Search This Blog

Monday, May 30, 2011

The fall of man: just whose fault is it really?

What gets glossed over with this story is that god is supposedly all knowing. He therefore knew that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit before he started his creation event. Knowing this information, he stills puts the fruit in the garden and tells them not to eat it, completely aware this prohibition will be ignored. When they eat the fruit, he is furious that they disobeyed him, even though he was fully aware they would disobey him and that they had no choice but to eat the fruit, since that was the only path that completed gods predestined plan. He blames mankind for this action, even though all he had to do was put the tree someplace else, or perhaps allow one of his angels to guard it and make sure no one actually does eat from it. After all, he did put an angel at the entrance of the garden after kicking them out, so that was certainly a possible option for him initially. Or here is an idea. Do not create the tree in the first place and therefore no one would eat from it. And these are the actions of a deity we are told is all knowing and the most intelligent entity in the universe.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Prayer and the concept of god.

Prayer cannot work. It is another logical fallacy.

For prayer to work, that implies that god is willing to change events for a specific person. However, if god is willing to change events, then he cannot be all knowing. If he was all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. Therefore, the prayer is pointless. It either coincides with what god always has planned or it does not. If it does coincide, then there was no need to pray because the outcome was already what you needed before you prayed for it. If it does not coincide, then praying is pointless because it never had a chance to change anything.

If prayer actually does change events, then god cannot be all knowing. If god is not all knowing, then he is not all powerful. Since the standard model of god says that he is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot be answering prayer and changing events to something he did not already plan for.

Monday, May 23, 2011

The multiple and very different deaths for King Saul. Making sure the bad guys get really killed.

1 Samuel 31:4-6

4Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
5And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
6So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.

2 Samuel 1:2-10 (New International Version)
2 On the third day a man arrived from Saul’s camp with his clothes torn and dust on his head. When he came to David, he fell to the ground to pay him honor.
3 “Where have you come from?” David asked him.
He answered, “I have escaped from the Israelite camp.”
4 “What happened?” David asked. “Tell me.”
“The men fled from the battle,” he replied. “Many of them fell and died. And Saul and his son Jonathan are dead.”
5 Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?”
6 “I happened to be on Mount Gilboa,” the young man said, “and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and their drivers in hot pursuit. 7 When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, ‘What can I do?’
8 “He asked me, ‘Who are you?’
“‘An Amalekite,’ I answered.
9 “Then he said to me, ‘Stand here by me and kill me! I’m in the throes of death, but I’m still alive.’
10 “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”

2 Samuel 21:12 (New International Version)
12 he went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had stolen their bodies from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.)

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 (New International Version)
13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

When does gods' law become the basis for moral behavior?

We are often told that the bible is the word of god and that morality comes from gods laws. But that opens up questions.
Why was Cain guilty of murder although the Mosaic Commandment had not been given, and why were the Sodomites guilty of sexual sin before the Mosaic commands against homosexual behavior? If no one knew it was against gods will, why would we say it was bad? Now, one can argue that these rules are imprinted on our consciousness. But if that is true, there would be no reason for god to give any rules or laws. We would simply know what they are. But he does give them. Therefore, either we do not simply know the rules or they are not rules before god sets them into law.
Where Cain gets his wife or a woman to bear him children is a question that many debate. There are only three options. He had sex with his mother. He married one of his sisters or cousins. There were other families which brings into question the Genesis story.
Most have argued that Cain simply married one of his sisters. I believe that this answer provides a paradox. . Those who hold to this answer concede that God gave laws forbidding sexual acts between close relatives (Leviticus 18; Deuteronomy 27) but they argue that God did not give these laws until the time of Moses, and so early humans, including Cain, were excluded from these laws. However, this argument fails for the reason that God’s moral law is unchanging. If the moral law of God has no meaning until it is given, then Cain also did no wrong in murdering his brother Abel, and yet God holds him responsible for it. For the ‘sister argument’ (if I may call it that) to work, incest must be considered ceremonial or civil law, but it is clear from the context of Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 27 that we are to consider incest to be moral law. If it is indeed moral law, then it is impossible for God to have commanded mankind to multiply and fill the earth by means of incest, for God would have been commanding disobedience unto Himself.
Furthermore, we must consider the reason that God gives for forbidding incest, or as the Bible expresses it, uncovering the nakedness of a relative: ‘for their nakedness is your own’ (Lev. 18:10). Those who argue that Cain married one of his sisters claim that the law against incest was only given at a later time in order to protect people from biological defects, but that is not the reason that God gives for His commandment.
If gods laws are eternal and unchanging, then Cain could not have committed incest. Therefore, there must be another source for Cain's wife besides a family member. But there is no other source. Therefore, the Genesis account cannot be accurate.

Has the New Testament changed?

If we go to the heart of the matter, we find that christians often make claims which are patently false in support of the beliefs. The claim that there are “25,000 ancient manuscripts from the New Testament, of which at least 5600 are copies from the original Greek. Of these there are only 40 lines of disputed text” is patently false, not to mention academically dishonest and grotesquely misleading.

There are no first century works. There are no second century works either. The earliest writings can only be dated to the first part of the third century, sometime between 200 and 225 CE. In spite of the fact that it is often claimed that there are 5,600 "ancient copies" of the New Testament, the reality is that there is one and only one complete version of the New Testament, and that is Codex Sinaiticus.

So, of the 5,600 alleged “ancient copies” of the New Testament, you have one complete copy (Codex Sinaiticus) and nearly 300 incomplete copies.

What about the other 5,300 “ancient copies?” They aren’t’ copies, as you will see.

Of the those, only a small percentage (12 out of 300 or 4%) even remotely resemble the New Testament. Those 12 are the only texts used when preparing editions of the New Testament (excluding the KJV which is based solely on the faulty Textus Receptus). The remaining 96% are not used because they are either too fragmentary, conflict with other texts, or both. I will list them in order of completeness:

1) Codex Sinaiticus circa 350 CE. Once again, this is the ONLY COMPLETE version of the New Testament.

2) Codex Alexandrinus circa 450 CE. It is nearly complete and very close doctrinally to Codex Sinaiticus, except for the Epistles. There are more than 40 disputed lines of text between Codices Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.

3) Codex Vaticanus circa 350 CE. It is true that all of Revelation is missing, as are 46 chapters of Genesis, 30 Psalms, all of the pastoral epistles, and Hebrews 9 thru 13. This codex is doctrinally influenced by the Alexandrian school. The gospels differ greatly from Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (more than the 40 lines of disputed text).

4) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus circa 450 CE. Most of you wouldn’t even recognize this as the New Testament, because there are 100s of lines of disputed text. It contains portions of every book except for 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.

5) Codex Bezae/Cantabrigiensis circa 450 CE. This book contains the gospels and Acts only. It is heavily Western influenced and contains dozens of lines of disputed text.

6) Codex Claromontanus circa 550 CE. It contains only the Epistles by Paul and Hebrews. This and the following two codices are based on Western Doctrine.

7) Codices Augiensis and Boernerianus circa 850 CE. Contains only Paul’s Epistles.

8) Codex Regius circa 750 CE. Only the gospels. It most often agrees with Codex Vaticanus. Again, several hundred lines of disputed text, not 40 lines.

9) Codex Washingtonianus circa 425 CE. No relation to President George Washington. A Byzantine work of portions of the gospels only. Parts of John appear to be copied from Codex Alexandrinus.

10) Codex Koridethi circa 850 CE. Gospel parts only. Parts of Mark appear to have been quoted from the works of Origen and Eusebius in the 3rd and 4th Centuries respectively.

11) Codex Athous Laurae circa 900 CE. Contains parts of gospels, Acts, most of Paul and the Epistles. A mix of the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine doctrines. Hundreds of lines of disputed text.

That’s it.

All other copies are fragmentary. What about the other 280-odd “New Testaments?” The majority of those are the various versions of the Textus Receptus (there is no such thing as a “standard” Textus Receptus), a text which had at one time had 1,838 disputed lines of text, and all date after 1500, so they are by no means “ancient” in spite of what people claim.

The remainder are worse than Codex Athous Laurae. They exist only as a few chapters or parts of several chapters, and they conflict heavily.

The use of the word “manuscript” is false and misleading at best. These are fragments, literally scraps of paper, consisting of several lines, or partial paragraphs. You will often see references to “25,000 ancient manuscripts” which aren’t really all that ancient, with many coming from the Middle Ages or from the period prior to the Reformation.

These “25,000 ancient manuscripts” were pieced together to form 2,813 “witnesses” as they are generally called by christian theologians.

Of those 2,813 Greek “witnesses,” better than 90% are based on Byzantine doctrine. About 10% (200 or so) deviate greatly from Byzantine doctrine (meaning 100s of lines of disputed text). All 2,813 manuscripts, none of which are complete by any stretch of the imagination, are dated after 800 CE. Only about 5 of the 2,813 Greek manuscripts are actually used in translation, because the others conflict so badly. Those five numbered manuscripts are:

1) #33 circa 800 CE is very Alexandrian in doctrine. It contains parts of the gospels, Acts, Paul, and the catholic Epistles, which differ vastly from all other Epistles.

2) #81 has a given date of 1044 CE (ancient?) contains complete Acts, Paul, and the catholic Epistles. The text of Acts mostly agrees with Codex Alexandrinus.

3) #1739 circa 950 CE contains most (but not all) of Acts, Paul, and the catholic Epistles. Another that shows Alexandrian influence.

4) E1 circa 1300 CE (another “ancient” manuscript) These are a collection of gospel fragments that appear to be based on the Ceasarean school of thought circa 300 CE.

5) E13 circa 1400 CE. These are a collection of gospel fragments. This group is very important, because it proves John 7:53 to 8:11 is a later addition (B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the Pericope of the Adulteress is overwhelming).

Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus do not contain the story at all. Codices Bezae/Cantabrigiensis and Claromontanus contain parts of it.

More embarrassingly, in some texts, the Pericope of the Adulteress occurs at John 21, while in other texts, it occurs at either Luke 21 or Luke 25.

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, this is the story:

Pseudo-John 7:53 And each one departed to his own house. 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 8:2 Early in the morning he came to the temple courts again. All the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 8:3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 8:4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 8:5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 8:6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 8:7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8:8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground.

Pseudo-John 8:9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 8:10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 8:11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

That’s 12 lines of disputed text right there.

I have argued in the past that this was an insertion to justify the adulterous affairs (including bisexual and homosexual affairs) and rapes of many of the popes (one pope in particular used to rape women on the streets in front of horrified on-lookers).

That’s also the biggest problem. We have no texts prior to the year 200, and who knows how many additions and deletions were made to the text in the first 50 years, 100 years, or 150 years.

Another 100 of the 5,600 “ancient copies” of the New Testament are a collection of papyri fragments. The five texts most commonly used in translation are the Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodmer Papyrus.

1) #45 (Chester Beatty) circa 250 CE contains gospels and Acts 4-17, Mark (the Caesarean version); Matthew, Luke, John (a mix of Alexandrian and Western)

2) #46 (Chester Beatty) circa 200 CE contains most of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews

3) #47 (Chester Beatty) circa 250 CE papyrus contains only Revelation 9:10-17:2 usually agreeing with Codex Sinaiticus (this papyrus alone has over 40 lines of disputed text – too bad for AnneOminous).

4) #66 (Bodmer) circa 200 CE contains parts of John

5) #75 (Bodmer) circa 225 CE papyrus contains parts of Luke and John usually agreeing with Codex Vaticanus.

Additionally, there are incomplete “missionary” versions of New Testament:

1) Vulgate circa 250 CE, incomplete with heavy influence from Western, Alexandrian, and other schools.

2) Itala circa 250 CE, incomplete, typically Western

3) Vulgate II circa 350 CE and modified over the next two centuries has extensive cross-contamination. Conflicts heavily with the Vulgate text.

4) Syriac circa 200 to 600 CE, incomplete, with the older Syriac being generally Western, while the Pe****ta has a mixed text in gospels and Epistles, Western in Acts (the Harclean version of Acts is Western and the Palestinian Syriac is generally Caesarean.

5) Coptic circa 350 CE, incomplete. Versions from circa 450 CE are in the Sahidic dialect, and the last version from circa 850 CE is in the Bohairic dialect and all versions are generally Alexandrian.

6) Armenian circa 450 CE, incomplete, generally Caesarean but sections are Byzantine, and Paul appears to be copied from Alexandrian sources.

7) Georgian circa 450 CE, incomplete, generally Caesarean, but also Alexandrian and Western with an heavy Byzantine influence in later versions.

8) Ethiopic unknown, incomplete, generally early Byzantine

9) Slavonic circa 850 CE, incomplete, Byzantine through and through.

There’s your “5,600 copies” of the New Testament. As any fool can quite plainly see, the “5,600 ancient copies” just doesn’t pan out. Hebrews and most of the Epistles of Paul doesn’t equate to a copy of the New Testament. As it stands, there is only one complete copy of the New Testament, and that is Codex Sinaiticus. There are wide variances in all texts, which is why some are not used, but in all fairness, it is true that many of the manuscripts are ignored, because they are doctrinally close (but not exact) to other manuscripts that are more complete.

Read more:

Saturday, May 21, 2011


The sickening feeling one gets when they realize their belief system is completely false.

This will be what the followers of Harold Camping will experience Sunday morning the 22nd.


Harold Camping speaks after Rapture fails to begin on May 21

By Elizabeth Tenety and Elizabeth Flock

Harold Camping opened his front door to a reporter on Sunday, May 22 --a day that the fringe radio evangelist thought he would spend in heaven. Camping told Will Kane of the San Francisco Chronicle that he was “flabbergasted” that the Rapture did not arrive as predicted and that “it has been a really tough weekend.”

Yep, as I said, he has been ruptured.

However, he has gone on to now make this prediction.

Harold Camping Breaks Silence, Predicts October 21 Rapture

Posted on May 24, 2011
An unapologetic Harold Camping made a new prediction Monday: the rapture is actually on Oct. 21, not May 21 as he originally proclaimed.

What a shock. He simply changed the day. Rally the troops one more time. Be prepared to be wrong one more time.

Harold Camping Prediction: World Survives Doomsday (Again)
The world refused to end yet again on Friday, despite another prediction from Family Radio network owner Harold Camping that it would.
Earlier this year, Camping claimed Judgement Day was coming May 21. Then, when it did not, he said the actual day of reckoning would be October 21.
That day too passed without incident and now the Daily Mail is having a tough time getting Camping or anyone else from Family Radio to explain why the Earth is still turning. The paper's calls to the company were not returned.

Retirement for doomsday predictor Harold Camping?

The business of predicting the end of the world is a lot like baseball: Three strikes and you're out.
At least that's according to The Christian Post, which reports that controversial Christian leader Harold Camping has retired after three failed doomsday predictions.
The self-styled Biblical scholar based in Oakland has thrice predicted the world's end. First, in 1994. Then, on May 21 of this year. And again on Oct. 21. It is estimated by Camping's own staff that more than $100 million has been spent trying to wake the world up to his Biblical predictions.
But, clearly, the world did not end. And Camping and his followers -- including many who reportedly sold all their belongings and turned their savings accounts over to the church -- have faced international ridicule and scorn.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Is circumcision necessary?

The American Academy of Pediatrics previously held that "...the procedure has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as inherent disadvantages and risks.  In other words, circumcision may or may not provide any benefits or advantages, but it does have built-in disadvantages and risks.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the AAP had assigned a Task Force to re-examine Routine Infant Circumcision.  On March 1, 1999, after a two year investigation, it was concluded that the "potential medical benefits" of infant circumcision aren't significant enough and therefore, the AAP does not recommend it as a routine procedure.

Whether a man is circumcised or not, penile cancer can be avoided by practicing good hygiene. As pointed out earlier, good hygiene is easy to achieve.
The foreskin does not cause penile cancer. In a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society stated that it “does not consider routine circumicision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent [penile or cervical] cancers. ...Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the U.S.” Penile cancer occurs at the rate of 1 in 100,000 males in the U.S. circumcised or not.

Risk factors for penile and cervical cancer are the presence of the human papilloma virus and smoking. The HPV virus is found in both circumcised and uncircumcised men. “Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.”
"It has been suggested that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis and of the uterine cervix. Both kinds of cancer are associated with genital infection with specific types of human papillamoviruses. It has been alleged that cancer of the penis is virtually unknown among men circumcised in infancy. However penile carcinomas have in fact been reported among circumcised men. The incidence of cancer of the penis in the United States, where most men have been circumcised at birth, is reported to be between 0 and 2.1 per 100,000, representing less than 1 percent of all cancers in men. This incidence of penile cancer is similar to the rates in Denmark (1.1 per 100,0000 and Japan (0.3 per 100,0000 where neonatal circumcision is not routinely performed. One study, reporting contradictory data, claimed that the lifetime risk in American men is 1 in 600. This estimate was extrapolated from a study of the incidence of male circumcision and depended on three incorrect assumptions: that all penile carcinomas occur in men who are not circumcised at birth, that the circumcision rate between 1890 and 1905 was the same as that in 1959, and that men presenting at a cancer detection center in Los Angeles, 40 percent of whom were classified as professionals or managers, were representative of the U.S. male population. Thus the lifetime risk of cancer reported in this study is probably incorrect. The evidence that penile cancer has a viral cause and the disease's similar incidence rates in countries with very different rates of circumcision cast doubt on the proposition that circumcision is the most effective way to prevent cancer of the penis." THE QUESTION OF ROUTINE NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION, by Ronald L. Poland, M. D., THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Vol. 322, No. 18 (May 3, 1990), Pages 1312-1315. To read this entire article, click here.

The Maden study found that 37% of penile cancer cases occurred in circumcised men. Penile cancer is so rare among the intact, few people realize that more deaths result from the circumcision procedure itself than from penile cancer. It is possible that the general public has confused penile cancer with prostate cancer which is much more common.


“Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.” [See Block Quote above.] “The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sex partners.” Penile warts which are caused by a virus have been linked to cervical cancer. Studies have been conducted to compare the frequency of cervical cancer in countries where most men are circumcised to countries where most men are intact. The results showed no significant difference. Many case/control records in the U.S. demonstrated no difference in cervical cancer incidence in women with intact or circumcised partners.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

When did Satan rebel?

Satan is the fallen angel Lucifer that rebelled against God. But when did this rebellion occur? During the six days of creation, God created the heavens and the Earth. Is that when Lucifer was created? Did God create an angel and it rebelled within days of being created? By the time Adam and Eve were created, it would seem that Lucifer had already rebelled. After all, the devil is who tempted Eve. And the devil is the fallen angel Lucifer. If he was created when the heavens and Earth were created and had rebelled by the time man was created, that means that God was fighting Lucifer at the same time he was creating the universe. Now, I have read accounts that say God created the angels before he created Earth. How long before Earth was created were the angels created? If God had not yet created the heavens, where exactly where the angels hanging out? If the angels could exist before the heaven and the earth was created, does that mean they do not have form? But that does not seem to fit the standard concept of an angel. And in what way could Lucifer physically rebel if he had no form? If it was not a physical rebellion, in what way was God threatened? If the heavens and the Earth had not yet been created, then the world was a void, without form. I assume the heavens were too. If nothing had been created, how could angels have been created? If they were not created before the heavens and the Earth, then we are back with the question of just how quickly did Lucifer rebel?

We also have this verse. Isa. 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" This passage says that Lucifer brought actual nations down. That would mean that he was still an angel after the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. But the bible says that the snake, meaning the devil, who is the fallen angel Lucifer, is the one who tempted Eve. How is that possible if Lucifer was still an angel in good standing that was bringing down nations. (Why god would want his angels to bring down nations is another question, but let us stay on topic here)

However, the verse also goes on to say this. Isa. 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." 15But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. 16Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: "Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"

Look at section 16. "Is this the MAN who shook the earth---" The bible is referring to the person who was cast down from heaven as a man. That can hardly be the angel Lucifer. Which seems to show that the verse has nothing to do with Lucifer. But Christians point to this as proof that Satan was an angel who was cast out from heaven. Here is a website that discusses this very topic.

It occurred to me that the idea of Satan rebelling has never been defined within the context of the time frame of the creation of the universe; at least not that I have read about. But it seems that if god created Lucifer and he was the greatest of the angels, there had to be some time involved here. How did Lucifer become the greatest? He must have done something amazing to deserve that praise. Perhaps it was bringing down more nations than the other angels.

If the universe was without form, how could Lucifer have done anything to be considered the greatest. In other words, there had to be a created universe for Lucifer to have done something to be the greatest. But if the universe had not yet been created, how is that possible? And if he rebelled the day he was created, how did he have time to become the greatest angel. If he was created before creation ( a contradiction in terms) then there was obviously something besides the void.

Now Ezekiel 28:11-17] says this about Lucifer and why he was the greatest:

(v. 11) '''The word of the LORD came to me:
(v. 12) "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
(v. 13) You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
[Note that this cannot be referring to the King of Tyre who never took residence in the garden of Eden, nor was adorned with every precious stone prepared at the moment of his creation, nor was a guardian cherub angel. Hence a supernatural angelic being of great power is in view]
(v. 14) You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
[Note that a cherub angel was one of supreme authority and importance]
(v. 15) You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
[Notice that Lucifer was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, until sin was found in him. Also note that the King of Tyre was not blameless from the day he was created, but born in sin]
(v. 16) Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
(v. 17) Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings." '''

This says that Lucifer was the greatest because of his beauty. However, the biblical god does not consider physical beauty to be of any worth.:
1 Samuel 16:7 ESV

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

1 Peter 3:4 ESV
But let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Matthew 23:27 ESV
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.

If physical beauty is what made Lucifer the greatest angel, then god is inconsistent with his view on this. It also creates a conflict with the idea that god is all knowing. God says regarding Lucifer" 'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty." However, if god is all knowing, he would know that Lucifer would one day rebel. Any angel that would rebel against god cannot be the model of perfection and full of wisdom. If god did not know that Lucifer would rebel, then he is not all knowing. If he knew he would rebel and still considered him the model of perfection and full of wisdom, then he is an idiot.

Also consider this verse. 

Ezekiel 28:15

New International Version (NIV)

15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

According to this verse, Satan was originally without blame. Therefore, god created this angel with no blemish at all. However, god is all knowing and therefore knew that this blameless angel would rebel and become the devil before he created him. Yet he created him anyway. We are supposed to believe that a deity who is without flaw and cannot abide sin would create a fallen angel who sins every moment of his existence. 

This story creates yet another contradiction for the accuracy of the bible. It also shows the absurdity of an all knowing god. 

Friday, May 13, 2011

Can we prove the Christian god does not exist?

It is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that god does not exist. However, we can show that each of the known belief systems are incapable of confirming that their god does exist. So, we have to address each religious belief individually to show why they are wrong.

But we also have a shortcut here. The Christians also believe that all the other religions are wrong as well. Therefore, instead of having to go through hundreds of belief systems, we only have to address one, the Christian belief system. If we were talking to a Muslim group, we would only have to their belief system.

So, when we show the Christian belief system is flawed, does that prove there is no god? No, as I already pointed out, that is impossible to prove. But we can show that that the Christian god cannot be real.

There are contradictions in the bible. That is simply a fact. Regardless of the mental gymnastics that Christians go through to try and pretend otherwise, the bible is not the flawless book it is proclaimed to be. Science has shown us that many stories in the bible did not occur or could not occur. While the bible does get some history correct, it is wrong in many places. It is also humorous when Christians try and use the argument that the bible mentions real places and real people as proof that Jesus was a real person. Spiderman and Superman comics mention real people and real places. That hardly makes the characters in these comics real people as well.

There is a battle being waged in the world right now. It is a not a battle between god and the devil. It is a battle between reality and delusion. I expect reality to win out. I hope I am right.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Alexander the Great’s Encounter With a Dinosaur?

"When Alexander threw some parts of India into a commotion and took possession of others he encountered among many other animals a Serpent which lived in a cavern and was regarded as sacred by the Indians who paid it great and superstitious reverence. Accordingly Indians went to all lengths imploring Alexander to permit nobody to attack the Serpent; and he assented to their wish. Now as the army passed by the cavern and caused a noise, the Serpent was aware of it. (It has, you know, the sharpest hearing and the keenest sight of all animals.) And it hissed and snorted so violently that all were terrified and confounded. It was reported to measure 70 cubits although it was not visible in all its length, for it only put its head out. At any rate its eyes are said to have been the size of a large, round Macedonian shield."
Aelianus, Claudius, On Animals, Book #XV, Chapter 19-23, c.210-230.

There are articles like this posted all the time on Christian websites. They are trying to show that dinosaurs have lived in fairly recent times, which means that Evolution is wrong about the idea that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.

Evolution does not say that dinosaurs must have died off 65 million years ago for the theory to be true. It says that it appears that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago because that is what the evidence shows us. If a small group of dinosaurs were able to survive until modern times, that would not disprove evolution. Evolution is simply any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. There is nothing is in this idea that says that any particular species must have died off at any given time.

Now, that does not mean I believe that Alexander actually encountered a dinosaur. But if he did or anyone else has in the last 5,000 years, it does not change anything in the theory. It only changes the time frame of how long the dinosaur species has lasted.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011


The Christian god, who is considered perfection, existed in perfection by himself for an eternity. Being perfect, he needed nothing more. He had to be perfect all by himself, because god is considered perfection. However, he then decided that he needed to add to perfection and created the heavens and the Earth. Now how can perfection be improved? It is impossible for perfection to become more perfect. Therefore, the addition of the heavens and the Earth either maintained the status or reduced the status.

Do Christians believe that the current status of the universe is perfect? Why, no they do not. Therefore, this perfect god purposefully subtracted from his perfection by making the heavens and the Earth. How does that make any sense for a god who cannot abide sin or imperfection?

He is all knowing and therefore, knew this addition would diminish perfection. In addition, even though he knew this addition to his perfection would diminish it, and he is the cause of this reduction of perfection for creating the heavens and the Earth in the first place, he blames man for this.

It also sets up a logical incompatibility. If the perfection that god had has been reduced, that means gods perfection itself has been reduced. But god is perfect, and all powerful, which means it cannot be reduced. But it has been reduced with the introduction of the heavens and the Earth. There cannot simultaneously be a reduction in perfection and no reduction in perfection. Which shows that the biblical concept of god cannot exist.

Heaven is also considered a perfect place. Christians are always talking about how wonderful it will be when they get to heaven. However, heaven cannot be a perfect place. Lucifier rebelled in heaven. Revelation 12:7-9 (New International Version) "7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

If an angel can rebel there, then sin can be in heaven, which means that heaven cannot be considered perfect. However, god also lives in heaven. 2 Chronicles 7:14 tells us that God listens to us from heaven....."if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.". In Matthew 23:9, the Lord Jesus Christ told us that God the Father lives in heaven....."And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." God cannot abide sin, or imperfection. Therefore, since heaven cannot be perfect, god cannot live there. However, according to the bible, god does live in heaven. We have another logical impossibility.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Do Atheists know what is in the bible?

Atheists know more about religion than any other group.

A new survey of American religious knowledge, released by the Pew Forum, which demonstrate that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than the religious do. The only religious groups comparable to atheists in general religious knowledge are Jews and Mormons. Atheists even know more about Christianity than American Christians.

Atheists and agnostics, like Jews, are much more highly educated than the general American public, and the survey found a strong correlation between level of education and religious knowledge (among the religious as well as the nonreligious).

Now, this does not mean we are right on our views. However, it does show that we are basing our views on researched information, not simply dismissing faith out of hand.

But how many of you have read the book? According to Bill Keller Ministries, a Christian group, statistical research shows that less than 10% of Christians have read the bible. Ironically, a survey conducted by Knowledge Network at the behest of Christianity Today found that 74% of professing Christians believe the bible to be the authoritative guide to faith.

Which means that while the bible is the best selling book of all time, it it also one of the least read books in the world.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Is being a good person not enough for god.

So I am watching the movie Armageddon this afternoon, and was thinking about what many Christians have said about salvation. Not sure if you have ever seen the movie, but it is about an asteroid that is so big, it will destroy all life on Earth when it hits. So, the USA sends up a spaceship with people to blow up the asteroid. They overcome many obstacles and finally accomplice their goal. The finale is Bruce Willis overcoming more problems to manually blow up the bomb, sacrificing himself and saving the Earth. As I am watching this, it occurs to me that although we are never told of the heroes religion in the movie (at least that I saw), if he was not a good Christian, he was going to hell after accomplishing this amazing event of saving the entire world. And it hit me that if their belief system is right, if he also needed to believe in the right god, in the right way,  to go to heaven, (or at least not being sent to hell to burn for all eternity) then their god is the most malevolent being ever in the history of the world.

Who kills more people, Atheists or Theists?

What an absolutely depressing question. In a world where most everyone agrees it would be a better place if people stopped killing other people, we are debating who kills more often.

However, since the point gets brought up often that evil communists, i.e. atheists, are responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people in the 20th Century, I wanted to look into that figure.
Here is a breakdown from one source. The author calculates that 262 million were killed in the 20th Century.
Of that figure, here is the breakdown of the 262 million killed. As you can note, it is not just the communists that killed people, it is also theist groups that added to the carnage. Now I maintain that communists did not kill people in the name of Atheistism. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?
No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a  Mathematician. The communists accepted Atheistism, there is no doubt of that. However, they also accepted math. I am sure no one believes they killed in the name of math. Communists killed in the name of their state totalitarianism. Any government that takes total control of a society is bad. That is true whether it is atheists or theists who take control. Communism is actually very similar to Theism. It elevated the state to the level of god in their society.

But why would theist governments also kill people? They claim to follow the word of the deity, and in most religions, killing is prohibited.

The Deka-Megamurderers ... 219.634 million:

China (PRC) 1949-87 .... 76.702 million
U.S.S.R. 1917-87 ........ 61.911 million
Colonialism .............. 50.000 million
Germany 1933-45 ....... 20.946 million (including 5.291 million Jews)
China (KMT) 1928-49 ... 10.075 million

The Megamurderers .... 19.180 million
Japan 1936-45 ............ 5.964 million
China (Mao Soviets) 1923-48 ... 3.468 million
Cambodia 1975-79 ........ 2.035 million
Turkey 1909-18 ........... 1.883 million
Vietnam 1945-87 .......... 1.647 million
Poland 1945-48 ........... 1.585 million
Pakistan 1958-87 ......... 1.503 million
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87 ... 1.072 million
Fatal regimes. Add the mega-massacres with the other genocides, purges and mass killings, and Rummel comes up with a 20th century death toll by abusive governments of 262 million.

However, the question that gets glossed over by Christians is simple. They believe that communists killed people because they do not believe in god. Why, then, did theists (Christians) kill people in mass numbers as well? I am sure someone will say, they were not real Christians. That is simply a dodge. If belief in Jesus changes someone, then we should rarely see Christians kill people. And that is just not the case. Besides, I can just as easily claim that the communists were not real Atheists.

And since it is only in the 20th Century that there have been countries with atheist governments, then all the killing that has been happening for the past 5,000 years has been the responsibility of theist governments. How many people were killed before the 20th Century? Since there were not any groups keeping specific numbers, we shall never really know. But i will wager that the number far surpasses what was done in the 20th Century.

Evolution of many gods to one.

Those of us who grow up in English-speaking countries where Judaism or Christianity is the principal religion learn very early in life that the Bible opens with the phrase: “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth”. 

Believers accept that statement as truth. Others assume that it reflects unchanging doctrine. And most are unaware that this opening line is a translation of words written thousands of years ago - words that may be inaccurately translated.

What happens when we compare the translation with the original text? (Don't forget to read from right to left.)
בְּ רֵאשִׁית , בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים , אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם , וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim
ve'et ha'arets
Hebrew, like Arabic, was originally written without vowels. That allows some words to be interpreted differently depending on which vowels are inserted. However, there is little dispute over this opening verse.

Look at the third word, Elohim. The -im ending means that it is plural, like cherubim and seraphim. Elohim means "gods", not "god". That means an accurate translation would read:

“In the beginning, the gods created heaven and earth.”

Yahweh is only one of many Hebrew gods, elohim,which the ancient Hebrews worshiped.

In The Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, Oxford professor of Assyriology A. H. Sayce maintained:  'Even the most devoted adherents of the supreme God of Israel sometimes admitted that he was but supreme among other gods, and David himself, the friend of seers and prophets, complains that he had been driven out of 'the inheritance of Yahveh' and told to go and 'serve other gods'  (1 Sam. xxvi. 19)."

In The Religious Teachings of the Old Testament, Albert C. Knudson, a professor in the Boston University School of Theology, also pointed out:
"The sole godhead of Yahweh was a truth that was only gradually attained. The different steps in this development may be distinguished with a fair degree of clearness.  We begin with the Mosaic age. It was to Moses, as we have seen, that the establishment of Yahweh-worship was due. Previous to his time the Israelites seem to have been polytheists.  On one of the cuneiform tablets discovered by Winckler at Boghazkj and belonging to the pre-Mosaic age we read of 'the gods' of the Habiri or Hebrews, and in Josh. 24.2, 14f. and Ezek. 20.7f., 24 we are told that both in Mesopotamia and Egypt the Israelites worshipped other gods.  The very name 'Yahweh' also points in the same direction.  The manifest purpose of such a name was to distinguish the god of Israel from other gods. If the Hebrews had not believed in the existence of other deities, there would have been no need of giving a personal name to the Divine Being through whom they were delivered from Egypt.   He would have been to them simply God."

Ask any Jew, Moslem or Christian, “How many gods are there?” And 100 out of 100 times the answer will be “One.” What those 100 people do not know is that nowhere in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, does it ever say that there is only one God. In fact, it actually says the opposite.
I am Yahweh your Elohim. (Exodus 6:7, LT)
In this verse, Yahweh, a singular entity, identified as a Elohim. In this case, this word is being used in a singular sense.
I know that Yahweh is great, more than all the Elohim. (Exodus 18:11, LT)
In this verse, Yahweh, a singular entity, is being contrasted with “all” the Elohim, a plural entity. From these two verses (along with many others in the Biblical text, many of which we will be looking at) we can see that Yahweh is an Elohim (singular) among the Elohim (plural). This is also demonstrated in the following verse.
Elohim stands in the counsel of El; he judges among the Elohim. (Psalm 82:1, LT)
In this verse we have Elohim (as a singular) standing in the counsel of El, and Elohim (singular) will judge among the Elohim (plural) who are also standing in the counsel of El. While the singular and plural aspects of the word Elohim is obvious in this translation of the verse, it is not as obvious in some Christian translation as demonstrated in the translations of Psalm 82:1 below.
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. (NASB)
God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge. (YLT)
God presides over heaven's court; he pronounces judgment on the judges. (NLT)
God stands in the Divine assembly, in the midst of judges she He judge. (SET)
A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth (JPS)
This is one of the problems with the translations; oftentimes the text is translated to comply with the theology instead of complying with what the text actually states. There are however, a few translations that do translate this verse correctly.
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.(KJV)
God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the “gods”. (NIV)
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment. (RSV)
Even though the Bible is pretty clear on the point that there is more than one god, those 100 people will, when shown this, still insist that there is only one God. This is a clear case of interpreting the Bible through theological filters. And to support their argument that there is only one god, they will bring up a verse such as this one.
I am He, And there is no god besides Me. (Deuteronomy 32:39, NASB)
It looks like this is a pretty good verse to prove that there is only one god, isn't it? Well, in the English yes, but not in the Hebrew. The Hebrew of this verse should be translated as “I am he, and am without a god (Elohim) next to me.” This verse is saying that Yahweh stands alone and does not share his position as the god of Israel, with anyone else, a clear henotheistic view of God. Again, the above translation of this verse is a case of translating the Bible to fit a specific theology-monotheism. This is very unfortunate as the readers of a translation trust the translator to translate the Bible true to the text, but instead, are given the translators interpretation of the text based on his theology.
Here is the same verse from another version which has remained more true to the Hebrew text.
I, am he, and there is no god beside me. (Deuteronomy 32:39, RSV)
Notice that the difference between the NASB and the RSV is one letter, the letter "s," in the word "beside." In the NASB, the word "besides" implies "no other," but in the RSV the word "beside" implies "next to." This one letter completely changes how that verse is going to be interpreted by the reader.
Throughout the Bible we are told about the existence of other gods. In Exodus 12:12 Yahweh confirms the existence of other Elohim in Egypt. In Exodus 18:11 Jethro confirms the existence of other Elohim. In Exodus 20:3 Yahweh tells Israel not bring any other Elohim before him. In Exodus 23:32 Moses confirms the existence of other Elohim. In Deuteronomy 6:4 Yahweh tells Israel not to go after other Elohim. In Deuteronomy 6:14-15 and 13:7 Yahweh confirms the existence of other Elohim around the people of Israel. In Joshua 24:2 Joshua confirms that their ancestors served other Elohim. In 2 Samuel 7:23 David confirms that other nations have their own Elohim. In 2 Chronicles Solomon confirms the existence of other Elohim. In Psalm 8:5, 86:8 and 138:1 David confirms the existence of other Elohim. In Psalm 82:1 Asaph confirms the existence of other Elohim. In Hosea 13:4 Yahweh instructs Israel to not know (literally experience) the other Elohim. In Micah 4:5 Micah confirms the nations have their own Elohim. To say that there is only "one" God, is a clear disregard for what the Biblical text actually states.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Where have I heard this before?

Asclepius. Believed by the Greeks to have once lived as a man and raised to a god after death. He was fathered by a god – Apollo – but with a human mother (Coronis, a beautiful maiden of Thessaly). He was raised by the centaur Chiron in a cave and from him learned the art of healing. But Asclepius committed the unpardonable sin of raising a man from the dead, enraging Hades for cheating him of dead souls. Zeus, afraid that Asclepius might render all men immortal, slew him with a thunderbolt. Apollo interceded on behalf of his son and persuaded Zeus to make Asclepius the god of medicine. As an immortal, Asclepius was able to cure the sick from the realm of the gods.

Certainly, for centuries, sick people went to the temples dedicated to Asclepius hoping for a cure. It was said that those who came to Asclepius on crutches went away dancing happily. Famous temples of the god were at Pergamum, Epidaurus, Cos and Rome. Full participation in the healing program involved sleeping inside the temple compound – in effect, the first hospitals – where 'holistic' treatment involved massage, baths and dream interpretation. Fortunate individuals did indeed experience a "healing miracle" and gave testimony to the cure effected by this Greek god.

The early Christians attacked the cult of Asclepius with great venom, indicating a close rivalry between the two cults and a certain embarrassment among Christians repeatedly being told that Asclepius had already done all of Jesus' tricks – and had done them better.

Apollonius of Tyana.

Apollonius was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar in the year 3 BC at Tyana, in Asia Minor. His parents were wealthy and Apollonius was educated first at Tarsus, and then at the Temple of Asclepius at Aegae. At sixteen he became an adherent of Pythagoras and a wandering ascetic. In his desire for knowledge he travelled to most of the known world. According to legend he performed miracles wherever he went and was listened to by adoring crowds.

Apollonius claimed to receive revelations from the gods. In truth, he probably learnt techniques of mystical deception from the Brahmins of India and the Magi of Babylon. In Ephesus he correctly warned of a plague and also claimed to have had a vision of the assassination of the Emperor Domitian. In Rome he supposedly brought the daughter of a consul back to life. Nero apparently expelled him from the city but Vespasian, Titus and Nerva all sought his advice. Hadrian collected his letters and writings. The great Emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius admitted that he owed his philosophy to Apollonius:

"From Apollonius I have learned freedom of will and understanding, steadiness of purpose, and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason."

Apollonius’s neo-Pythagorean philosophy embraced the sharing of goods, a condemnation of cruelty, and compassion for his fellowman. He taught in many of the centres of learning of the Greco-Roman world. Stories about him abounded, such as when in his mother’s womb, his mother was forewarned by an Egyptian god of her portentous off-spring. He reputed lived to be one hundred years. His followers claimed he was taken up into heaven. In Tyana a temple was built and dedicated to him, and statues of him resided in other temples.

Julia Domna, the wife of Emperor Septimius Severus, commissioned the philosopher Philostratus to write the biography of Apollonius, using the notebooks kept by Damis, a lifelong companion of the great sage. This book appeared in 210 AD.

But by the 4th century an established Christianity began attacking Apollonius as a charlatan, a black magician, and the anti-Christ. The Church was, after all, basing its claims of Jesus' divinity upon the miracles that he is said to have performed – but Apollonius performed the same miracles earlier and called them not miracles but expressions of natural law!

Friday, May 6, 2011

Is god fixated on feces?

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)

"And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall they camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee." (Deuteronomy 23:13-14)

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-3)

Does the biblical god or gods laws ever change?

How about god ? Does he ever change?

Num 23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 1 Samuel 15:29: And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

 Malachi 3:6: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

These verses should do. They make it very clear that he does not change. If as Christians state, when God says he does not change, this means he does not change his essence, his attributes, his purpose and his decrees. However, this leaves the Christians with a problem. Sure the Christians say that those verses don’t mean that God cannot become a man, however the verses are still very clear, that God is not LIKE a man to repent or change his mind, God is not LIKE a man to be weak and have no power, God is not LIKE a man to become a servant. That is the main message that God is sending, he not like a man, so we cannot try and compare him with us, and he is not like a man to change his mind, such as his laws and his teachings. However so, if Jesus is indeed God, then God has indeed taken a drastic U-turn and has changed, not because he became a man, or the son of man, but because his attributes and essence have completely CHANGED.

 1- God’s attributes never change, he is ALWAYS all POWERFUL and all MIGHTY, and is not in need of anyone else, he owns everything and has all power and authority. Jesus was not all-powerful nor was he all mighty, since he had nothing of his own, everything he had was from the Father. Jesus did not own anything, especially the authority he had. It was GIVEN, not owned by Jesus. Jesus was in need of the Father to spread the message and teach the people, by signs, miracles, and doctrine. All those things were given to Jesus. God is not in need of ANYTHING. That is why he says he is not LIKE a man. So basically if we are to believe Jesus is God, then it is without a doubt that God did change and lied when he said he does not change. Let us just make a summary out of point one.

 A- God is not in need of anything or anyone: Jesus was in need of the Father. (John 8:28, John 5:30, Heb 5:7-8)

 B- God OWNS everything, all things belong to him, he does not receive power or authority from others. Jesus did not own ANYTHING, everything he had was from the Father, from miracles to his doctrine, and nothing was his. The Jesus who is not bound by the flesh is also in need of things. (John 14:24, John 7:16, Mat 28:18, John 13:3, John 17:6-8, as for the Jesus being GIVEN things Dan 7: 13-14)

 So the facts are clear, Jesus is in no way similar to God, and if Jesus is God, then God did definitely change! So it is clear, if Jesus is God, then God did change.

God's message supposedly doesn’t change either; God does not change his mind or repent. However so, we hear Christians saying Jesus came down to die for our sins, which is another drastic U-turn in the way God does things. The first commandment was always the most important of all, and so were several other commandments. However we now see that position has changed. We now have to believe in Jesus dying for our sins to be saved, and that the NT and OT are very different. So the fact of the matter is that if Jesus is God, then God did change his message, and his mind on the way he does things, by making Jesus die for our sins. It seems God was not strong enough that he had to make an easy way into heaven for us, just believe in Jesus and you’re saved. It seems God gave up on us.

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

John 8:3-8
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Now let us see. Originally, god said if you commit adultery you will be killed. Then he said, you cannot kill them unless you have never committed any sins yourself. Now, that limitation was not there initially and gods law originally said they should be killed. Now it is different and they are not to be killed. So, unless the meaning of the word killed has been changed, his law has changed.

The bible even says that the laws will be changed. "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." Hebrews 7:12.

What is the meaning of Matthew 16:27-28

Matthew 16:27-28 "For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father... There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom".

The key words here are 'some standing here". He is talking about a group of people in front of him, not a future group of people.It seems that every generation of Christians believes that the end of the world and the return of Jesus will happen during their lifetimes. The first prediction of this sort that I can find is from Saint Paul himself, in his letters, in 1st Thessalonians Chapter 4, when he predicts the prompt return of Jesus at a time when "…we also … are still alive." All you have to do is ask a Christian if Jesus will return during their lifetimes. People are taught by their priests and pastors that Jesus is "coming quickly", and that they should be prepared, because he might pop up at any moment.

If Jesus said he would be returning "quickly", and he said that 2000 years ago, what exactly is going on here? Do we have any information as to when the writers of the New Testament foretold the return of Jesus? Actually, we have very good information on that. We have nearly precise information. There is scriptural evidence that those who wrote about Jesus intended for him to come back during the lifetimes of those who first followed him. That's right... in the First Century.

First, let us look at the gospel of Mark, chapter 13. (When I reference the gospels, I will refer to them as "Mark" and "Matthew", even though these labels were attached to those texts by the Early Church-- the books are actually anonymous and no one knows who the true authors are). In this chapter, Jesus speaks of a "tribulation", nation rising against nation, earthquakes, and the coming of false Christs and false prophets, the stars falling from the sky, and the coming of the Son of Man "in the clouds with great power and glory". Then, in verse 30, he tells when this will happen. "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

Second, let us look at Matthew (copied from Mark), which contains the same story. The same earthquakes, false prophets, darkening sun, falling stars, etc., and the return of the Son of Man, "coming in the clouds with of heaven with power and great glory." And then in verse 34, he says when to look for all of this commotion: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Pretty conclusive.

Now, there is a rebuttal to this interpretation. It can be found, among other places, in some evangelistic bibles as a footnote in Matthew and Mark.

"The word "Generation", though commonly used in scripture to those living at one time, could not mean here those who are alive at the time of Christ, as none of these things, i.e. the worldwide preaching of the kingdom, the tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect-- occurred then. The expression "this generation" here may mean the future generation which will endure the tribulation and see the signs. Or it may be used in the sense of race or family, meaning the nation of Israel or the Christians will be preserved until these things take place."

This apologist basically says: "It can't mean those living at the time of Jesus, because he would not have said that". They say that "this generation" means the generation that's alive during the tribulations. Let us take a good look at this "explanation". First, the claim that generation could mean race, family, or the nation or tribe of Israel.

What are the Greek words for Nation, Tribe, Family and Generation? Generation is "genea", the root of genealogy. "Family" is "patria". "Tribe" is "phule". "Nation" is "ethnos", as in ethnic. Next, we need to look up these words as they appear in the New Testament, and cross-reference the Greek words with the English words. I have done this. Every single occurrence for Nation that I looked up gave the word "ethnos". Every single occurrence for Generation that I looked up gave the word "genea". When the writers meant nation, they wrote ethnos. When they meant generation, they wrote genea. They were apparently very clear in this. They never used "patria" or "phule" in any of these instances. To prove his case, the evangelistic writer who wrote the "explanation" above must find one instance of the word nation translated from the Greek word genea. Furthermore, if the word genea could have been translated as nation, then why wouldn't the translators have written it as nation? It would certainly have made more sense, if that's what they intended, and they could have prevented a major theological problem. But that's not what they wrote.

So, the rationalization that the bible writers meant "the Nation of Israel" falls to the ground. But what about the other "explanation" that is sometimes offered, that Jesus was speaking about those people who would be witnessing the tribulations in future times? Did he mean that that future generation would not pass until all those things came to be?

This rationalization fails as well. In the first place, Jesus does not say "that generation", he says "this generation". But in fairness, this is could be related to translation. Some have argued, ala Thomas Paine, that this sort of situation (the inability to accurately translate one language into another), is proof that the "Word of God" could never exist in print. Then again, the translation could be perfectly accurate. This is a thing that we can never know, however, since no original version of any of the gospels exist.

But there is more positive proof than this. Jesus makes it clear that he is speaking about the current generation of people. In Matthew 24:4 when the disciples asked Jesus about the end of the world, he "answered and said unto THEM", "Take heed that no man deceive you... ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars... Ye shall see the abomination... etc." He is clearly replying to them, telling them what they shall see. He says that THEY shall see these things. Read it for yourself. Then he concludes by saying: "THIS generation shall not pass" until he comes again. The evidence can be found in Mark chapter 13, starting from verse 5 onward. It is clear that he is speaking to his apostles, answering their inquiry. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.

And yet there is something even stronger than this. The same story is related in Matthew chapter 16. Yet this time, Jesus does not use the word "generation". He again describes how he will come in the glory of his father, with his angels, to judge men according to their works. Then he concludes by saying "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
That is the final nail in the coffin. Matt. 16:28 says there were some men standing there next to Jesus who will see his second coming, and it is totally clear that in Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30, Jesus believed the end of the world would come during the lifetimes of his apostles. Jesus says so himself. He thought that he was going to be returning in the First Century. He said: "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15) Similar statements are to be found in Mark 9:1; 13:30; Matthew 10:23; 23:29-36; and Luke 12:49-50. Jesus' title of "Messiah" literally translated means "inaugurator of the end".
It is clear. There is no reason to doubt that the author of Mark wrote what he intended to write. Christian scholars claim that the book of Mark was written around the year 60 C.E., 35 years after the alleged death of Jesus, and well within the lifetimes of any of his followers. Whoever wrote the text believed that the Messiah would return during his lifetime. And as Matthew was constructed from Mark some decades later, whoever wrote Matthew simply copied this same information.

I was debating with a Christian over the meaning of this verse and pointing out that his opinion was not the only one on this topic. This website shows just how accurate this comment is.

G.R. Beasley-Murray (1954)

"we can now understand what Jesus meant when he spoke of his parousia as of an event which some of his contemporaries would experience (Matthew 10:23, 16:28, John 21:22): he was referring on these occasions to the fall of Jerusalem." (Quoting T. Zahn, Jesus and the Future, p. 130).

Theodore Robinson

" is clear that for some reason or other the first generation of Christians did expect his speedy return, and if this impression was not based on his own language, whence could it have come?" (The Gospel of Matthew, p. 195).

Dean Henry Alford (1868)

(This refers) "to the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity." (in loc.)

Oswald T. Allis (1947)

"Here there is no room for doubt as to the meaning of the expression which describes those who are to witness the coming. It concerns some of those alive and present when the words were uttered. They are to witness the coming. Consequently, we may say with positiveness, that this coming must have taken place during the lifetime of the apostle John. The claim that these words of Jesus referred to the transfiguration is plainly inadequate. That event was too near at hand (about a week distant) to make the fact that some of Jesus' immediate followers would live to see it a sufficiently important matter to mention. The coming referred to seems most likely to be the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, at which time there was so far as we know no visible appearance of Christ." (Prophecy and the Church (Phillipsburg: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947, p 177)

Albert Barnes (1832)

"This generation, &c. - This age; this race of men. A generation is about thirty of forty years. The destruction of Jerusalem took place about forty years after this was spoken. See Notes on Mat. 16:28." (Notes, Matthew 24:34)

John Broadus (1886)

"Six months earlier (in 16:27 f.) he had declared that would come again in the glory of his Father, as the sovereign Judge of mankind; and that some of them then present would live to see him 'coming in his kingdom.' We there found it necessary to understand that the particular coming to which this last phrase especially refers took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state. The prediction then briefly made by our Lord is now (as a result of Matthew 24:30) more fully unfolded} (vol 1, Matthew, p. 479).

Geneva Marginal Notes (1599)

Matthew 16:28 "This was fulfilled in his resurrection which was as an entrie into his kingdome, and was also confirmed by sending the holie Gost, whereby he wroght so great and sondrie miracles." (in loc.)

S. Greijdanus (1940)

"Then this coming of God's dominion cannot refer to our Lord's resurrection, nor to the gift of the Holy Spirit which were to be realized within the year.... Nor can it refer to our Lord's coming in judgment which is yet even now in abeyance.. Nor can the powerful spread of the gospel be meant, for this already came about within comparatively few years.. We shall have to think of the destruction of Jerusalem.. In it God revealed his kingly dominion in his judgment, a precursor of his judgment of the last day. " (Het heilig Evangelie naar de beschrijving van Lukas, 1:424)

B.W. Johnson

"Till the Son of man be come. A reference primarily, no doubt, to the Lord coming into his kingdom. See #Mt 16:28. He was thus to come in the life time of some of the apostles. He did thus come in the establishment of his kingdom in power on the day of Pentecost. He also came in judgment on the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem. This event ended Jewish persecution. There is also the final coming to judge the world, but the meaning here does not include that." (in loc.)

Johann Peter Lange (1857)

'emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence; not a simple future, but meaning, The event is impending that He shall come; He is about to come.' (in loc.)

Philip Mauro

"After much deliberation, whether the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, or the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, was the Second Coming of the Son of God, Mr. Mauro finally made his choice and decided that the destruction of Jerusalem was the Coming of the Lord and that it fulfilled the definite and precise promise recorded by Matthew: —Verily I say unto you, that there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16:28)" - The Kingdom of God: What, When, Where? (PDF) - An Answer to Mauro's Gospel of the Kingdom

Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

"Verse 28 adds, with His solemn 'verily,' a confirmation of this announcement of His coming to judge. The question of what event is referred to may best be answered by noting that it must be one sufficiently far off from the moment of speaking to allow of the death of the greater number of His hearers, and sufficiently near to allow of the survival of some; that it must also be an event, after which these survivors would go the common road into the grave; that it is apparently distinguished from His coming 'in the glory of the Father,' and yet is of such a nature as to afford convincing proof of the establishment of His kingdom on earth, and to be, in some sort, a sign of that final act of judgment. All these requirements (and they are all the fair inferences from the words) meet only in the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the national life of the chosen people. That was a crash of which we faintly realise the tremendous significance. It swept away the last remnant of the hope that Israel was to be the kingdom of the Messiah; and from out of the dust and chaos of that fall the Christian Church emerged, manifestly destined for world-wide extension. It was a 'great and terrible day of the Lord,' and, as such, was a precursor and a prophecy of the day of the Lord, when He 'shall come in the glory of the Father,' and 'render unto every man according to his deeds.'" (Exposition of Holy Scriptures, Matt 16:28)

Thomas Newton (1754)

"'The coming of Christ' is also the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, as may appear from several places in the Gospels, and particularly from these two passages; 'There are some standing here,' saith our blessed Lord, 'who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,' Matt xvi. 28, that is, evidently, there are some standing here who shall live, not till they end of the world, to the coming of Christ to judge mankind, but till the destruction of Jerusalem, to the coming of Christ in judgment upon the Jews. In another place, John xxi.22, speaking to Peter concerning John, he saith, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?' what is that to thee, if I will that he live till the destruction of Jerusalem? as in truth he did, and long. 'The coming of Christ,' and 'the conclusion of the age,' being therefore only different expressions to denote the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, the purpose of the question plainly is, when shall the destruction of Jerusalem be, and what shall be the signs of it?'" (Newton, p. 374)

C. Jonathan Seraiah

"It is true that the "eschatology" of the New Testament is predominantly preterist. For those unfamiliar with the preterist perspective, it is the ancient view that many of the eschatological passages of the New Testament were fulfilled (completely) in the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. This view may sound novel, but in reality there have been orthodox adherents to it throughout church history (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, John Lightfoot, John Owen, Milton Terry, Jay Adams). This interpretation does not deny the Final Coming of Christ; it merely finds that not all "coming" passages refer to that event. The preterist interpretation is actually the most faithful to the biblical text because it recognizes that Old Testament prophetic terminology was used by the New Testament authors. This recognition is helpful in distinguishing the prophecies of Christ's coming that were near, in the first century (Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24:30; 26:64; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 1:7; James 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 4:7; Rev. 1:3, 7; etc.) and thus fulfilled in a.d. 70, from those that were far (John 5:28-29; Acts 1:11; 17:31; 1 Cor. 15:23-24; 1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Jn. 3:2; etc.) and thus not yet fulfilled even in our day. It also helps to distinguish between a spiritual "coming" (invisible for temporal judgment, as in a.d. 70) and a physical coming (visible for eternal judgment)." (End of All Things)

R.C. Sproul (1998)

"If the Olivet Discourse refers primarily to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and if the word generation refers to a forty-year period, then it is possible, if not probable, that Jesus' reference to his coming in Matthew 16:28 refers to the same events, not to the transfiguration or other close-at-hand events." (The Last Days According to Jesus, p. 55)

C.H. Spurgeon

"If a child were to read this passage I know what he would think it meant: he would suppose Jesus Christ was to come, and there were some standing there who should not taste death until really and literally he did come. This, I believe, is the plain meaning." ("An Awful Premonition" in 12 Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ - Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976, 5)

Adam Clarke (1837)

"[Isaiah 65 refers] to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity; which in the Gospel is called the coming of Christ and the days of vengeance, Matthew 16:28; Luke 21:22." (Isaiah 65, p. 513)

Gary DeMar (1999)

"If we maintain that the event Jesus is describing is still in our future, then how should we interpret His statement that some of those with whom He was speaking would still be alive when He did in fact 'come in the glory of His Father with His angels'?" (Last Days Madness, p. 43)

Ken Gentry (1989)

"In Mark 9:1 Jesus promises that some of his hearers would not "taste of death" before witnessing the "coming of the kingdom with power." This almost certainly refers to the destruction of the temple at the behest of Christ..." (Before Jerusalem Fell, p. lii)

Henry Hammond (1634)

"V.28. Coming in his kingdome. The nearness of this to the story of Christ's Transfiguration, makes it probable to many, that this coming of Christ is that Transfiguration of his, but that cannot be, because the 27th ver. of the Son of mans coming in his glory with his Angels to reward, &c. (to which this verse clearly connects) cannot be applied to that; And there is another place, Joh. 21.23 (which may help to the understanding of this) which speaks of a real coming, and one principall person (agreeable to what is here said of some standing here) that should tarry, or not die, till that coming of his. And that surely was fulfilled in Johns seeing the pauoleoria, or famous destruction of the Jewes, which was to fall in that generation, Matt. 24. that is, in the life-time of some there present, and is called the kingdome of God, and the coming of Christ, and by consequence here most probably the son of mans coming in his kingdome, (see the Notes on Mat. 3:2, and ch. 24:3.b.) that is, his coming in the exercise of his Kingly office, to work vengeance on his enemies, and discriminate the faithfull believers from them." (in loc.)

John Lightfoot (1889)

"1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered," &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c.

2. That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord." See Psalm 1:4; Malachi 3:1,2, &c.; Joel 2:31; Matthew 16:28; Revelation 1:7, &c. See what we have said on chapter 12:20; 19:28." (Lightfoot, vol. 2, p. 319).

"The destruction of Jerusalem is phrased in Scripture as the destruction of the whole world; and Christ's coming to her in judgment, as his coming to the last judgment. Therefore, those dreadful things, spoken of in Matt. 24:29,30 and 31, are but borrowed expressions, to set forth the terms of that judgment the more.. v.30 - "then shall they see" - not any visible appearance of Christ, or of the cross, in the clouds (as some have imagined); but, whereas Jews would not own Christ before for the Son of Man, or for the Messias, then by the vengeance that he should execute upon them, they and all the world should see an evident sign, and it was so. This, therefore, is called "his coming," and his coming in his kingdom." [A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Rev. John Rogers Pitman (London: J.F. Dove, 1825), p.141]

"This generation shall not pass, &c. Hence it appears plain enough, that the foregoing verses are not to be understood of the last judgment but, as we said, of the destruction of Jerusalem. There were some among the disciples (particularly John), who lived to see these things come to pass. With Matt. xvi.28, compare John xxi.22. And there were some Rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these things, that lived till the city was destroyed, viz. Rabban Simeon, who perished with the city, R. Jochanan Ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others." (vol 2., p. 320).

N. Nisbett (1787)

"While this work was in the press, a friend of mine put the sermons lately preached at Bapton's Lectures, by Ralph Churton, M. A. into my hands. I have been only able to run my eye over them in a very cursory manner; but he does not seem to interfere with my plan; except in applying Matt. xvi, 29, to his transfiguration; which I have referred to the time when the Jewish economy was to cease."

"His argument, that the ancients are unanimously on his side, has as little weight with me, as with the best commentators in modern times; for as Mr. Dodwell long ago observed; they fell far short of the solidity of the moderns, who excel them, not only in philosophy and learning, but in the knowledge of antiquity, and even of their own languages. The principal argument used by Mr. Churton, is the close connection of Matthew xvi, 28, and the parallel chapters of Mark and Luke, with the account of the transfiguration. But, with due submission, I think the connection is evidently, not with the transfiguration, but with the preceding context. We need only go back to the 27th verse, to perceive this, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there will be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." -The coming of the Son of Man in the former, and his coming in his kingdom, in the latter of these verses, clearly determines the connection between the two; for in the account of the transfiguration, which immediately follows, there is not a word said of his coming. Besides, to foretel that the disciples would not die till an event took place which was to happen but six days after, this, as Bishop Newcome observes, would be a prophecy unworthy of Christ. I have only to add, that the same connection is observable in mark ix, 2, and in Luke ix, 28." (An Attempt to Illustrate..)

"But though I cannot, upon a careful perusal of this part of his work, agree with him in every thing he says, concerning the different comings of Christ mentioned in the New Testament; yet it has given me great satisfaction to find him saying, "that the Apostles, by the coming of Christ, which they represented as at hand, when they wrote their epistles, meant his coming to establish his spiritual kingdom over all people, nations, and languages, and not his coming to put an end to the world; it is evident from what Christ himself told them, Matt. xvi, 28; There be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." And agreeably to this account of the coming of Christ, and the end of all things, he observes, that every passage of their epistles, in which the Apostles have spoken of these things as at hand, may, with the greatest propriety, be interested of Christ's coming to establish his own everlasting kingdom over all people, nations, and languages, by destroying Jerusalem, putting an end to he law of Moses, and spreading the Gospel through the world." (APPENDIX)

James Stuart Russell (1878)

"This remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion, and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the Parousia. Though it cannot be said that there are any special difficulties in the language, it has greatly perplexed the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is surely unnecessary to ask what is the coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though an hypothesis which has great names to support it, is so palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation.

"It is reasonable to suppose, therefore that had the evangelists known of a deeper and hidden meaning in the predictions of Christ, they would have given some intimation to that effect; but they say nothing to lead us to infer that their apparent meaning is not their full and true meaning. There is, in fact; no ambiguity whatever as to the coming referred to in the passage now under consideration. It is not one of several possible comings; but the one, sole, supreme event, so frequently predicted by our Lord, so constantly expected by His disciples. It is His coming in glory; His coming to judgment; His coming in His kingdom; the coming of the kingdom of God. It is not a process, but an act. It is not the same thing as 'the destruction of Jerusalem,'- that is another event related and contemporaneous; but the two are not to be confounded. The New Testament knows of only one Parousia, one coming in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is altogether an abuse of language to speak of several senses in which Christ may be said to come, -- as at His own resurrection; at the day of Pentecost; at the destruction of Jerusalem; at the death of a believer; and at various providential epochs. This is not the usage of the New Testament, nor is it accurate language in any point of view. This passage alone contains so much important truth respecting the Parousia, that it may be said to cover the whole ground; and, rightly used, will be found to be a key to the true interpretation of the New Testament doctrine on this subject.

"The inference therefore is, that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation,- a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be abundantly justified." (The Parousia)

Milton Terry

"All sorts of efforts have been made to evade the simple meaning of these words, but they all spring from the dogmatic prepossession that the coming of the Son of man in his glory must needs be an event far future from the time when the words were spoken." (Apocalyptics pp.213-252