killed his brother, before the people during the age of the worldwide Catastrophe or Deluge took place. But it’s not expressed in the written text.

Anyway, so far, Paul’s attempt at providing compelling reasoning has been undercut by the Jewish Bible. The history of the first man and woman and the tree of life undermines the idea that an individual dies because that individual does an act of disobedience. The record in Bereshith undercuts in idea that sin was not imputed upon or ascribed to people before Moshe and Israel received their law from God, or that there was no divine law before Moshe.

Carrying on. Paul in verse 19 of Romans 5 says,

Because just as through the disobedience of one man, the many were designated sinners, in the same way through the obedience of one, the many shall be designated righteous.

Paul here makes it seem as if, because of Adam’s failure, we’re all deemed sinners. I’ll put together clues to decipher what Paul means here.

The word translated “designate” is kathistemi (Strongs number 2525). According to Thayer’s Greek Dictionary, it means the following.

If you can’t see that, it says,

c. “to set down as, constitute (Latinsisto), equivalent to to declare, show to be”: passive with ἁμαρτωλόςδίκαιοςRomans 5:19 (cf. Prof. T. Dwight in New Englander for 1867, p. 590ff; Dietzsch, Adam u. Christus (Bonn, 1871), p. 188).

Now the conman from Tarsus is using the second part of the sentence, that through one man’s obedience many are designated righteous, to reflect the first half. So knowing what the second half means will shed light on what the first half means. By that I mean, in what way are people designated sinners because of one man’s disobedience? Is it because of what they’ve done or is it just the category they’ve been put in?

One of Paul’s messages in Romans is a righteousness that one attains without doing any, without works. He calls it righteousness by faith in Jesus as opposed to righteousness by deeds. Simply believing in Jesus and his death grants you the status of being righteous without any obedience to law. Here’s the evidence.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to them who are in [the jurisdiction of] the law: that every mouth may be silenced, and all the world may be guilty before God. Therefore no flesh shall be declared righteous by the deeds of the law, because through law is the knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God separate from law has been made known, testimony having been given by the law and the prophets; and the righteousness of God [is] through faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all the believers, because there is no difference, because all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has determined [to be] an atoning sacrifice through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness for the dismissal of sins previously committed, in God’s patience, for a demonstration of his righteousness, in this time, so that he might be righteous, and the one who declares him righteous who [is] of the faith of Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded! Through what law? Of deeds? No, rather by the law of faith!

Therefore we conclude that a man is declared righteous by faith separate from deeds of law.

Romans 3:19-28

So, it becomes apparent that, for the man from Tarsus, a person is declared righteous not from his deeds, not from his obedience, not from how much he obeys God. No, for Paul, belief in Jesus, in his alleged obedience, in his sacrifice, simply puts a person into the category of “righteous.”

Paul confirms this in the following chapter, chapter 4, where he tries to put forth the notion that Avraham was … Let me just quote the man. His words are clearer than mine when it comes to his reasoning (or lack thereof).

Because if Avraham was declared righteous by his works/deeds, he has reason to brag but not to God. Because what does the scripture say? And Avraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. And to the one who works a reward is not counted according to kindness but according to obligation. But to the one who doesn’t work but believes on the one who declares the wicked [are] righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness.

Romans 4:2-5

So, without going to the contradictions Paul has with the Jewish Bible about God declaring wicked people righteous (he does not, see Shemoth [Exodus] 23:7, compare with Septuagint), it can be seen here that this conman has God simply declaring people righteous without deeds, without works. They are merely put into that category of righteous because of belief.

So, when Paul says, in the following chapter, chapter 5,

Because just as through the disobedience of one man, the many were designated sinners, in the same way through the obedience of one, the many shall be designated righteous.

Romans 5:19

speaking of the alleged obedience of Jesus, in the second half of the verse, Paul can only be talking about people being put into the category of “righteous” because of Jesus, faith in his sacrifice. They are not designated righteous because of their own deeds, but because of that of Jesus. So they are declared righteous without deeds.

So, for the man of Tarsus, in the same way, because Adam disobeyed, everyone after him was designated sinners regardless of any deeds that they had done or not done. They are designated sinners without deeds.

Now, biblically, based on the Jewish Bible that is, what Paul teaches is utter falsehood. Also, rationally and experientially, Paul teaches absolute nonsense.

I’ll get the rational and experiential bit out of the way first. I believe it should be easy to understand that if someone else does a crime, then a different individual who did not do that crime cannot be guilty of it. In that way, one man cannot be called a sinner – which means someone who is doing the act of sinning – based on the acts of someone else. Why? Because “sinner” is not just some category. The word refers to someone actually doing something, something bad.

Again, experientially, rationally, the word “sinner” doesn’t just refer to someone who does one mistake, in the same way that being a golfer doesn’t mean someone hits a golf ball with a golf club one time in their life. In life, doing one thing wrong in life, or even a few things wrong, doesn’t make a person an evil entity. For example, one can be called a loving parent even if a few times relatively they do unloving things. So the term “sinner” refers to something habitual and significant.

Unfortunately, Pauline Christianity has the twisted notion that, because God is perfect, he demands perfection from the imperfect. Put one foot wrong and you are just a sinner. This is not what the Jewish Bible says. So let me deal with things biblically now.

Dealing with the notion that Adam’s sin put everyone in the category of “sinner,” the Jewish Bible says a good number of times that everyone is responsible for their own actions, their own sins.

Parents shall not be put to death for children, neither shall children be put to death for parents; a man shall be put to death for his [own] sin.

Devarim [Deuteronomy] 24:16

The sinning soul, it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.

But the wicked one, when he turns from all his sins that he has done, and keeps all My statutes, and practices justice and righteousness, he shall definitely live; he shall not die. None of his transgressions that he has done shall be remembered against him; he shall live in his righteousness that he has done. Do I take any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should return from his ways and live? But when the righteous turns away from his righteousness, and does iniquity, he does according to all the abominations that the wicked man did, shall he live? None of his righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; in his trespass that he trespassed, and in his sin that he sinned, he shall die in them.

Yehezkel (Ezekiel) 18:20-24

In the Jewish Bible, the category one finds oneself is not based on the deeds of someone else, but one’s own deeds. Adam’s disobedience was his own, no one else’s. And, reflecting on Jesus’ alleged obedience, it was his alone, no one else’s. The good deeds of a good man is his own. And the bad deeds of a bad man is his own. There is no transfer or imputation of good or evil based on someone else’s deed. As God’s law states as a principle, everyone is responsible for his own actions.

Moreover, the Jewish Bible mentions righteous people numerous times. Noah was righteous in God’s eyes. David was a man after God’s heart. Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Mishlei (Proverbs) and Tehillim (Psalms) speaks repeatedly of good people. But the principle of what makes a righteous person is not this monster created by christians where God only accepts perfection.

Qoheleth does not teach “There is no righteous person.” Instead it says,

… there is not a man righteous in the world which does good and doesn’t sin.

Qoheleth [Eccl.] 7:20

There is no righteous man who doesn’t make a mistake. So there are righteous people, but no one is perfect.

Seven times a righteous man will fall and get back up …

Mishlei [Prov] 24:16

A righteous man isn’t the man who never falls, never fails, never sins, but is one who, after falling, gets back up.

That’s the proper biblical principle of a good man. God doesn’t give men unrealistic goals, a law that can never be kept. That’s why the Law of Moshe itself gives numerous ways of returning to God, because repentance can be just as powerful as obedience.

So, to conclude this part, the conman would have us believe that someone else’s mistake damns us all, condemns us all, consigns us, inescapably, to God’s condemnation and negative judgement. He also makes it seem as if someone else’s righteousness makes us righteous. This is a lie and a falsehood. Each individual is responsible for his own relationship with God and truth. And disobedience isn’t some one-way journey where you can never be righteous again. As God’s own word says, not the words of Paul, “Return to me, and I’ll return to you” (Malachi 3:7). As Yehezkel (Ezek.) taught leaving bad ways and turning to God to do good deeds grants forgiveness.

I call Paul a conman for good reason. He preaches falsehood which has captured many. And because they put more faith in Paul than all the prophets before, more faith that even in Jesus who is said to have directed Jews to keep the commandments to find life (Matthew 19:17), many fall for his deceptions. If only they spent more time even learning the first book of the Bible, they’d see the fabrications in Paul’s words and cut the deadwood loose.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Satan: God can have no true opponent

I was having a discussion where I asked a christian whether Satan or demons are the enemy of God. When the response that came contained the notion that Satan and the demons were attempting the thwart God’s plan, something clicked in my mind, something that hadn’t clicked before. It should have clicked before because I’ve used a similar argument against atheism, but for some reason I hadn’t been consistent with the principle.

You see, an atheist is a fool, is stupid. Without God, there is no foundation for morality, logic or the ability to know anything outside of the chemical processes of the brain. God is the foundation and maker of all these things. Yet an atheist will use the very things his worldview cannot account for, the things God made, in order to curse, reject or ignore God.

It’s the idiot who speaks aloud, speaking out against the existence of air, the thing that allows him to speak out. It’s the ignoramus thinking that there are no such thing as thoughts, undermining the whole process.

Essentially, you cannot truly argue against or defeat the things that are necessary for argument or for defeat.

You already know where this is going, right?

Who is God in relation to the physical and spiritual realms? He is their creator and sustainer. Seems like a simple answer, right? It was for me until I actually started thinking about it.

God didn’t simply start the whole thing and then step back and watch it tick on its own, like a human watchmaker steps back from his newly-made timepiece and it continues without any of his effort. God is the ONLY self-existing, independent entity. Everything else is dependent, contingent. Everything apart from God is dependent on him, continually. Always!

I’ll use an analogy I’m sure plenty of people are familiar with. It’s like God is the imaginer, the daydreamer, the thinker, and all we are are the products of his imagination, his dreams, his thoughts. If there is no thought, no sustaining principle on his part, we don’t exist. Every moment, any particle of this universe, any entity, physical or spiritual, only exists by the will of God.

Any of them.

Now how can any one fight against that? How do you thwart God’s will when everything exists based on it, including you and your thoughts? When it is said that God is transcendent, beyond, and totally alone, that statement is deadly serious. There can be nothing like him because he not only created everything, but everything depends on him.

Enter the christian notion of Satan, the devil and the demons.

On a certain level, a relevant level, both this devil and the human are very similar, the same, in fact. We’re all dependent on God for existence. We all can never enter “wherever” he is. Because he is truly independent, and we’re all dependent. Satan and his demons, if they exist – of course, I reject their existence as christians depict them – could have no existence, no thought, no attempts to allegedly thwart God’s will, no “movement,” no anything without God. The very thought to oppose God needs God.

So the same insurmountable problem exists for such entities as would exist for us: when the grounding of your very existence, everything that makes you you, is essentially God’s idea, God’s will, … there’s no way that God’s own will can overcome him, to even oppose him.

But the objection may arise that some christians’ conception of the devil is different. They have the Hollywood version of God and the Devil where God is the ultimate source of good and the Devil is the ultimate source of evil. Now, I’ll ignore the ones who don’t really accept scripture and are just going off mythology and other notions outside of God’s revelations as that is just fantasy. But for those people who claim to be “bible-believing christians” or “bible-believers,” there may be a simple understanding for such people who hold such a non-biblical view of God and the Devil: they are idolators. Not in the worshipping sense, but in the conceptual sense.

The Torah, the books of Moshe (Moses), are clear. There is only one creator of everything: God! Even in the five books of Moses, he is utterly alone.

See now that I, even I, am He, And there is no god with Me; I kill, and I make alive; I have wounded, and I heal; And there is none that can deliver out of My hand.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 32:39

You, you were made to see so that you would know that the LORD, He is the Deity; there is nothing else, only Him … And you shall know today, and lay it to thy heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is no one else.

Devarim 4:35,39

Reading Bereshis (Genesis) 1, “and God said,” “and God said” “and God said,” the idea that is drummed into my head is that he alone created everything. There was no one else.

But the Alone One also commanded Israel saying “There shall not be, for you, another god in my presence.”

But what do certain christians do? They create a fiction where the one who made plain that he was alone, that there was no one else, has someone with him, eternally, namely, the other creator, the Devil, the one who creates evil.

Since the true God said he was alone and commanded against other gods, and certain christians put another god with him, the god of this age, the Devil, Satan, then they can be nothing more than idolators, having another god with the one true God. In addition, they’re essentially calling him a liar.

Biblically speaking – rationally speaking – the God of the Jewish Bible has no equal, no partner, no one with him. Therefore, any satan or devil or demon is only his creation, another creature bound to and dependent on his will as we all are, nothing more.

Now it could be said that all this is redundant as there is no devil, some spirit-being who is an enemy of God, it only being a fiction created in ancient minds. But for me this exercise re-emphasises the fact that God is more real than you or I, that God alone is worthy of worship and divine reverence.

There is nothing else, only Him.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another reason to hate Paul

Or just another piece of evidence that he taught trash.

I don’t hold many mainstream points of view and I take a few unorthodox paths to get info. Unfortunately, these paths are frequented by self-proclaimed followers of the pointless scarecrow, Jesus the Nazarene.

Now those that I see have certain issues and gripes with the Jews, or should I say they are wont to redefine the term Jew in terms of the faith that someone holds so that it covers both native Jews and Gentile who have nothing to do with the nation of Israel. Let me show you what I mean by means of an example.

Some guy trying to distinguish the “good” Jews from the “bad ones” (the Zionists) wrote the following.

The entire Bible is a Jewish book. Since some Jews have not accepted Jesus Christ as the prophesied Jewish Messiah, some claim that only the Old Testament portion of the Bible is Jewish, referred to mostly as “The Torah.” When the New Testament part is included, they refer to it as the “Christian Bible.”

But there is no “Christian Bible.” The term “Christian” itself is only used 3 times in the New Testament, and is never a term the Jews who followed Jesus used for themselves. Therefore, the entire Bible can correctly be referred to as the “Jewish” Bible, as even the New Testament portion was written primarily by Jews.

The term “Jew,” according to the Bible, simply means the people of faith in God, and his Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Saul, later also referred to as “Paul,” was sent by the risen Jesus Christ outside of Israel to bring the good news about Jesus to non-Jews, referred to as “Gentiles.”

He spent about 14 years in his home town in Tarsus before starting the main portion of his ministry visiting Gentile populations in the Roman Empire. He himself was a Roman citizen.

It was revealed to him that the term “Jew,” applied to all those who served God and believed in Jesus, regardless of their national or ethnic identity.

Shilhavy, B., (2021). “Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?” Health Impact News. Available at: (Accessed: 21 Feb 2022). Emphasis mine.

Then he goes on to quote Ephesians 2:11-22, Romans 2:28, 29 and Romans 4:1-12 to come to the epic conclusion that even though he … no, let me use his words.

This is why I can refer to myself as a “Jew,” even though I am not part of any religious organization, nation, or ethnic group related to the historical or Satanic Jews.


So he admits he’s not part of any nation or ethnic group related to the historical Jews, he freely calls himself a Jew, feeling more comfortable calling himself that than a christian.

I’ll quote something from Paul’s work that gives this guy confidence in what could be seen as identity theft or the presumption to take from someone else’s heritage, akin to theft.

Because he is not a Jew, the obvious one, and not the obvious circumcision, in the flesh. But, rather, the Jew [is] in the concealed [form], and circumcision of [the] heart, in spirit, not the letter …

Romans 2:28-29a

This sort of writing leads christians to believe that the real Jew is not the physically circumcised one, the obvious one. No, for the Jesus follower … no, the Paul follower, the real Jew is so hidden, he can even be a non-Jew, a Gentile. He may have no tangible circumcision, but just have in it the invisible form.

Again, just think of that understanding: the real Jew can be a non-Jew. Again, the real Jew … is not a Jew.

To me – and no one else need agree – that it is a contradiction if taken as many a christian takes it.

Just an aside, but over my past few article, I’ve noticed how contradictory forms of christianity are. Jesus is supposed to be fully man and fully God, but that very description means he cannot really be a man, and he could never be God. The book of Matthew puts forward the claim that Jesus is Messiah yet describes Jesus in a way that is absolutely not messianic according to how the Jewish Bible uses the Hebrew term (an anointed political king) and how the Jewish Bible clearly prophesies about the person and time of the promised Davidic king. And now I’m talking about the belief that a person who has no ethnic connection with the historical nation of Israel, nor a proper nationalistic one by means of formal naturalisation, a person who therefore is not a Jew can be a real Jew?!? Contradiction after contradiction. How could I ever go back to such a mess?

Anyway, because of the teachings of Paul, we have non-Jews feeling entitled to steal the name and heritage of the real Jews. Just look back to the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, the Tanakh, the so-called “old testament.” Imagine Abraham being promised a son from his own flesh, his and Sarah’s flesh, and then some guy from Egypt comes along and says, “hey, look at me, the fulfilment of prophecy, because I’m not your son in the flesh, but in the spirit.”

Imagine the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from the sons of Jacob, having Jacob, Isaac and Abraham for their literal forefathers. Abraham being promised to be the father of many nations, that his seed, his offspring would be as multitudinous as the stars. Think of the family-nation of Israel, the proper ethno-nation from the Bible. And then along comes Paul, because of whom christians trash the clear understanding from the Jewish Bible to take up the words of Paul. And this conman opens his hands to the non-Jews and spiritualises the whole earthy history of a nation to give open access to those non-Jews. Forget God’s covenant with Abraham in the flesh through circumcision in Genesis 17, confirmed in Leviticus 12. Rubbish God’s law that decrees that his tribes of Israel, the children of Israel, get certain obligations and blessings the other nations don’t get. Essentially, forget what God actually and clearly said. Put the words of Paul above the law of God!

That doesn’t just smack of a form of idolatry, but also of ignorance and illiteracy on the part of the non-Jews suckered in by the conman of Tarsus. It’s putrefying crap like this and its effects on the non-Jews sucked in by the foolishness that compelled me to write my book: The Apostle Paul – Saul of Tarsus: The Bitter Root.

I’m not a Jew and never would I want to be one. But I take seriously the injustice and “theft” and usurpation that the conman from Tarsus inflicted on the real Jews, the real nation. His lies, his God-rejecting false teachings have had deluding effects on the minds of those who have nothing to do with Israel. I doubt I can make any difference to a lie started so long ago. But at very least I can state my hatred of his teachings because of how they defile and bury the words of the one true God. I can learn, know and show why Paul’s teachings so damn wrong.

I don’t do it for the world to change. I do it because I love God and truth and hate the disrespect to both.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Conclusion: According to Matthew, Jesus is not the Messiah!

I know. The first answer to that may be “rubbish!” or “ridiculous!” Sounds stupid, right? The book in the christian bible attributed to “Matthew” seems to be going out of its way to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. It says a lot of times that Jesus fulfilled prophecies. One of the prophecies “Matthew” uses, from Micah 5, speaks of a ruler of Israel coming from Bethlehem (whatever that truly means). It has Jesus himself claiming to be messiah and son of God. So it does sound ludicrous that “according to Matthew, Jesus is not the Messiah.”

I went through the book attributed to Matthew in order to get material for a project of mine. As I read through the book and made my notes, collecting relevant ideas, I didn’t just look at the so-called prophecies Jesus is said to fulfill, but also at the character type that was being built, the traits and skills being emphasised, the life that was led by the Jesus character. And something quite obvious stuck out like a sore thumb.

Before I say that, let me set the foundation of what a messiah is according to the Jewish Bible. I’m not going to go deep or use references. If you think I’ve made a mistake in these criteria, let me know. The English term “messiah” comes from a Hebrew word that sounds like “mo-shee-yahh” or “mah-shee-yahh” used 39 times in the Jewish Bible (Strongs number 4899). It means a person anointed with oil and involves connotations of someone appointed to fulfil certain official roles which are made clear in the rest of the Jewish Bible. Its first clear usage is in Leviticus 4:3 where it refers to an anointed priest, specifically a descendant of Aaron, who performs rituals in the tabernacle (which would later be the temple). In the books of Moses, the “messiah” only referred to that individual role. The next clear and literal usages of that Hebrew term meaning “anointed one” speaks of those anointed to be political kings, rulers of Israel. Those are the clearest uses of the term. Although there may be some poetic usages, the term “anointed one” normally and literally refers to priests and kings in the Jewish Bible.

This is important, because there are no clear prophecies in the Jewish Bible about this anointed one, using that Hebrew word. If someone wants to even attempt to bring up Daniel 9, but I know enough about that to know it’s more eisegesis (assuming Jesus to be messiah and putting him there) than exegesis. But that’s the only one that can be used or, more properly, misused.

In the Jewish Bible, clear messianic prophecies speak about a king that is descended from king David, a man from the clan of Bethlehemites (1 Samuel 16:1, 18; 17:58). This links to one of the literal roles of that Hebrew term, that of being a literal and political king over the Jews. Using Ezekiel 37 as a clear example, or Isaiah 11, this king would be a sign of obvious positive changes in the world, not subject to faith in the unseen. He would literally rule Israel. The tribes of Israel would be regathered to Israel. The temple would be rebuilt. Israel would be obedient to God and the whole world would acknowledge God properly.

I’ll leave the summary there because I believe enough of a point has been made.

Now what are the forthright characteristics and actions of Jesus according to Matthew? I won’t focus just on Matthew or Jesus claiming him to be somebody. What did he actually do? How did he live? What was his recorded life like?

To summarise, the clearest attributes of Jesus that Matthew emphasised was his ability to do miracles, and the fact that he said a lot that people liked. I could include the fact that he moved around a lot. So essentially, Jesus is a roaming miracle-worker and preacher. That is the limits, the extent of who Jesus use according to Matthew.

Now, can anyone see a huge problem with this? There’s no point in asking because this is about my conclusion whether it is accepted or not.

There is a huge chasm between the person in the clear, unambiguous messianic prophecies (which are actually few and far between) in the Jewish Bible and the Jesus that Matthew portrays. The person mentioned in the Jewish Bible was a literal king of Israel without the discrepancies in his lineage that Jesus suffers from, whose time is filled with obvious events that no one can doubt that I wrote about above. Matthew’s Jesus never ruled Israel a day of his life. Matthew’s Jesus time accomplished none of the clear events foretold.

It seems to me like Matthew was only interested in a good talker who could distract from his failings to be the true prophesied one by doing miracles, something that is not a criteria to being a Davidic king according to the Jewish Bible.

To put it bluntly, for me, Matthew is another reason why Jesus is not and can not be the messiah spoken of in the Jewish Bible.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

According to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus was not a human being!!!

Forgive me for checking myself! Why am I demanding forgiveness from strangers to whom I’ve done nothing? I take it back.

I saw an article linked to one of mine. It was an article in which a guy tries to explain why he’s a Jesus-follower. I thought I’d at least see if it had any strong points. As you may guess, it did absolutely nothing to attract me to the Nazarene. But he did say something that caught my eye. I’ll quote him.

Jesus enters the picture. He is God himself in the flesh. He is 100% God and 100% man. As a man he was tempted in every way we are, yet he never sinned. Therefore, he was the perfect human being.

I just want you to read that a number of times and think about not just the words, but the implications of each part. For me personally, when I looked at it and thought about it, I realised that there was a complete contradiction in it that showed me that the trinitarian Jesus, the “divine Jesus,” cannot be a human being.

“But, writer, the dude just finished his point by saying Jesus was a perfect human being.”

I know this. But everything he said before shows that Jesus who they claim to be true, if he was the entity as described, could not be a human being.

How so?

First, let me tell you what the Bible says about humanity. It says that we are made of dust, a material being with the breath of God to give us life. But, as God said in Bereshis (Genesis 3), dust we are and to dust we shall return. One of the songs in the book of Tehillim (Psalms) enforces this message saying that God knows our frame, what we’re made of and our limits, that we are merely dust. We know from experience the limitations that come with our form. Limits in knowledge, strength, placement, we are essentially limited. And in our ignorance, we make mistakes and disobey God’s law. As Qoheles (Ecclesiastes) teaches, there is not a good man on the earth that has never made a mistake. That teaches that there are good people, but everyone, every human, makes mistakes.

I’m not going to get long-winded about this. I’ll just say that a human being is 100% human, through and through. Purely and simply human.

Can you see the problem yet?

I think of the fears about the implications of what the covid injections do to human nature. There are people that say that companies cannot patent natural things, like plants. But once the genetic sequence is altered, the company can own that new altered life. Since the covid injections are said to work by putting genetic sequences into the human cell to make it do something unnatural, generate a toxin called “the spike protein,” and there is a possibility that that genetic sequence can go into the alleged nucleus and change that genetic structure, it would make a person less human, and more a product of the genetic manipulators. The AstraZeneca and J&J shots are said to actually put genetic information into the alleged nucleus of a cell, while there are questions about Pfizer and Moderna, since, according to certain understandings, there is potential for a cell to take up that genetic information into the nucleus as well.

The main point is that simply by altering human DNA a bit, the question can be asked whether that person is fully or still human. And that’s just by means of a minute physical particle or the administration of a small amount of substance.

Then comes Jesus who trinitarians and “divine Jesus” believers claim is 100% God/divine and 100% human. This isn’t merely a prophet, a human being who comes under God’s influence every now and again, or Moses who talked to God but always remained human. Jesus is said to have two natures, divine and human combined in such a way that 100% plus 100% doesn’t become 200% because that would imply separation, still two beings. This is 100% plus 100% becoming inseparably one thing. But this thing is no longer or can never be just human, like you and me. You and I are simply human. Jesus, according to their doctrine, is … is … to be blunt, he’s a hybrid monstrosity.

And understand, I have have not even begun to talk about how God has revealed himself in the Jewish Bible and how that obliterates the idea of this unholy combination. Just the simply fact that Adam, Moses, Noah, Abshalom, Jonathan, Lincoln, Gandhi, the customer service employee at any business, you and I are simply human, 100% human through and through, but Jesus, according to the “divine Jesus” teaching, was something else because of his dual natures, just that simply fact makes him inhuman, non-human. You can say “superhuman” or “metahuman” or whatever, but he was not a human being in that doctrine.

Just to summarise, by saying that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God means Jesus was not a human being, even without going into the nature of God. Yes, that is in spite of the guy’s conclusion. And it also means that his statement is a contradiction. To say in one breath, “Jesus was both God and man combined” and “Jesus was a perfect human being” when a human being is not the combination of God and man, but is simply a man, is a contradiction.

Does that makes sense?

I may have to touch slightly on God’s self-revelation.

The way that, in logic, or reasoning, or even just in experience, that the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction works, is that each entity or class of entity has certain characteristics that make it what it is, and also makes it not another thing. A tree has certain characteristics that distinguish it from being something else, like a cat or a cloud or a teacup. In the same way, a human being has certain characteristics that distinguish it from other entities. One such characteristic is that it only has human nature. One part of that nature is limitation, temporal and spatial limitation. A human is limited to only being in one place at one time, trapped and controlled by such entities as time and space.

God however created time and space and therefore cannot be, by nature, limited spatially or temporally.

Hence I believe it can be clearly shown that human nature is but one thing, limited in certain ways by nature. But God-nature is not that thing, not limited in those ways by nature. Therefore one being cannot both be limited and not limited in the same way, which Jesus would have be in order to be 100% God (unlimited) and 100% man (limited).

So again, to conclude in a way, the divine Jesus is not a human (humans aren’t God).

As a little aside, let me point out something else the guy said in the same quote to show that even flipping the coin ends up the same way. He said “Jesus was tempted in every way we humans are.” This leads to a logical contradiction and, for christians, additionally a “biblical” contradiction. Logically, since God owns absolutely everything he creates and he is not bound by desires or lack, he cannot be tempted. For christians, the book of James, chapter 1, clearly says that “God cannot be tempted” (James 1:13). Hence, if Jesus was tempted every way a human is, then he cannot be God since God cannot be tempted.

I already know the attempted get-out clause “divine Jesus” believers claims. “It was only the human side of Jesus that was tempted.” Unfortunately that can’t work because, since you must have 100% (God) and 100% (man) become inseparably 100% (one entity and not two separate entities), that means that what was experienced by the humanity must have also been experienced by the “deity,” no separation allowed. Hence, the single entity was tempted. But since God cannot be tempted, and Jesus was tempted, Jesus cannot be God.

Interesting. To start with the claim that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, and end up with the nature of man meaning that he cannot be a man, and because of the nature of God, he cannot be God, that can only mean that Jesus was nothing. And since the nature of man and the nature of God are opposites in many ways, then that’s a contradiction that cannot exist. So either way, the “divine Jesus” belief leaves me with a great big NOTHING.

I’ll go to sleep now.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

I’ll pray for you

“I’ll pray for you.”

They say that to me, the christians that is, after they’ve tried to convince me that Jesus is important or something but not by means of a proper study of the Jewish Bible. They will have referred to some emotional or personal experience, or a biblical passage they don’t know the context of, and have found me to be nonplussed and not convinced. What’s worse is that I’m not the ignoramuses to whom they normally preach the gospel. They can’t simply throw out the cliches without challenge. I know why, rationally and biblically, Jesus is nothing, not a messiah, not some “God.” I know why the doctrines of Paul are bullshit, biblically and rationally. When they throw thoughtlessness at me, I throw back a reasoned critique. After that, it’s just “I’ll pray for you.” So the “I’ll pray for you” response is a reflection of personal failure and the desire to beseech the supernatural to change my mind. But change my mind to what? Simply what they believe, regardless of understanding. Understand that. They don’t necessarily care if I accept their faith for good reasons or not. The main thing is just that I accept, that I comply, that I submit. “I WANT YOU TO CHANGE! IT’S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!” But it’s about what they want, i.e., compliance and submission to what is theirs.

On a different subject, in an argument, someone said to me, in a seemingly impassioned way, “I don’t have to find good reason, you’re going to do what I want.” That, in my mind, is a great example of the christians that I’ve found that try to convince me of their falsehood. They cared little about true reason, true faithfulness to scripture. All that matters is Jesus and my submission to him.

[Aside: Since “Islam” is supposed to mean “submission,” I can see the similarities between the two sets of religionists.]

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Divorce, Remarriage and Jesus: Is there a bigger issue?

I believe that Jesus taught categorically wrong things when compared to the Jewish Bible. That’s my conclusion based on reading the gospels. One thing in particular is his opinion on the only way a man and woman can be divorced. I’ll quote the passage from Matthew 19 here.

The Pharisees also came unto him, testing him, and saying to him if it’s lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? And answering, he said to them, “Haven’t you read, that the Maker at the beginning made them male and female? And he said, Because of this, a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cling to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh? So too they are no more two, but one flesh. Therefore that which God has joined together, let no person part.” They say to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a document of separation and to divorce her?” He says to them, “Moses, for the sake of your hardheartedness, allowed you to divorce your wives, but it wasn’t like this from the beginning. And I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, except it be based on sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and the one who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9

Now I see a fair amount of holes in this teaching of Jesus based on the wording, but I’ll focus on one thing in particular here.

Notice Jesus’ logic, the motif. God put these two people who are getting married together and making them one flesh. If God has put these two together, then no one can part them. Moses’ allowance for divorce was only created because the Jews were stubborn, but that allowance didn’t exist before. So even if someone claims to have divorced his wife, if it’s not on the grounds of sexual immorality, then the two are still married. How is this demonstrated according to Jesus’ logic? If the man marries another after this “divorce,” then he’s committing adultery. How can this be so? Only because he is still married to the original wife. If another man marries the divorced woman, he commits adultery. How can this be so? Because she is still married to the original husband. If the grounds of divorce is anything other than sexual immorality, then the divorce is void and the man and woman are stuck in union.

So Jesus makes the claim that divorce is impossible without sexual infidelity based on his understanding of Genesis 2.

The person arguing in defense of Jesus made an important point. Apart from the few verses in Deuteronomy 24, the books of Moses, the written books, don’t say anything about divorce or remarriage. When Moses does bring up divorce, he doesn’t mention it as a concept that needs new explanation or at least needs written explanation. If someone is only going by “sola scriptura,” they really have no information about divorce. That means silence. So here’s a question. When Jesus makes a statement about whether a man and woman can be divorced, where does that come from? The place he quotes doesn’t overtly say that when a man and woman become one flesh, there is no means of separation. It should be obvious that the term “one flesh,” if referring to the union between a man and a woman, is not literal. The man and woman don’t literally become a single individual person as if physically merged. They remain two different people. The union is necessarily metaphorical or figurative. So tell me again why this metaphorical union cannot separate? On what basis is the conclusion or statement of Jesus correct? How do I know he is correct?

I had someone declare to me that Jesus was giving the true intent of God’s law, that he was magnifying the law and making it great. The necessary basis of such a claim is the belief that Jesus had the authority to do so which, for me, is an unfounded claim. And this teaching doesn’t magnify the law by making it seem as if the source is just the man Moses who gave way to the obstinacy of men in contradiction to the original divine will. That is not making the law great. Instead, it is making seem weak and malleable to the whims of man. “Moses got it wrong; God actually wanted this!”

I repeat again something I implied in the previous paragraph. The basis of the conclusion that Jesus is correct, that he is somehow divining God’s true intention, is belief in Jesus’ own allegedly God-given authority and/or prophethood. Without this, all we have are the logical derivations of some dude which can be easily destroyed with some critical thinking.

But I’d like to bring up a witness or two against Jesus’ declaration that without sexual immorality a man cannot divorce his wife and, should he remarry, he is an adulterer, that this was the way before Moses came along and changed things because of the stubborn Israelites.

Now take careful note that Jesus only charges the men, the original husband who remarries and the guy that marries the divorced woman, with adultery. I just want to focus on the first one, the original husband who remarries. What is the definition of adultery in the Decalogue? What is adultery? According to every Jewish commentary I can find, it means sexual intercourse with a woman married to someone else. It is a man who has sex with someone else’s wife. This is corroborated by other places in the law of God that speaks of the forbidden act such as Leviticus 18:20a.

You shall not lay carnally with your neighbour’s wife …

Rashi also brings up Ezekiel 16:32 to back it up.

The woman who commits adultery, that takes strangers instead of her husband …

I don’t think there is a scripture that backs up the idea that an adulterer is a married man who marries again or who has sex with someone other than his wife. I’m not going to go into the Torah principles about that, my focus in only on what Jesus claimed to be adultery. So, biblically, the man who commits adultery has sex with a married woman, and a woman who commits adultery is one who has sex with someone other than her husband.

So my question is this: what on earth is Jesus doing claiming that a man who remarries commits adultery? There’s no basis for this whatsoever.

This brings forward my second witness: Abraham. So, as you may know, he was first married to Sarah. While married to her, he remarries! Huh??? What??? Yes, I said it! Abraham marries another woman while married to Sarah. Proof needed?

And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, … and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived …

Genesis 16:3

It matters little that Abraham had Sarah’s permission or that Hagar was a gift. According to Jesus’ standard, if a married man marries another woman, that is adultery! Abraham and Sarah don’t seem to know what Jesus is talking about. Neither do Jacob, Leah, Rachel, or the slavewomen that Jacob married while he was married to Leah and Rachel. In fact, every polygamous marriage in the Bible contradicts Jesus’ stance, even that of King David.

“But … But … Abraham wasn’t divorced and then remarried. So it doesn’t fit with what Jesus is talking about.

Ah, I guess I’m stumped.

Except … well that doesn’t make sense, does it? The basis of Jesus’ argument is that a man and woman, once joined in marriage, cannot be separated without sexual infidelity. The reason why subsequent marriages are adultery is because the original man and woman are still married. So Jesus’ point wasn’t simply that divorce plus remarriage is adultery, but that a man remains married to his wife and therefore marriage to anyone else is adultery, which is contradicted by the practices of the patriarchs, people who lived before Moses, so the “Moses allowed” excuse is irrelevant.

In addition, Abraham divorced Hagar by sending her and Ishmael away. There is no sign that she is dead when he then marries another woman called Keturah (Genesis 25:1). Remember, in the Hebrew, to get divorced is said as “sending away” (Malachi 3:16) or “cutting off” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And throughout all if this, there is no statement at all from the books of Moses that the patriarchs did any wrong. They were never called adulterers and adulteresses.

So the tenor of the Jewish Bible contradicts Jesus’ stance. To be very clear, there is not one remark in the entire Jewish Bible that goes against what Abraham and Jacob did. Not one clear statement in the Jewish Bible says that a man remarrying pre- or post-divorce is a sin. And, at least for me, that’s a problem when it comes to the credibility of Jesus’ condemnation.

Jesus has no leg to stand on when it comes to the text of the Jewish Bible. There is no prior authority or overt text that agrees with his stance on who is guilty of adultery. The Jewish rabbis after him – universally as far as I can see – have a different definition of adultery and have the Jewish Bible to back them. So the only thing christians and Jesus-followers have to go on is the belief that the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels are his, and that he has the alleged authority to make his claim.

For me, the fact that he is surrounded by voices that contradict his stance, even the voice of the Jewish Bible, puts into question whether he has such authority. You should already know that I’ve been through all the so-called messianic prophecies in the Jewish Bible and recorded my findings in written and video form, and the endeavour showed me that Jesus had no such authority, being neither some “son of God” or messiah at all. I’ve also gone through the gospels and am attempting to go through them one more time, this time making a book from it, finding again that the Jesus depicted could never be the one clearly prophesied in the Jewish Bible based on his words and actions. That he is surrounded by witnesses opposed to his teaching, biblical and Jewish, is unsurprising to me because he has no such authority nor a firm allegiance to the law of the Lord via Moses.

So, basically, regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, Jesus is dead wrong.

No apologies.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Born in eternity past – The eternal son

Just look at that title and ponder. That’s how someone recently described what “son of God” meant in reference to Jesus: an entity born in eternity past. Again, just consider that for yourself.

And now, I’m gonna share my considerations about this description.

“Born.” This word necessarily implies a beginning. I don’t think I need to explain that. If there is a beginning then that necessitates time, a limited time.

“Eternity past.” Eternity refers to timelessness, something not limited by time. It refers to something without beginning or end. When it is used in its more “limited” sense, for example if someone is given eternal life for the future, then it means they will never die as they will have life without end. If that’s true for future with regards time, what do you think it means when it comes to the past? It must mean that there is no beginning, a past without end, hence no beginning.

Let’s bring these two concepts together. “Born in eternity past” necessarily means a beginning that has no beginning. What a terrible contradiction!!! A beginning with no beginning is not a beginning. And having no start means nothing started.

The fact is that a being born in eternity past doesn’t exist because the description is utter nonsense, just a car existing with square circles for wheels (that means it doesn’t exist).

If someone says that they only mean that Jesus began existing a very long time ago, then not only is he a limited being, that person needs to use the right words. The argument that “this is only semantics” is also fruitless because the word “semantics” is defined as “the meaning of words”, and believe it or not, words have meaning, each word having a specific meaning. When you use a word but not according to its meaning, then semantics is all-important, and shows that such improper language only generates lies and confusion.

Jesus is said by many to be the eternal son of God. Again, let me consider semantics. I’m not going to jump to theological definitions. The word was first used in a normal and common sense and then applied to theological entities. So let me consider what “son” means. Its meaning includes a person’s male child either from conception or adoption, even in the loose sense of informal adoption, just considering a male, a boy, as one’s own son. But it refers to a diminutive or younger version of the elder. I think that’s a necessary part of the word: a diminutive or younger version of the elder, with a significant enough difference in age. You never fittingly call an elder “son,” neither do you call an equal “son.” Additionally, the word “son” can be used for someone who is looked on as if produced from some greater thing, or having characteristics derived from something else, linked with the root understanding of “offspring.” So “son of the soil” or “son of the field” talks of someone in relationship with the greater thing, the earth itself or a field of corn. That is the proper use of the word.

So what does “eternal son of God” mean? As I’ve said before, eternal means timelessness, no limit in time. But “son” necessarily means a lesser, a younger, a diminutive, produced from a greater. But, in mainstream christian theology, the sone was never produced. He is not derived from someone else. He’s not, by nature, a lesser, a diminutive. To be eternal with God, you must be outside of the limits of time with him. This is sounding like idolatry, something existing with God, always, a lesser god. Except christians declare that Jesus is not a lesser god; he has the very same divine essence as the father, the same nature, and is not younger or lesser. Are you seeing my problem here?

It would make sense for the divine being with the father to be “the brother.” It may make more sense for one to be the General and the other to be a Captain. But “eternal father” and “eternal son,” this “son” being equal with the father and having existed just as long, with no sense of being derivative??? If I’m dealing with semantics, the meaning of words, then hasn’t the description of this “eternal son” totally obliterated the meaning of “son,” leaving it as a husk, an empty phrase just linked to the term “eternal?”

Again, don’t bother talking about this “son” being inserted into and discharged from the womb of a woman, since there was a time before that woman, and the “eternal son” would still be a “son,” whatever that means.

And don’t even get me involved with the christian doctrines about this “son” having all the attributes of God, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the omnipotence. How the hell can such a thing be called “son” in any meaningful sense of the word? How the hell does “all-powerful” be attached to a word that necessarily means “lesser” in relation to the christian doctrine?

“Oh, he’s just lesser because he chooses to be.”

Sorry, but that sounds like the sort of argument I’d here from the transexual lobby. “Oh, I have all the natural biological characteristics of man, but I identify as a woman.” Dude, you’re identifying as something that you’re not factually. “Oh, I have all the characteristics of an eternal, all-powerful god that was never produced, never naturally lesser, never derivative, but I identify as a son.” Dude, you’re identifying as something you’re not factually.

And since you cannot both be something and not be something, when it comes to semantics, the phrase “eternal son of God” is another contradiction in terms. Sometimes contradictions are obvious. Sometimes it takes a bit more thought to see it. Either way, contradictions don’t exist in reality. So I feel secure in making the following statement.

The eternal son of God, the Jesus who was born in eternity past, is a fictional character, a character that does not exist in reality. That makes the concept delusional and idolatrous, delusional in the sense that it treats something fictional as if it were real, and idolatrous is giving worship, reverence and/or honour to a nonexistent entity.


PS. I’m only a guest writer here and I haven’t heard anything from the main owner for some time. As I’ve put work into all the articles I’ve written, I’m not sure if I just want them deleted if any blitz should happen for one reason or another. So I may make a backup blog and transfer my articles across and start posting on both there and here. Or maybe I should make a book of them. I don’t know. Anyway, if any of the two readers (I’m being optimistic, right?) who actually read this blog have any ideas about where I should make a secondary repository of my articles online, let me know. I don’t know if I should make another wordpress blog, or if I should try a different location altogether, like or on some decentralised blogspace based on Hive and blockchain (as if I have any clue what that means) which are supposed to avoid censorship and may show links from video sites that are not Youtube properly. If you choose to say something, let me know and I’ll consider it.


Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments