Friday, January 3, 2020

Why The Bible?


 
If we are certain that the universe was created by an intelligence (or intelligences), then it is reasonable to ask, "Has that intelligence communicated with mankind?". The majority in the world believing in a supreme intelligence do not admit to hearing a voice from such a being and so verbal communication seems to be ruled out. It seems clear that a written communication from such a being (or beings) would be the most efficient mode of communicating since it could be translated into all the languages of mankind and be consulted at any time. A number of books claim to be the written communication of God to mankind. What are the possibilities with these books? Either all of them are from God(s), or none of them, or some of them or one of them. How do we evaluate them in order to find out? Many of the holy books claim to be from God but at this point, that is just begging the question. We need more objective criteria to answer the question.

We have selected the following criteria:

(A)  Whoever designed and constructed the universe is certainly aware of its form and operation. Such a being would know that the earth is spherical and that it circles the sun. Whatever chemical, physical and biological facts related to the universe would be known by its Creator. For that reason, we would expect to find scientifically accurate information in any volume coming from the Creator of the universe.

(B)  The level of intelligence expressed in the construction of a human body or in the greater universe could certainly author a book that is reasonably consistent. That would be a less demanding task. To that end, we would expect to find that a book from God (Gods) would be consistent with itself and would be logical.

(C)  It would be helpful if such a volume contained information that humans living at the time of composition could not have known. Such information would exclude humans as the source and suggest a transcendent mind. Now that we have some tools, let us go to work.

SCIENCE AND HEALTH (Christian Scientist)

The volume entitled Science and Health claims to be inspired by God. It acknowledges that the Bible is inspired by God and suggests that it is in harmony with the Bible. On Page 110, lines 13-24 of Science and Health, we read the following: "In following these leadings of scientific revelation, the Bible was my only textbook. The scriptures were illumed; reason and revelation were reconciled, and afterwards the truth of Christian Science was demonstrated. No human pen nor tongue taught me the science contained in this book, Science and Health; and neither tongue nor pen can overthrow it. This book may be distorted by shallow criticism or by careless or malicious students, and its ideas may be temporarily abused and misrepresented; but the science and truth therein will forever remain to be discerned and demonstrated." We will employ our tools to evaluate the claim just quoted.

In Chapter Fourteen of Science and Health, Page 475, lines 6-10 and lines 21-31, we find the following statements: "Man is not matter; he is not made up of brain, blood, bones and other material elements. The scriptures inform us that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Matter is not that likeness... Man is incapable of sin, sickness, and death. The real man cannot depart from holiness, nor can God, by whom man is evolved, engender the capacity or freedom to sin." On Page 476, lines 7-11, declare, "Error will cease to claim that soul is in body, that life and intelligence are in matter, and that this matter is man... Hence man is not mortal nor material." The sciences of biology, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, medicine and anthropology would all disagree that "man is not matter; he is not made up of brain, blood, bones and other material elements". They would argue that the empirical evidence proves otherwise. Would the Creator of the universe convey in writing that "man is not mortal nor material"?

Science and Health* claims to be in harmony with the Bible. What does the Bible say about the nature of man? At Genesis 2:7, we find this statement regarding the creation of the first man, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the Ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". (King James Version) Consider Psalm 103:10,13,14 which says, "He (God) does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities... As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust". (New International Version) And, at Romans 5:12, we find, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...". (New International Version) What does the Bible say about sickness? The book of Isaiah Chapter 38, verse 1, relates, "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death...". (King James Version). Later at Matthew 4: 23,24, we read, "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him .spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, the epileptics and the paralytics, and he healed them". Clearly, the Bible's position is that man is made of matter, that he sins, that he gets sick and that he dies. Both proven science and the Bible disagree with Science and Health and thus cripple the credibility of Science and Health.

* See Science and Health, Page 110, lines 13-20 and Page 126, lines 29-31.

** See 1 Timothy 5:23; Colossians 4:14; Luke 10:29-34.

BOOK OF MORMON (Mormon)

The first edition of the Book of Mormon was Published in 1830. It claims to be the word of God to man and thus comes under our examination. A companion volume of the Book of Mormon called Doctrine and Covenants, which also purports to be from God makes this claim about the Book of Mormon in Section 19: 24-26, "I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of the Father, and I do his will. And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; nor seek thy neighbor's life. And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God...". We will reach for our tools in order to evaluate the claim that it is from God.

The Book of Mormon while arguing that the Bible does not contain all of God's written word to mankind acknowledges that the Bible is from God and hence that it is in harmony with it. Consulting 2 Nephi 29:10, we read, "Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words: neither need ye suppose that I (God) have not caused more to be written. Let us see if the Book of Mormon and the Bible are in harmony. It will be a tool in determining the trustworthiness of the Book of Mormon.

Reading 2 Nephi 2:22,23,25, we see, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever and had no end, and they would have had no children; wherefore, they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery, doing no good, for they knew no sin... Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." Does the Bible agree with this? In the Bible at Genesis 1:28, we read these words about the creation of the first man and woman, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it...". (King James Version). The Bible shows that God expected and commanded that the first couple have children. Also, since doing God's will is the ulti2ate definition of what is "good", then if Adam and Eve had remained in a state of obedience to God, they would have been "doing... good", even if they had never sinned. This is in conflict with what we read in the Book of Mormon.

On the location of Jesus' birth, we observe this at Alma 7:10, "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, *at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

Disagreeing with this, the Bible asserts this at Matthew 2:1, ".. .Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king...". (King James Version) See also Luke 2: 1-7.

* "At" a city means "in" it. See 1 Nephi 1:4,7. Compare Alma 6:1,4 with Alma 7:3,5.

The resurrection sequence is clearly different when comparing the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Note Alma 40: 18, 19 which says, "Behold, I say unto you, nay; but it meaneth the reuniting of the soul with the body, of those from the days of Adam down to the resurrection of Christ. Now, whether the souls and the bodies of those of whom has been spoken shall all be reunited at once, the wicked as well as the righteous, I do not say; Let it suffice, that I say that all come forth; or in other words, their resurrection cometh to pass before the resurrection of those who die after the resurrection of Christ." Nov the Bible shows that those who died before Christ came to the earth were still dead in the grave. Speaking of one such individual, David, Acts 3:29 declares, "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day." (King James Version) The book of Acts was written after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While a man on the earth, Jesus said, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man (Christ)." (John 3:13 King James Version)

At Hebrews 11, the Bible lists some of the faithful who died before Christ and states, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises." (verse 13). Then the Christian writer of Hebrews adds, "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." (verses 39, 40). During the resurrection Christians, not pre-Christians, are resurrected first, says the Bible at Revelation 20:4-6, which, in part, says, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... This is the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (See also 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.)

In the companion to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 42:18, we find, "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." In the Bible, the basis for forgiveness is true repentance, so that if a person did kill, another and truly repented of that action, he would be forgiven. King David of Israel had the Hittite Uriah killed, yet because he later sincerely regretted his action, he was forgiven. (2 Samuel 11:14-17; 2 Samuel 12:12-13) (See also 2 Chronicles 33:1-13. Note Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132:27.)

In Doctrine and Covenants, Section 130:22 are found these words, "The Father (God) has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s...". The Bible disagrees and tells us, "God is a spirit...". (John 4:24) And at Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie...". Furthermore, in referring to God's residence, the Bible declares, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (I Corinthians 15:50 King James Version).

Can the soul die? Note Alma 42:9, which says, "Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord...". The Bible disagrees with this description of the soul. It shows that the soul can die. Consider Revelation 16:3, "And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man and every living soul died in the sea." (King James Version) At Ezekiel 18:4, ". . .The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (King James Version) Also Joshua 11:11, "And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Razor with fire." (King James Version)

The Mormon literature fails the test as the foregoing demonstrates. We move forward to the next candidate.

THE KORAN (Muslim)

The Koran, sometimes called the Quran, is the holy book of millions belonging to the religion of Islam. Like the previous two books, the Koran claims that not only is it God's word but that the Bible is also God's word.

Referring to the Hebrew portion of the Bible as the Torah and the Christian Greek portion of the Bible as the Gospel, the Koran relates this at Surah 3:3 (Pickthall version), "He (God) hath revealed unto thee (Mohammad) the scripture with truth (the Koran), confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He (God) revealed the Torah and the Gospel". We will pick up our tools and begin our analysis.

Books from God would be internally consistent reflecting God's high degree of intelligence and self-consistency.

At Surah 3:38-41 (Pickthall translation), we read the following regarding the Biblical priest called Zechariah, "Then Zechariah prayed unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Bestow upon me of thy bounty goodly offspring. Lo! Thou art the hearer of prayer. And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary Allah giveth thee glad tiding of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah, lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren? (The angel) answered: So (it will be). Allah doeth what he will. He said: My Lord! Appoint a token for me. (The angel) said: The token unto thee (shall be) that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three days except by signs. Remember thy Lord much, and praise (him) in the early hours of night and morning." (See also Surah 19: 6-10. Pickthall. Translation). The Bible's account differs from the Koran's account. Consider the following passages from the Bible. In the Bible book of Luke, we read, "In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there happened to be a certain priest named Zechariah of the Division of Abijah, and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth... According to the solemn practice of the priestly office, it became his turn to offer incense when he entered into the sanctuary of Jehovah... to him Jehovah's angel appeared, standing at the right side of the incense altar... However, the angel said to him: ‘Have no fear, Zechariah, because your supplication has been favorably heard, and your wife Elizabeth will become mother to a son to you, and you are to call his name John... And Zechariah said to the angel: ‘How am I to be sure of this? For I am aged and my wife is well along in years.' In reply the angel said to him: ‘I am Gabriel, who stands near before God... But, look! You will be silent and not able to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their appointed time... But after these days Elizabeth his wife became pregnant; and she kept herself secluded for five months... The time now became due for Elizabeth to give birth, and she became mother to a son... Then they went asking its father by signs what he wanted it to be called... Instantly his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed and he began to speak, blessing God". (Luke 1:5,9,11,13,18-20,24,57,62,64 New World Translation) Two differences emerge: The Bible shows that Zechariah was not able to speak for nine months, while the Koran says that Zechariah was not able to speak for three days. Secondly, the Bible shows that Zechariah was made speechless for lack of faith, while the Koran relates that Zechariah was made speechless as a "token" that he would in fact have a son by Elizabeth.

Commenting on the worldwide flood of Noah's day, the Koran says this, "And (the "ship") sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son - and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers. He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water... And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned... And Noah cried unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Lo! My son is of my household!..." (Surah 11:42-45 Pickthall Translation). The Bible disagrees with that account. First, the Bible records that Noah had three sons. At Genesis 6:9, 10, we read, "This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man... In time Noah became father to three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth." Before the massive deluge began we read that "...Noah went in (to the ark), and Shem and Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, and the wife of Noah and the three wives of his sans with him, into the ark." (Genesis 7:13) After the waters subsided and land appeared, the Bible relates, "And Noah's sons who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth..." (Genesis 9:18) The three sons that Noah sired survived the flood; none of his sons drowned. This contradicts the record found in the Koran.

Speaking of the time when Joseph, son of Jacob, was a slave in the house of an Egyptian named Potiphar, the Koran relates, "And he of Egypt who purchased him said unto his wife: receive (Joseph) honourably. Perchance he may prove useful to us or we may adopt him as a son... And when (Joseph) reached his prime we gave him wisdom and knowledge... And she, in whose house he was, asked of him an evil act. She bolted the doors and said: Comet He said: I seek refuge in Allah! Lo! He is my Lord, who hath treated me honourably. Wrong-doers never prosper. She verily desired him, and he would have desired her if it had not been that he saw the argument of his Lord... And they raced with one another to the door, and she tore his shirt from behind, and they met her Lord and Master at the door. She said: what shall be his reward, who wisheth evil to thy folk, save prison or a painful doom? (Joseph) said: she it was who asked of me an evil act, and a witness of her own folk testified: if his shirt is torn from before, then she speaketh truth and he is of the liars. And if his shirt is torn from behind, then she hath lied and he is of the truthful. So when he saw his shirt torn from behind, he said: Lo! This is of the guile of you women. Lo! The guile of you is very great. O Joseph! Turn away from this, and thou (O woman), ask forgiveness for thy sin. Lo! Thou art the sinful, and women in the city said: the ruler's wife is asking of her slave-boy an ill deed. Indeed he has smitten her to the heart with love... And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and prepared for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave to every one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them! And when they saw him, they exalted him and cut their hands, exclaiming: Allah blameless! This is not a human being. This is no other than some gracious angel. She said: this is he on whose account ye blamed me. I asked of him an evil act, but he proved continent, but if he do not my behest he verily shall be imprisoned, and verily shall be of those brought low. He said: O my Lord! Prison is more dear than that unto which they urge me... And it seemed good to them (the men-folk) after they had seen the signs (of his innocence) to imprison him for a time. (Surah 12;2l-35 Pickthall Translation). The Bible disagrees with this account. At Genesis 39, we find, "As for Joseph, he was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, a court official of Pharoah, the chief of the bodyguard, an Egyptian, got to buy him... Now after these things it came about that the wife of his master began to raise her eyes toward Joseph and say: ‘Lie down with me.' But he would refuse and would say to his master's wife; ‘Here my master does not know what is with me in the house... How could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?' ...But it happened that on this day as other days he went into the house to do his business, and there was none of the men of the house there in the house. Then she grabbed hold or him by his garment, saying: ‘Lie down with me!' But he left his garment in her hand and took to flight and went on outside. So it occurred that as soon as she saw that he had left his garment in her hand that he might flee outside, she began to cry out to the men of her house and to say to them: ‘Look! He brought to us a man, a Hebrew, to make us a laughingstock. He came to me to lie down with me, but I began to cry out at the top of my voice. And it followed that as soon as he heard that I raised my voice and began crying out, he then left his garment beside me and took to flight and went outside After that she kept his garment laid up beside her until his master came to his house. Then she spoke to him according to these words, saying: ‘The Hebrew servant whom you have brought to us came to me to make me a laughingstock'... The result was that as soon as his master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him, saying: ‘Like this and this your servant did to me', his anger blazed. So Joseph's master took him and gave him over to the prison house..." (Genesis 39:1-20 New World Translation) The accounts in the Koran and the Bible are clearly contradictory. Potiphar's reaction, the reason for Joseph's imprisonment and the timing of when Potiphar was given the false report are different. The Koran doesn’t "confirm" the Bible, as it claims. (See Surah 5:44-48 Pickthall Translation).

Reflecting the ancient notion that the sky was literally over the earth and thus could potentially fall upon the earth, notice the words of the Koran at Surah 22:65 (Pickthall Translation), "Hast thou not seen how Allah hath made all that is in the earth subservient unto you? And the ship runneth upon the sea by his command, and he holdeth back the heaven from falling on the earth unless by his leave. Lo! Allah is, for mankind, full of pity, merciful." This view is scientifically in error.

The following raises questions about the claim that the Koran is from God. We move on to the next holy book.

THE UPANISHADS (Hindu)

The *Upanishads constitute the most respected and impressive part of the Hindu sacred literature called The Vedas. The Upanishads purport to be divine revelations to man and hence come under our scrutiny.

Several striking claims are made in "Svetasvatara". Referring to Brahman, the ultimate reality and source of the universe we read, "Changeless thou art, supreme, pure! In thee dwell the Gods. The source of all scriptures thou art... The source of all scriptures thou art, and the source of all creeds." Several paragraphs later, we read, "Of all religions thou art the source. The light of thy knowledge shining, there is nor day or night, nor being nor non-being - thou along art." If Brahman is the single source of "all scripture", "all creeds" and "all religions", then many will instantly see a credibility problem.** The scriptures of the world's great religions present hard, conflicting statements on universal themes. If Brahman is behind all of this, it would mean that Brahman is not certain of what Brahman "speaks". Let's consider one example of conflicting statements in the holy books. Will all created things eventually perish? In the Buddhist Sutta Pitaka, Chapter 10, "The Way", Buddha reportedly said; "All created things perish - he who knows and see this is at peace though in a world of pain; this is the way of purity." Nearly all of the great religions teach in their holy books that humans' souls created by God(s) cannot perish. This contradicts the view stated in the Sutta Pitaka. The section on the Koran cited contradictions between the Bible and the Koran. Before this work is completed we will, see many more.

* Quotations from The Upanishads translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester.

** The view that God or some divine principle is behind all of the world's great religions is taught in the Bahai faith. Baha'ullah wrote: "There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed." (Gleanings From The Writings of Baha'ullah, Page 217.)

Stating what has to be a logical contradiction is this found in "Taitiriya", "Before creation came into existence, Brahman existed as the unmanifest. From the unmanifest he created the manifest. From himself he brought forth himself. Hence he is known as the self-existent." If "from himself he brought forth himself", that means that he was already present as himself to bring forth himself. But if that was true - that he was already present, already "himself" - the act of bringing forth himself means nothing, if it means anything. This is not the kind of logic that one would expect from the God(s).

Another scientific error is reported in Prasna that has to do with the sun. We are told, "Prana, the primal energy is the sun; and Rayi, the form-giving substance, is the moon... The rising sun pervades the east, and fills with energy all beings that here inhabit... Prana is the soul of the universe, assuming all forms; he is the light that animates and illumines all: even as it is written - ‘The wise know him who assumes all forms, who is radiant, who is all-knowing, who is the one that gives light to all.' He rises as the sun of a thousand rays, and abides in infinite places... The sun, the light, is indeed the source of all energy... Prana...thou movest in the sky as the sun, and lord of lights art thou... whatsoever exists in the universe is dependent on thee, O Prana... The sun is the Prana of the universe..." It is certainly not the case that our sun has this exalted relationship to the rest of the material universe. The universe does not depend upon our sun, consequently, our sun is not the soul of the universe. What is reported in The Upanishads is contradicted by the evidences in astronomy and astrophysics. The Creator of the universe would know better than to misstate the relationship of the sun to the rest of the universe.

These are errors that we have identified that are significant enough to move on to our next candidate.

TAO TE CHING (Taoist)

Consisting of eighty-one short poems, the Tao Te Ching* is the sacred literature to Taoists. Reportedly, the Tao Te Ching has been translated more frequently than any other religious book, except the Bible. Like many of the 'holy books', the Tao Te Ching contains useful rules of conduct**; we would expect that from insightful humans. But the question is: Is the Tao Te Ching's ultimate source the being we call God?

Whether living under ideal conditions or nat, when is it ever practical or progressive for the governed masses to be ignorant and to have their ambitions stifled? Would the Creator of the universe ever encourage thinking, reflective humans to whom he communicates to be concerned only with their bellies, their basic needs and little else? Notice this directive to governors of the political state in Tao Te Ching, 3, "The wise man's policy, accordingly, will be to empty people's hearts and minds, to fill their bellies, weaken their ambition, give them sturdy frames and always so, to keep them uninformed, without desire and knowing ones not venturing to act."*** The foregoing does not harmonize with the following, "On hearing of the Way, (the ultimate reality), the best of men will, earnestly explore its length." (Tao Te Ching, 41). Or, "Indeed the wise man's office is to work by being still; he teaches not by speech but by accomplishment; he does for everything, neglecting none...". (Tao Te Ching, 2)

* All quotations are from the translation by Raymond Blakney called "The Way of Life".

** See Tao Te Ching, 27; 63; and 64 for examples.

*** See also Tao Te Ching, 65.

According to the Tao Te Ching, man has thirteen "members" through which death may come. We read, "On leaving life, to enter death: thirteen members form a living body; a corpse has thirteen, too: thirteen spots by which a man may pass from life to death." (Tao Te Ching, 50). Is this scientifically accurate? Consider the following list of body "members" or "spots" and the ways that death can come:

(1) Liver - Cirrhosis
(2) Heart - Acute Coronary Occlusion
(3) Kidney - Kidney Failure
(4) Lungs - Tuberculosis, Drowning
(5) Adrenal Glands - Addison's Disease
(6) Islands of Langerhans - Diabetes Mellitus
(7) Brain - Cancer
(8) Pituitary Gland - Hypophysectomy leads to death
(9) Leg - Moist Gangrene
(10) Nervous System - Tetanus, Psittacosis
(11) Arteries - Aortic Aneurysm
(12) Large Intestine - Chronic Obstruction
(13) Arm - Bite or Laceration introducing agents like Staphylococci
(14) Cellular Level - Dehydration, Freezing
(15) Exocrine Glands - Cystic Fibrosis
More examples could be presented to demonstrate that there are more than "thirteen spots by which a man may pass from life to death". The Creator of man would presumably know that and thus not make the mistake of having the error written.

It may be time to move on to the next candidate.

SACRED WRITINGS OF BUDDHISM (Buddhist)

Buddhist scripture incorporates a variety of written material, not all of which is accepted by the worldwide community of Buddhists. We shall focus on some "core" material and conduct our analysis.

Sutta* 63 of the Majjhima-Nikaya contains a conversation between one, Malunkyaputta, and Buddha. In that conversation, Malunkyaputta raised questions about the world, the soul and what happens after death. These are subjects, it seems, God would not hesitate to address to intelligent beings.

* Quotations from "The Teachings of The Compassionate Buddha", edited by Edwin A. Burtt

Note Buddha's response to these questions, "...And what, Malunkyaputta, have I not explained? I have not explained, Malunkyaputta, that the world is eternal; I have not explained that the world is not eternal; I have not explained that the world is finite; I have not explained that the world is infinite; I have not explained that the soul and body are identical; I have not explained that the soul is one thing and the body another; I have not explained that the saint exists after death; I have not explained that the saint does not exist after death; I have not explained that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; I have not explained that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. And why, Malunkyaputta, have I not explained this? Because, Malunkyaputta, this profits not, nor has to do with the fundamentals of religion, nor tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, the supernatural faculties, supreme wisdom, and nirvana; therefore, have I not explained it." It would seem that God certainly knows whether the world is finite or infinite, and whether or not we mortals will encounter a life after death. Probably most people would agree that the question of whether there is life after death is indeed one of the ‘fundamentals of religion'. Why then were these matters not addressed? Was it Buddha’s ignorance or God's reserve? In the Sutta Pitaka in the section called "Punishment", it is of interest to note these statements attributed to Buddha, "He who, seeking his own happiness, punishes beings who also long for happiness, will not find happiness after death. He who, seeking his own happiness, does not punish beings who also long for happiness, will find happiness after death." In the section called "The Twin Verses", reportedly Buddha declared, "The virtuous man delights in this world, and he delights in the next; he delights in both... The virtuous man is happy in this world, and he is happy in the next; he is happy in both...". It appears that these two quotations of Buddha which express an interest in the "next world", "after death", are not in harmony with his conversation with Malunkyaputta which asserts that interest in the next world "profits not, nor has to do with the fundamentals of religion".

Again, in the Sutta Pitaka, in the section called "The Way", we find this interesting comment, "So long as the desire of man toward women, even the smallest, is not destroyed, so long is his mind in bondage, as the calf that drinks milk is to its mother." It would appear based on the anatomical design of men and women that the Creator indeed wanted them to desire each ‘other and come together to form families. Biology indeed demands that man should desire a woman. This directive in the Buddhist sacred literature is at odds with the design pressed into the physiology and anatomy of all normal humans and thus does not seem to be a message from the Creator.

If the writings of the Mahayana Buddhist named Nagarjuna are construed to be Buddhist sacred scripture, new problems present themselves. In the Madhyamika Karikas where Nagarjuna critiques causality, we find the following, "There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none that arise; neither out to themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random... No energies in causes, nor energies outside them. No causes without energies, nor causes that possess them..." The sciences of physics and chemistry are certainly at odds with these views and can provide the hard data to disprove them.

One more very relevant point must be made: If the Creator was the spirit behind the Buddhist sacred writings, he does not say much, if anything, about himself and he did not construct the material in a manner that says ‘Here is a communication from your Creator'. It reads more like ‘Here is a communication from a fellow human, from the man Buddha'. Maybe that is how we should regard it.

Let us move on.

AVESTA (Zoroastrian)

Zoroaster, also known as Zarathustra, was an ancient Persian priest that founded the Zorastrian faith. That faith subscribes to the Avesta as divine literature. The Avesta is our next candidate.

In Yasna 44, Stanza 4, Zoroaster queries, "This I. ask thee, 0 Lord, answer me truly: who set the earth in its place below, and the sky of the clouds, that it shall not fall?...". We encounter again a false view of the universe reflective of the times. Although one can possibly justify the relative view that the earth is "below", there is no justification for the suggestion that the sky with its clouds could "fall". The Creator of the universe would be aware of that fact and consequently would not be inclined to mistake himself on this.

The Avesta reveals a God who encourages the worship and deification of the sun, moon and stars - in short, the worship of nature. The question can be legitimately raised: Would the Creator of the cosmos be inclined to have his intelligent creation worshiping non-intelligent masses orbiting in space? Does that seem like a rational activity? Mah Yast*, Stanza IX, relates, "I shall sacrifice unto the moon... the water giving.., the warmth-giving... the Healing One - The Moon!" The foregoing not only makes the point about veneration of the moon but also raises a question of scientific accuracy: Does the moon give water, warmth and provide healing? A similar scientific error is found at Mah Yast, Stanza VII, which declares, "When the light of the moon waxeth warmer golden hued plants grow up from the earth during spring."

* The Zend Avesta of Zarathustra by Edmond S. Bordeaux.

To ancient man, the stars over the ocean seemed to gradually disappear into the ocean. To say that they appeared to go into the ocean is one thing but to say that they actually went into the ocean is another. The former is scientifically permissible to say but the latter is not. Note the following:

"Then do, the bright and glorious stars go back down to the sea. He (Ahura Mazda, God) maketh the sea to boil up and down; he maketh the sea to stream this way and that. And the bright and glorious stars rise up from the sea. Tir Yast, Stanza XI. Adding to this we read, "We invoke the bright and glorious stars, that from the shining East move along their winding course, along the path made by the gods, along the way appointed for them the watering way, at the will of Ahura Mazda...". (Tir Yast, Stanza XIV)

Ahura Mazda (Ormazd) is the benevolent God of Zoroastranism. He is represented by the sun. At Khorshed Yast, Stanza VII, we find, "He rejoiceth all the heavenly and the earthly forces who offereth up a sacrifice unto the immortal, shining swiftsteeded Sun." And at Visparad XIX, Stanza III, "And we do sacrifice to the shining Sun, which is the highest of the high; yea, we worship the Sun...". The worship of the creation, the sun, is reminiscent of primitive man looking for the Creator and worshiping him through the objects he made rather than turning to Him, an actual if not a seeming distortion of the fact. It is appropriate now to consider our next candidate.

SACRED WRITINGS OF THE BAHAI (Bahai's)

In the late 1800's in Iran, a man appeared on the scene named Baha-ullah. The religious movement he founded became known as the Bahai. Baha-ullah thought that all of the founders of the world's great religions, and thus their holy books, were from the one God. Re argued that he was a special messenger of God. Consequently, all the holy books of these religions and the sayings of Baha-ullah are considered from God. In Gleanings From the Writings of Baha-ullah*, Page 9, Baha-ullah said, "Behold how the divers peoples and kindreds of the earth have been waiting for the coming of the Promised One (Baha-ullah). No sooner had Re who is the Son of Truth, been made manifest than lo, all turned away from Him except whom God was pleased to guide...". With respect to the founders of the other great religions called "Manifestations of God", Baha-ullah cautioned, "Beware, O believers, in the unity of Gad, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of this Cause... Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His will and purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated his signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.". (Pages 59 and 60, Gleanings From the Writings of Baha-ullah).

* Translated by Shoghi Effendi

The discouragement against any analysis of the "holy books" may be well intended, an appeal to unity and peace. But the reality, as we have already seen in the previous sections, is that there are differences in the holy books - differences that made a difference. It is not reasonable to assume that those significant differences came from the same Being, the same God and Creator.

THE KOJIKI AND THE NIHONGI (Shintoist)

We have moved on to consider the Kojiki and the Nihongi, the sacred scripture of Shintoism.

According to the Kojiki, two ancient deities produced a pantheon of deities in the heavens. The description of that product is somewhat incredible, even vulgar. So much so that it casts a cloud of credibility over the Kojiki. Give some thought to these words from Kojiki, Sections VI-X, "When they had finished giving birth to countries, they began afresh giving birth to Deities... Next (after many deities have been born), they gave birth to the Fire-Burning-Swift-Male-Deity... Through giving birth to this child her august private parts were burnt, and she sickened and lay down. The names of the Deities born from her vomit were the Deity Metal-Mountain-Prince and Metal-Mountain-Princess. The names of the Deities that were born from her feces were Clay-Viscid-Prince and Clay-Viscid-Princess. The Deities that were born from her urine were Mitsuhanome and the Young-Wondrous-Producing-Deity...". The very nature of things would identify creative beings or forces with matters of dignity and cleanness, certainly not with urine, feces and vomit.

In discussing the origin of food and silkworms, a similar description of events unfolds in Kojiki, Section XVII, "...Then the Princess-of-Great-Food took out all sorts of dainty things from her nose, her mouth and her fundament and made them up into all sorts of dishes which he offered him. But Susa no Wa watched her proceedings, considered that she was offering him filth, and at once killed her. So the things that were born in the body of the Deity who had been killed were: in her head were born silkworms, in her two eyes were born rice seeds, in her two ears was born millet, in her nose were born small beans, in her private parts was born barley, in her fundament were born large beans. So His Augustness the Deity-Producing-Wondrous-Ancestor caused them to be taken and used as seeds."

Once more we are introduced to the view that the earth somehow upholds or supports the heavens, the sky. In Nihongi, Book XXII, we are told, "When you receive the Imperial commands, fail not scrupulously to obey them. The lord is Heaven, the vassal is Earth. Heaven overspreads and Earth upbears. When this is so, the four seasons follow their due course, and the powers of Nature obtain their efficacy. If the Earth attempted to overspread, Heaven would simply fall in ruin. Therefore, is it that when the lord speaks, the vassal listens, when the superior acts, the inferior yields compliance. Consequently when you receive the Imperial commands, fail not to carry them out scrupulously. Let there be a want of care in this matter, and ruin is the natural consequence." The message is clear: just as a subordinate public supports an authority so the earth supports heaven; if the public compliance is not forthcoming, "ruin is the natural consequence", and if the earth does not support heaven "ruin is the natural consequence" and it "would simply fall in ruin". The former may be a political verity but the latter is a scientific error, a reflection of human ignorance. God would know better.

We now will look at another contender.

SACRED WRITINGS OF JAINISM (Jain)

For centuries the Jainist community has been located primarily in India. It still is but more and more Jams are filtering out to other areas of the world. A number of books make up the sacred literature of the Jams and they are the 12 Angas, the 12 Upangas, the 10 Painnas, the 6 Cheya-Suttas and the 4 Mula-Suttas. Here we are introduced to a religion that maintains that the universe has always existed and hence has no creator. Yes, there are gods but salvation does not come so much from their assistance as from the individual's own efforts and good works. The needed instructions for the best life are reportedly found in the Jainist sacred literature. We need to apply our testing instruments to the sacred writings of the Jains*.

Because of a high regard for life, Jainist monks are instructed, "Suffering from insects, a great sage remains undisturbed... He should not scare away (insects), nor keep them off, nor be in the least provoked to passion by them. Tolerate living beings, do not kill them, though they eat your flesh and blood." (Uttaradhyayana, Lecture II) Now from a medical point of view, it seems clear that this could be considered dangerous counsel. Some insects transmit microbes that can be lethal. What about "living beings" like dogs and sharks that may wish to eat our flesh and blood? Also, do we not have here a moral contradiction: if it is wrong for humans to kill animals under any circumstances, why is it wrong to try to prevent such creatures from killing humans? Killing life, after all, is killing life, whether animal or human.

* Quotes from The Sacred Books of the East, Volume XLV, 1895, Clarendon Press.

An uncomplimentary view of women is found in Jainist literature. In Uttaradhyayana, Lecture II, "A wise man who knows that women are a slough, as it were will get no harm from them, but will wander about searching for the Self." Again, at Uttaradhyayana, Lecture XIII, "Do not desire (women) those female demons, on whose breasts grow two bumps of flesh, who continually change their minds, who entice men, and then make a sport of them as slaves." Does not the very nature of things dictate that man and woman are biologically designed to complement each other? If that is, "the very nature of things", then it would obviously be appropriate for them to be together as partners. There are no grounds in biology for looking at women as "sloughs" or "female demons".

Speaking of biology, let's examine this message in Uttaradhyayana, Lecture XXXVI, "The animals which possess five organs of sense are of two kinds these which originate by generation aequivoca (those that grow by assimilating the material in their surroundings) and those which are born from the womb." Later, in the same Lecture, "Men are of two kinds.., men originating by generation aequivoca and men born from the womb." Science does not admit to knowing two kinds of men, one of which originates from what amounts to spontaneous generation "by assimilating material in their surroundings". And, where are the animals having five sense organs that originate by "generation aequivoca"?

In Sutra Kritanga, Book One, Lecture VII, we find these instructions, "He who lights a fire kills living beings; he who extinguishes it kills the fire, therefore a wise man should light no fire." Now, if we assume that "killing" fire is equivalent to killing living beings, then our knowledge of fire science tells us that fire is not alive to be killed.

Jainist sacred scripture has credibility problems. We move on to our next candidate.

THE HOLY BIBLE

The Bible claims to be the Word of God. In fact, in it we find the following statement about its contents, "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness that the man of Gad may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). Judaism accepts the first 39 books of the Bible as of divine origin while Christianity accepts a larger canon which includes an additional 27 books. On that basis, we will consider both sections separately.

First, we will look at the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, the so-called "Old Testament". Unlike the other holy books that we have considered, we find scientific statements in this portion of the Bible that do not reflect the views of the time of writing. They are, in fact, what might be called "scientific anticipations". Two categories of such "scientific anticipations" can be identified: direct and indirect.

The direct statements include the following: In the eighth century B.C.E., when the world essentially felt that the earth was flat, the Hebrew Bible reported this at Isaiah 40:22, "There is one (God) who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers... Continuing, the Hebrew Bible advises us that the earth is a free body in space, not connected to or supporting the heavens, "He (God) is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) This book of the Bible was written in the 16th Century B.C.E., preceding by aver 2,000 years science's discovery of this truth. The Bible reported it first. Unlike the Jain sacred literature, the Hebrew Bible informs us that the material universe has not always existed but had a beginning, "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth." (Genesis 1:1) The evaporation-condensation-precipitation cycle in the science of meteorology is anticipated in the Hebrew Bible at Ecclesiastes 1:7,8 and Amos 5:8, "All the winter torrents are forging forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth." (Ecclesiastes 1:7,8) And, "...The One (God) calling far the waters of the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth - Jehovah is his name." (Amos 5:8) Evaporation of water from off the surface of the seas leads to condensation which in turn leads to precipitation in the form of rain, snow, sleet and hail over land which creates streams and torrents which return to the seas to repeat the cycle. Ecclesiastes was written in the eleventh century B.C.E. and Hosea in the eighth century B.C.E. Although some of the other holy hooks also relate that all mankind came from one original couple, a view strongly suggested by the sciences of genetics, physiology and anatomy, the Hebrew Bible provides us this truth at Genesis 1:28, "Further Gad blessed them (Adam and Eve, the first human couple) and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it...'." Modern science tells us that the early earth was covered entirely by liquid and that later land emerged followed by the appearance of plant life, animal life in the seas, animal life on land and finally man. That very same sequence was recorded in the Bible over 3,000 years ago in the book of Genesis, "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active farce was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters... Let dry land appear... Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees... Let the waters swarm forth and swarm of living souls... And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters warmed forth.., and God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth... and every moving animal of the ground.., and God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image...'." (Genesis 1:1-26) Science took thousands of years to determine this sequence.

The medical science of the Hebrew Bible is particularly interesting. The ingestion or transmission of human and/or animal blood to humans can be risky. A number of sicknesses can result, among them: AIDS, Infectious Hepatitis, Malaria, Syphilis Cytomegalovirus Infection, Chagas' Disease and Filariasis. The Bible at Leviticus 7:26,27 advises, "And you must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people." And Leviticus 17:14: "...You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh...". Continuing, medical research has established that emotions can affect one physically. The Hebrew Bible anticipated science on this score when it advised, "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rotteness to the bones." (Proverbs 14:30) When an ancient Israelite came upon a dead animal in the field or elsewhere, the Bible warned him against contamination and this at a time when the ancient world knew nothing of germs, "...And everything upon which any of their dead bodies may fall will be unclean... Anyone touching their dead bodies will be unclean...". (Leviticus 11:25,36) Moreover, contrary to the view of feces described in our discussion on Shintoist sacred literature, the Hebrew Bible properly identifies it as something unclean and something that should be buried. (Deuteronomy 23: 9-14)

* "The radiant energy of stars, the mechanical energy of planetary motions, the chemical energy of food, all are being steadily changed into the energy of disordered molecular motion". (Introduction to Physics and Chemistry, Second Edition, By Beiser and Krauskopf; McGraw-Hill, Publisher, Page 162.

The indirect science of the Hebrew Bible now demands our attention. In the ancient world the heavens against which the sun, moon and stars were cast was two dimensional - lacking depth. The stars were truly small crystals of light moving slowly and noiselessly across the face of the heavens. They lacked the power, presence and pomp of the sun; they were relatively insignificant. But the Hebrew Bible does not agree with that view; it indirectly acknowledged the magnificence of those massive stellar bodies called "stars". Early man did not see this; the Bible did "see" this, "When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have prepared, what is mortal man that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man that you "take care of him?" (Psalm 8:3-4) The implication is there: in view of the true significance of stars out there in endless space, why would God even notice puny man here on the earth? This is not a comparison that you would expect from the ancient world; the Bible did make that comparison. Furthermore, the ancient world had no concept of a universe running down, an action following the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even so, the Bible stated a truth science has discovered only in our modern era, that the universe is wearing down. Note Psalm 102: 25-26, "Long ago you (God) laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the work of your hands., They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing; and just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn." According to this scriptural cite, unless God ‘replaced' or re-energized the Universe, in time, it would die a cold, still death. This is, apparently, a scientific verity.

The Christian Greek Scriptures, the so-called "New Testament," contain only a few scientific anticipations. But they are all accurate.

Wine has medicinal qualities. Not everyone knew this in the past but the Christian Greek portion of the Bible declares, "Do not drink water any longer (Timothy) but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent cases of sickness." (1 Timothy 5:23) Also, the Greek scriptures acknowledge the differences in stars, a discovery made by modern astronomy. Analyze 1 Corinthians 15:41, "The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another, in fact, star differs from star in glory." Astronomers classify some stars as "red giants", others as "white dwarfs" and so on.

Bible science is, to say the least, incredibly accurate. How is it possible that these ancient writings could be so accurate, especially when the contemporary prevailing views were so different and inaccurate? Is it not reasonable to conclude that if, in fact, the Bible is a production of God that it would have this kind of accuracy?*

* Many dispute Bible science on the method of creation in earth, arguing that evolution and not God is responsible for the existence of all life forms. They may accept the sequence of Genesis 1 but certainly not the method. For an excellent consideration of this dispute, see Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?; 1985; Publishers: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.

Perhaps one of the most startling characteristics of the Bible - in both the Hebrew and Greek sections - is prophecy. It satisfies one of the criteria we established when we set out on this odyssey: "It would be helpful if such a volume (from Gad) contained information that humans living at the time of composition could not have known. Such information would exclude humans as the source and suggest a transcendent mind." We will examine some Biblical predictions.

In the seventh century B.C.E., while Babylonia flourished in the Middle East, the Bible writer Daniel wrote in the book bearing his name that the Babylonian empire would fall to the Medes and Persians who would, in turn, establish a larger empire which would, in turn, be vanquished by the Greeks under the very first King of Greece. The prophecy continues that after the death of the first king, the Grecian empire would subdivide into four political empires. The prophecy used symbols to make its points: A two horned ram and a one horned he-goat being the principal symbols. Not leaving the symbols to a variety of interpretations after symbolizing the prediction in Daniel 8:1-8, we are informed thusly at Daniel 8:20-22: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the King of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes. it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power." The sequence is historically correct; the names of the nations are correct and the results are correct. Specificity is there and generality is not.

Archeology provides physical evidence of many past cultures. Among them are the Moabites. Unlike the Jews or the Egyptians or others, the Bible foretold years in advance that the Moabite people would be extinguished. That is precisely what happened and it remains true right up to this day. At Zephaniah 2:9, the Bible predicted, "Therefore, as I am alive, is the utterance of Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, Moab herself will become just like Sodom, and the sons of Amman like Gomorrah, a place possessed by nettles, and a salt pit, and a desolate waste, even to time indefinite."

In the Christian Greek Scriptures are found a number of predictions that show that the early Christian church would undergo radical changes following the death of the apostles of Jesus Christ. An example is found at 1 Timothy 4:1-5 where the writer, the Apostle Paul, wrote, "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding* to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which Gad created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. The reason for this is that every creation of God is fine and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through God's word and prayer over it." Note that two specific changes were predicted: imposed celibacy and imposed dietary restrictions. The prediction came true about 200 years after it was made.

* See "Celibacy", Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature by McLintock and Strong, 1894, pages 174-177.

The Jewish prophet Jesus Christ anticipated the Roman invasions against Jerusalem in 66 C.E. and 70 C.E. The Bible writer Luke recorded Jesus' prediction at Luke 21: 20-24 in these words, "Furthermore, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her... And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations...". In 66 C.E. a Jewish revolt precipitated a Roman response that brought Cestius Gallus and a host of Roman soldiers against Jerusalem. Cestius had Jerusalem "surrounded by encamped armies". Later, for no apparent reason, Cestius had the armies withdraw and retire.* Christians remembered the prophecy of Jesus and hastily moved out of the area. Some years later, in 70 C.E., Roman General Titus resumed the Roman response by encircling Jerusalem during the Jewish passover holiday and setting siege - a siege lasting approximately 5 months. The Jews that did not lose their lives during that terrible ordeal were "led captive into all the nations..", just as it was foretold.

The foregoing are but a sampling of predictions found in both the Hebrew-Aramaic and Christian Greek Scriptures. They are undoubtedly impressive and provide a solid basis for arguing that both volumes of literature are from God.

Another observation should be made about a book coming from God. It would appear that if God cares for humans, he would have included in his communication some rules and guidelines for life that cover a wide range of areas; marital relations, raising children, employer-employee relations, business practices, real and personal property, individual conduct, etc. A number of the holy books say very little about these vital matters. The Bible has much to say on all of these.

The Bible meets the criteria that we set up before we began the analyses of the holy books.

* See Josephus, The Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1967, page 163.
 
Hal Flemings

*

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Modern translations and the name Jehovah

In the original languages of the Bible, the divine name appears over 7000 times. It is referred to as the tetragrammaton.The letters that make up the tetragrammaton literally translate YHWH. There were no vowels used in the origonal Hebrew. The reader supplied the vowels himself as he read. It would be like us reading the abbreviation "bldg" or "blvd." Some have felt that the ancients would have pronounced the name as, "Yahweh," and so some prefer that over the English, or Anglo-cized form, "Jehovah."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwniNispO40&feature=emb_logo
Many centuries ago, a superstition that the name was too sacred to be spoken by human lips. This was contrary to what Jesus taught. In fact, he even prayed,"I have made your name manifest."(John 17:6) Down through the centuries, some manuscripts have left out the name, so the subsequent translations have reflected this ommission. Older manuscripts that use the name abundantly are still available, so some translations include the name, in at least a few places.
Here are some Bible translations that use the name Jehovah, or Yahweh.
The New English Bible: at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35.
Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.
Today's English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: THE LORD: Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.
King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4.
American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.
The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.
The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form Yahweh, but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under Lord and Yahweh.
The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.
New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.
An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by the LORD in brackets.
The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Holy Scriptures translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.
The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.
The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.
A reference work, The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.
Also many say the "hallelujah" chorus found in Revelation. They probably do not realize that hallelujah means, "praise Jah.""Jah" is the shortened form of the name "Jehovah," so they are really saying, "praise Jehovah."
Whatever language we prefer to pronounce the name in, the important thing is to use the divine name. We cannot draw close to someone whom we never refer to by their name. If someone you know neverused your name, they would never become your close friend. We cannot expect any less of our creator.

Jehovah in the KJV

Gen.22[14] And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.Exod.6[3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.Exod.17[15] And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi:Judg.6[24] Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.Pss.83[18] That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.Isa.12[2] Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.Isa.26[4] Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength

Monday, November 4, 2019

Who's misquoting John McKenzie

Subject:  Who's Actually Misquoting John McKenzie?

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God
[=the Father], and the word was a divine being." Dictionary of the
Bible, 317, John McKenzie
As quoted in _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_
by Ron Rhodes, p. 105:
"The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just
a 'divine being,' He is less than Jehovah....However, on the same
page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being';
McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28
and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:18 expresses 'an identity between God
and Jesus Christ.' So McKenzie's words actually argue against the
Watchtower position."
Reply: Is this really true though?
A) Are not both Jesus and Jehovah "divine beings?" So what exactly is
the point, especially since they are differentiated with the
adjective "personal." Obviously, the fact that Jesus is only
a "divine being" and Jehovah a "divine personal being" has led to
some websites stating incorrectly that Jesus was termed a "divine
personal being." See http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm]
Next to "the God [=the Father]" Jesus was just a "divine being", not
even a "divine personal being."
Additionally, Catholics like McKenzie have no problems calling
angels "divine beings":
"All gods: divine beings thoroughly subordinate to Israel's God. The
Greek translates 'angels,' an interpretation adopted by Hebrews 1:6."
Ps. 97:7 NAB footnote
I have no problem in "an identity between God and Jesus Christ" since
it was Jesus who said that he that seen him has seen the Father. To
see Jesus was to see what God was like. McKenzie goes on to state
that this is an "identity of Jesus and the Father", and McKenzie's
use of Scriptures like Jn 20:28 and Tt 2:13 in regards to Jesus, and
titles "which belong to the Father." Trinitarianism do not see Jesus
as the Father, and neither should anyone else.
When the Judges are called "God" at Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82 and John
10, they are called a title "which belongs to the Father." This does
not imply an ontological identity
Further, McKenzie never uses the terms "God the Father and God the
Son."
In fact, I cannot find any reference to words *persons* or *nature*
either. If you move ahead (to the subheading "Trinity") you will see
that even he says these terms are from Greek philosophy and are NOT
IN THE BIBLE. He DOES state that ho theos [the God] is not used of
Jesus in the NT. The preceding paragraph in question states
that "Yahweh is not man" and "Yahweh was not flesh" and the entire
article ends with this beautifully put paragraph:
"In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh,
but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is
known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him
God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of "my Father and your
Father, my God and your God"
BUT WHAT ELSE DOES MCKENZIE BELIEVE?
"The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is
the foundation of later developments in Trinitarian and
Christological belief and theology; it is not identical with these
later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of
the charge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by
affirming that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father.
Later theology found it necessary to refine this statement
by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know"
(Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie
p.187).
"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is
God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's
Son" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie
p.188).
"it is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still
less the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the
Synoptic Gospels . . The word "consubstantial" had not even been
invented yet: far from defining it, the evangelists could not even
have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care" (Light
On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More,
1976. Mckenzie p.188).
It seems McKenzie's words actually argue against "Dr." Rhodes
position.
____Ask...____________________________________________________________
.What conclusion can you make about Ron Rhodes when you learn that he
consistently quotes scholars out of context to support his distorted
views.

Jesus as Theos in The New Testament-- G.H.Boobyer

G.H.BOOBYER
(THE JOHN RYLANDS BULLETIN.VOL50.1967/8)¹
"What I want to say on this subject this evening will fall into two main divisions.The first will speak of the need for a reappraisal of the traditional interpretation of the New testament christology; the second will deal with evidence requiring special attention in any reappraisal of New Testament christology.
I
Aloys Grillmeier's valuable book entitled Christ in Christian Tradition(1965) has an epilogue headed "Chalcedon-End or Beginning?" Here, this learned Roman Catholic scholar reminds us that, react as we will to the christological disputations which agitated the church from the Council of Nicea to that of Chalcedon, the Fathers certainly "intended to preserve the Christ of the Gospels and the Apostolic Age for the faith of posterity". Then, however, Grillmeier goes on to mention a comment by Karl Rahner that Chalcedon was not an end but a beginning, refers approvingly to Pope John's call to the church at the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council to speak the language of the modern world, and finally himself asserts that "the demand for a complete reappraisal of the Church's belief in Christ right up to the present day is an urgent one"(p.494).
Some while ago, a high-ranking colleague of mine in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne[England] assured me that theologians are always wrong! Be it so, or not, the prevalence of Grillmeier's view among Catholic and Protestant theologians is evident from the number and nature of christological studies produced by New Testament scholars and others in recent years- an output to which the one whom we commemorate this evening with honour and gratitude made notable contributions. And if it is asked why a reappraisal of Christological doctrine is necessary today, I would give at least four reasons.
(1)First, is it not a pressing apologetic and catechetical need? Put more precisely, do we not find the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ a source of much perplexity to enquiring non-christians and to many a christian believer under instruction? "True God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father and "the selfsame perfect in Godhead, the selfsame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man"- thus runs the familiar language of what we call the Nicene Creed and Chacedonian Definition, but how successful are ministers and clergy in making it intelligible? not to mention it's baffling elaboration in the Athanasian Creed! Must it not be conceded that to many intelligent lay folk it seems sheer mystification? Donald M. Baille confessed as much years ago in his widely read book God was in Christ. He remarked, "I am convinced that a great many thoughtful people who themselves feel drawn to the Gospel in these days are completely mystified by the doctrine of the Incarnation- far more than we theologians usually realise" (p.29).
(2)Secondly, if some of the thought about the nature of God now emerging outside and within the christian churches is accepted, a restatement of traditional christology is certainly necessitated. Quite obviously so, if we entertain the notion of a decrease of the transcendental, personal God of the Bible as propounded by Thomas Altizer and other exponents of the so-called "death of God" theology; but no less definitely so, if we opt for some form of the Ground-of-our-being theology associated particularly with the names of Paul Tillich and Bishop of Woolwich. This theology contends that, though personal, God in relation to us is not another Person. Yet Jesus was certainly another person; then if God is not to be conceived as another Person, in what sense may Jesus still be confessed as "True God from true God" and "perfect in Godhead"? The affirmation will require fresh clarification.
(3)Thirdly, for some time christological studies have been insisting strongly on the essential genuineness of the humanity of Jesus, often indicting the main stream of christological orthodoxy with proneness to Docetism and Apollinarianism- Docetism being that ancient heresy, which denied the physical reality of Christ's body, while Apollinarianism could not allow him a human mind. The trend is obvious in the book just mentioned, Donald Baillie's God was in Christ; it assumes robuster features in later writing like that of John Knox and W.N.Pittenger. "Chalcedon", says Pittenger," failed to prevent a modified Apollinarianism from becoming the orthodoxy of the Middle Ages"[The Word Incarnate(1959),p.102.]and Knox declares that "at whatever cost in terms of other cherished beliefs the reality and normality of Jesus' manhood must be maintained."[The Humanity and Divinity of Christ(1967),p.73.]
This emphasis derives in part from the success- however qualified-with which modern New Testament scholarship has brought us face to face with the historical Jesus of Nazareth, an achievement the real value of which has in my view been most unprofitably obscured by those recent theological fashions which have disclaimed interest in any other Jesus than the kerygmatic Christ of apostolic witness and have denied that our New Testament sources can yield up any other. However, be its causes what they may, does not so much outright insistence as we are hearing today on what Knox calls "the reality and normality of Jesus's manhood" demand new apologetic efforts of those who with the Fathers and the ancients credal formularies still affirm that this historical human Jesus, a prophet from Nazareth, while truly man was also ontologically "True God from true God"?
The embarrassing edge of this age-long problem is commonly thought to be turned by the plea that, despite the implications of some of their language, the Fathers never intended to identify Jesus with God outright. This is said to be evident from their use of the Logos christology in confessing Jesus as God's Son. So orthodox christology in confessing Jesus as truly God is not asserting that Jesus is God without qualification, or God absolutely. But will this line of arguement do? May I at least frankly admit that, coming as it so often does from eminent christian theologians, I find it quite extraordinary? For does it not at once evoke the query, What kind of God is it, then, who is only God with qualification, who is not God absolutely? On any legitimate christian use of terms is any being who is only God with qualification and not God absolutely, any longer truly God?
(4)I pass to a fourth reason for a re-examination of the traditional doctrine of the person of Christ. There now exists a widespread recognition that early christology, and especially New Testament christology, was an outgrowth of the christian experience of Jesus as Saviour-yes, indeed, as eschatological Saviour. That is, in, through and around him God was held to be providing man's full and final deliverance from the world, sin, death, from all demonic cosmic powers and Satan. To be sure, Jesus's advent was thought to portend the dissolution of the kingdoms of this world, the end of the present age and the in breaking of the kingdom of God. Then in consequence of his God-given role in this stupendous series of eschatological events, what was his rank? How must one assess his status in the light of his redemptive function? It was from this angle that the first christians formed their estimate of Jesus. When, therefore, they assigned him such honourable titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God's work. In other words, such designations originally expressed not so much as the nature of Christ's inner most being in relation to the being of God, but rather the pre-eminence of his soteriological function in God's redemption of mankind. That is, the earliest interpretation of the person of Christ found in the New Testament is predominantly not ontological but functional; and Oscar Cullman has stoutly maintained that the functional emphasis remained the dominant one through out the New Testament. He wrote, "When the New Testament asks 'Who is Christ?' it never means primarily 'What is his nature?' but 'What is his function?' "[The Christology of the New Testament(1959),pp.3f.]
However, interest in Jesus's personal nature and speculation about the relation of his inner being to God's being soon arose in the first christian communities, and asserts itself in the New Testament documents, especially in passages like Philippians ii.5-11; Colossians 1.15-20; Hebrews i and ii; and in the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, the three centuries following the New Testament period saw this concern for an ontological interpretation of the person of Christ eclipsing and overriding functional christology, until the question whether and in what sense Jesus was God became the dominant issue. Nicene and Chalcedonain christology was the credalizing climax of this process, with Jesus ultimately confessed as "of one substance with the Father", "perfect in Godhead" as in manhood, truly God and truly man.
And so arises a leading exegetical question, namely, to what extent is the ontological christology of the ancient creeds with their strong affirmation of the deity of Jesus a faithful credalization of the New Testament evidence? Is it a legitimate and inevitable development of New Testament christology, or a distortion of it? In the light of the knowledge now at the disposal of New Testament scholarship- knowledge so much greater than that possessed by the Fathers- does not this christological problem call for fresh and far more thoroughgoing elucidation?
Martin Werner, of course, has offered a solution of it in words both forthright and provocative. The dogma of Christ's deity, he has said, turned Jesus into another Hellenistic redeemer-god, and thus was a myth propagated behind which the historical Jesus completely disappeared.[The Formation of Christian Dogma(1957),p.298.]Professor H.E.W.Turner has pronounced Werner's book "brilliant, learned and perverse"[The Pattern of Christian Truth(1954),p.20.](a very possible combination of qualities in any erudite scholar!). Yet be that as it may, the fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the christological titles which the gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation "Christ", and certainly never believed himself to be God. For example, with the words of Mark x.19 in mind, H.W.Montefiore has of late remarked that Jesus seems to have denied explicitly that he was God[In his essay "Toward a Christology for Today", published in Soundings, ed. A.Vidler(1962),p.158.]; and R.H.Fuller's exhaustive analysis of the growth of New Testament christology brings him to a view of the self-understanding of Jesus resembling Bultmann's. Fuller thinks that Jesus understood himself as an eschatological prophet, not in the sense that he defined himself precisely, but that this was "the working concept" of his identity which guided him throughout his mission[The Foundations of the New Testament Christology(1956),p.130.].
Now if this is the position to which careful analysis of the Gospel evidence brings us, what becomes of the claim that the christological clauses of the ancient credal formularies are a right explication of the New Testament witness? Can you hold together, as many New Testament scholars seem to do, the two positions that on one hand critical study of the Gospels discloses a Jesus with no consciousness of being God and making no claim to be God and on the other hand the belief that Nicene christology, declaring him "True God of true God" is a right credalization of the New Testament evidence? I would at least suggest that this problem is becoming sufficiently acute today to be in itself a reason for that "re-appraisal of the Church's belief in Christ right up to the present day" which in the quotation made at the outset of this lecture, A.Grillmeier speaks as urgent.
II
Shall we now move on to our second main division, which will be a review of the evidence requiring special attention in any reappraisal of New Testament christology. In other words, if in consequence of the advance of New Testament scholarship this is a day for christological stocktaking and one which poses the question whether the traditional formulations of the doctrine of the person of Christ are in fact scriptural, what aspects of New Testament teaching about Christ's person require careful reconsideration?
May I say something about three? They are all familiar to New Testament scholars; they are not overlooked in christological apologetics; but are they apt to be underrated?
(1) First, there is the rarity of New Testament references to Jesus as "God."("theos"). Some nine or ten pages occur in which Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as "God"("theos"). Usually cited are John i.1, 18; xx.28; Titus ii.13; Hebrews i.8f.; 2 Peter i.1 and 1 John v.20. Two or three of these, however, are highly dubious, and, of the remainder, varying degrees of textual or exegetical uncertainty attach to all save one, which is Thomas's adoring acclaim of the risen Jesus in John xx.28 as "My Lord and my God!" Distinguishing this passage from the others, Vincent Taylor - a moderately conservative scholar on christological problems- speaks of it as "the one clear ascription of Deity to Christ"[In the article "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?", Expository Times, lxxiii, No.4(January 1962),p.118]in the New Testament.
But let me give another view. Karl Rahner, the eminent Roman Catholic theologian, considers that there are reliable applications of "theos" to Christ in six texts(Romans 9.5f; John i.1,18; xx.28; 1 John v.20; and Titus ii.13). Rahner, however, immediately goes on the say that in none of these instances is "theos" used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as "ho Theos", that is, the Supreme God.[Theological Investigations(1961),pp.135ff.]
Now obviously the very few New Testament passages-possibly only one-which without question call Jesus "God" outright do not exhaust the linguistic evidence. Notwithstanding, and in comparison with the frequency with which this form of christological confession is still required in the christian churches, is not it's rarity in the New Testament surprising? Would it, in fact, be unfair to press the point with the following query? If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as "God", is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?
(2)A second consideration when re-examining New Testament christology must certainly be the background of the divinizing christological language of the New Testament-that is, the background of all the New Testament christological language which in one way and another speaks as Jesus as though he were a divine being and which sometimes seems to be saying that he was God. And how rich, how far reaching, yes, how worshipful much of this language is! To these first Christians, Jesus bore God's image, was in the form of God, the effulgence of God's glory, the stamp of his very being. He had been raised far above angels, was the firstborn of all creation, the alpha and omega, a heavenly high priest, the man from heaven, the wisdom of god, God's Logos(or Word)which was with God at the beginning and his agent in creation. And when it came to personal titles, his were the highest they could bestow: they proclaimed him as the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, Lord and on occasion God!
One cannot but be moved with wonder at this glorification, but this should not suppress the question, What does such language really mean?
May I here interject a somewhat irreverent story? I was once conducting a Sunday service in a Baptist Church. Sitting in the minister's vestry with the deacons in their appointed places on the right hand and on the left, I was waiting to enter the church. The order of the service had been given me, but not the title of the anthem. The door opened a little, the organist put his face around it, looked at me and simply said, "Come, Holy Ghost!" When I replied that it was not yet the hour for worship the gravity of the deacons collapsed!
Thus by means of a digression into levity we happen upon a reminder of a serious linguistic point: wrenched from their right context, words can convey wrong meanings- words which in their right setting gave the title of the anthem became grotesque when apparently transferred to me! Related to the exposition of the christology of the New Testament, what then does this caveat imply? The point, of course, is that if what the New Testament says about the person of Jesus is to be understood aright, it must be read not in accord with our linguistic English usage in the 1960's, but in the setting of the categories of thought and the linguistic idiom of it's day, that is, in the context of the thought and speech of that first century Jewish and Hellenistic enviroment to which the New Testament documents belong.
Obviously, a few brief words cannot adequately show the interpretative consequences of doing this, when the relevant field of study is so far-ranging. The main considerations, however, are well enough known and appear in the commentaries, text-books, and works of reference, together with mention of the original sources of information.
Some of the specially important facts are these. The Greek world drew no sharp line of division between the human and the divine, and readily divinized human beings- outstanding people such as distinguished philosophers, soldiers or kings might be called "son of God", "lord" and even "God". For instance, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV whose policy provoked the Macedonian revolt, had himself styled "theos"(God) on his coinage, and the Roman emperor Domitian, a contemporary of some of the New Testament writers, affected the honour of being "Lord and God". So far accepted was this fashion that an able and cautious New Testament scholar, Professor C.F.D.Moule of Cambridge, has expressed the opinion that even christians might, in certain senses, have been willing to recognise the deity of the emperor.[The Birth of the New Testament(1962), pp. 116f.]That the New Testament writers were not unaffected by these modes of thought and speech appears in the striking words of 2 Peter i.4 where the readers are told that they- ordinary christians- would "become partakers of the (or 'a') divine nature"; and that the consequences of christian salvation would indeed be deification(in whatever sense)is said here and there by the christian Fathers. Athanasius's statement is often quoted; speaking of Jesus, he remarked: "He was humanized, that we may be deified."[On the Incarnation, 54(vol.iii, Library of Christian Classics, p.107).]
Then, to, notwithstanding its fervently sustained insistence upon monotheism, upon the belief that the only true God was the transcendental God of the Jewish Scriptures, Judaism, the cradle of christianity, sometimes went surprisingly far in applying divinizing terms to angels, to the personalized concepts of Wisdom and the Logos and even to men. Angels could carry the designations "son of God," "lord" and even "god"- the Qumran documents have brought further evidence of this. Jewish writing about Wisdom, the Logos and the Torah(the Law of Moses)contains close parallels to the New Testament description of Jesus Christ as God's image, the effulgence of God's glory, his firstborn, God's agent in the creation of the world and so on. Philo could speak of the Logos as a "second God". In honorific references to men, Hellenistic Judaism was beginning to speak of outstanding Old Testament characters as divine ("theioi"); a righteous man could be a "son of God"; and a passage can be cited in which Philo alludes to Moses as "theos" (god).[Cf. F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel(1963), pp. 294f.]
But, to be sure, already in the Old Testament, Israel's king as God's annointed finds mention as "son of God", and one or two passages occur in which the noun "god" is actually used of men. Psalm xlv.6f. provides a significant example, because here the greater and lesser senses of the substantive "God" appear side by side, namely, "God" in the usual sense of the supreme God of Israel and "god" denoting the person of Israel's king. Furthermore, this same passage appears in Hebrews i.8f. as a testimonium related to Christ, where it is "god" in its lesser connotation in the original which, following the usual translation of the passage, is apparently related to Jesus Christ.
This short and fragmentary survey of linguistic background material must end. Possibly, however, enough has been said to indicate that the New Testament writers spoke of Jesus in an enviroment in which terminology which we should reckon appropriate only when referring to a truly divine being could be used of angels and indeed of human beings. In that first century world, you could maintain that certain humans were in origin associated with the heavenly sphere; you could attribute to them a measure of ontological affinity with God's nature; you could honour them with such titles as "son of God","Lord"- yes even "god"; and you could do all this without any intention of investing those so honoured with the same divine status as that of the highest God.
I have already stated that this background, linguistic evidence has by no means been overlooked: it is too well known. Yet in expositions of the meaning of the christological language of the New Testament along traditional lines, has it so far been accorded its due weight?
(3)The third and last of the three considerations treated in this lecture as deserving of close attention in any reappraisal of New Testament christology is what may surely be described as the sustained subordination of New Testament christology. That is to say, is it not a fact that right through the New Testament the reader again and again encounters material which, implicilty or explicitly, represents Jesus as of lesser rank than God? And is it not so special significance that this position is maintained, even where the New Testament is speaking of the person and functions of the celestial Christ active in heaven after his resurrection and exaltation?
Whatever happened at that first christian Easter, the earliest Christians were convinced that God had raised Jesus from death, and had translated him to the highest heaven, where God himself was believed to dwell. Further, in and from his heavenly dwelling place the erstwhile terrestrial Jesus, now a celestial being, was continuing his redemptive function and would go on doing so until its consummation. In consequence, the resurrection event was a decisive turning point in the growth of New Testament christology. Recent research has stressed this. Barnabas Lindars, for example, wrote of his recent book, New Testament Apologetics, published in 1961: "...this study shows that the resurrection of Jesus is the primary factor in the formation of Christian dogma. The Messianic titles are applied to him as a consequence of this fact, and defended by appeal to it"(p.29).
This judgement is sound, and implies that a careful consideration of the New Testament accounts of the post-resurrection life and activity of the celestial Christ is essential, if a true elucidation of New Testament christology is to be achieved. May we, then look into a few significant points?
Noteworthy first of all is the fact that, in his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared to God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were- though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them. Small wonder, then, that angel christology was a prominent strand of early christological thought, as Martin Werner has emphasised and other scholars have recognised.[Werner, op.cit.pp.120-41. Cf, too, Grillmeier, op.cit.pp.52-62.]Werner further argued that in calling Jesus "Lord"("Kyrios"), Paul and the early church meant that Jesus "was a high heavenly being of an angelic kind", the designation "Lord" being a particular instance of the designation and invocation of angels as "lords"("kyrioi") in late Judaism.[Werner, op.cit.p.124.]
But whatever is to be said for or against the validity of angel christology, the distinctness and separateness of Christ's heavenly person in his celestial life and activity from the person of God in heaven is plain enough.We are told that he sits at God's right hand; Stephen at his martyrdom is said to have seen him standing there(Acts vii.56); and ultimately, of course, men on earth are to see him again as a person quite distinct from God when, with his holy angels, he returns triumphantly from heaven at his parousia, that is, at his second advent.
Indeed, so completely and consistently is his individual separateness from God maintained that if the New Testament writers did consider him fully God, and if for the sake of the arguement the New Testament references to the Holy Spirit are left on one side, would not the resultant conception of God be a form of ditheism? I do not see how this conclusion can be avoided.
What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means or implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God. We learn that he confesses or denies men before God(Matt.x.23.f;Luke xii.8;) he intercedes with God on our behalf and as heavenly paraclete pleads our cause with the Father (Rom.viii.34; Heb.vii.25; 1 John ii.1); he is the mediator between men and God(1 Tim.ii.5); and in Hebrews there is the familiar description of his heavenly ministrations as a high priest who is faithful to God, who offers prayers and supplications to God and can in fact address the Father God as his God(i.9; x.7).
And how it will be at the end, when, with his outstanding work as celestial Christ accomplished, he re-appears in his parousia glory? St.Paul is quite explicit about it. The apostle writes that after that victorious event, and when Christ has put all remaining enemies beneath his feet, then he will hand over the complete dominion to God- to quote from the relevant passage in the New English translation passage:"...when all things are thus subjected to him, then thus God will be all in all"(1 Cor.xv.28).
In many another place, and apart from allusions to the celestial work of Christ, this New Testament stress on Jesus's subordination to God recurs. How strong it is, for example, in the Fourth Gospel- the very document which contains the two most certain references to Jesus as God in the whole New Testament! Yet in this Gospel not only is it Jesus as the Son rather than as God who is in the foreground, but he is also a Son who explicitly declares "the Father is greater than I"(xiv.28),or "I can of myself do nothing...I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me"(v.30)- even the will of Jesus, be it noted, is one will and the will of God another! The Fourth Gospel contains more in a similar vein, so when it comes to the exposition of the prologue's statement that Jesus as the Logos was "theos" ("God") or Thomas's exclamation in chapter twenty, "My Lord and my God!", J.M.Creed was entirely right in the statement, "Even the Prologue of St. John, which comes nearest the Nicene doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole".[The Divinity of Jesus Christ(Fontana edn.),pp.122 f.]
The situation is similar when one turns to the exposition of the christology of St.Paul. Whatever is made of the details of important christological passages like Philippians ii.5-11 or Colossians i.15-20, they have ultimately to be understood in the light of Paul's overall christological position. This position is clearly expressed in the passage used just now which speaks of Christ eventually handing over sovereignty to God that God may be all in all(1 Cor.xv.28). It comes out again with unequivocal clarity in the words of 1 Corinthians xi.3- "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
This discussion must now draw to a close, but with what kind of conclusion?
My reading of the facts must inevitably be limited and liable to error. Rightly or wrongly, however, I can but think that the main weight of evidence is on the side of those who conclude, as does H.W.Montefiore, that, "a christology which is expressed in terms of functional and personal relationship rather than in ontological categories means a return to the biblical perspective"[Soundings, p. 159.]. That is, in expounding and proclaiming the significance of Jesus Christ, the New Testament writers were moved primarily not by intellectual curiosity about the nature of Christ's person and to his relation to the divine being of God, though this interest is sometimes apparent. They were gripped mostly by the extent to which Jesus was in God's service, executed God's redemptive work and on God's authority. If, therefore, on occasion they went so far as to refer to Jesus as "God", this was meant as an expression of his soteriological significance- his God-given place in the unfolding of God's plan of eschatological salvation. In so speaking, they were not assigning Jesus equality of status with God, and certainly did not intend to say that ontologically he was truly God. They meant that he was God functionally. In terms drawn from 1 Corinthians viii.6, just as they knew of lords many, but of only one true Lord, namely, Jesus Christ, so too, were they aware of gods many, yet of only one who was truly God, and he the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. To him above all was the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever."
¹ The Manson Memorial Lecture delivered in the University of Manchester on the 30th of January 1968.

Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner--Theos in the New Tesetament

20th century Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner’s essay Theos in the New Testament,” published in Vol. I of his 1961 Theological Investigations, is like a short book, a dense treatise on biblical theology. There’s a lot going on here, but in this post, I’ll highlight a few of what I consider the more interesting bits relating to New Testament language.
Rahner observes that the God of both Old Testament and New Testament is a great self, a Person with a proper name, who freely and intelligently acts in history; God is a unique and provident god. (This is in keeping with his approach to the Trinity.) He then notes the pervasive and central New Testament theme of monotheism:
When Jesus was asked which was the first of all the commandments and answered that it was the commandment of love—and this is the heart of the Pauline and Johannine message too (Romans 13:10; 1 Corinthians 8:3; 1 Corinthians 13; Colossians 3:14; 1 John 3:11) —he himself in this critical context (Mark 12:29) cited the Shema… This confession of the one God runs through the entire New Testament. In Jesus’ own words, eternal life is that they should know the only true God (John 17:3) and be mindful of the glory which is from this one God alone (John 5:44)… Thus testimony to the uniqueness of the sole God is constantly recurring: eis ho theos [God is one] (Romans 3:3o; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Galatians 3:2o; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19), monos theos [“one God,” or “only God”] (Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy  1:17; 1 Timothy 6:15; Jude 25; Revelation 15:4). Now this mono­theism is not just a fragment of tradition taken over from the Old Testament… It is bound up with the basic Christian confession; and when Christ wanted to state as briefly as possible what that eternal life was which he offered men, he spoke of the knowledge of the one true God (John 17:3). When St Paul, in the earliest portion of the New Testament, sums up what has come about in the Thessalonians who have become Christians, once again the first item to be mentioned is conversion to the living and true God in opposition to the many false gods (1 Thessalonians 1 :9). And from God’s uniqueness St Paul derives support for two of his central themes: the calling of the Gentiles to the same rights in the New Israel (Romans 3:28-30; Romans 10:12, 1 Timothy 2:4-5), and the unity of the multiple workings of the Spirit among Christians in the one Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:6 ; Ephesians 4:6). …Confession of faith in the one true God is one of the essential elements in the Gospel of Christ. (pp. 100-101)
As we’ll see, the New Testament not only asserts monotheism, but it also tells us who this one god is.
In order to see the New Testament clearly, Rahner tries to bracket off his trinitarian assumptions.
…what we are trying to discover is who is meant when the New Testament speaks of ho theos [“God,” literally, “the god”]. Thus our task is not to present the teaching of the New Testament concerning God as Trinity; this is simply presupposed as a doctrine of faith. We take it as something given that the content of the Church’s teaching concerning God as Trinity in the Unity of one and the same essence, is present in the New Testament too, though it is formulated there in different and simpler terms. But we are not concerned to ask whether, according to the New Testament, the three we find named there, pater, huios, pneuma hagion, are distinct from each other and yet identical with the divine nature possessed in common. Presupposing all this, we wish to learn which of these three is meant when the New Testament speaks of ho theos. (p. 125)
As Rahner notes, trinitarian usage of “God” is highly equivocal: it can refer to the Trinity, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. (p. 126) As an aside, I note that historically this phenomenon only goes back till just before the time of Augustine. But Rahner’s question is: is this New Testament usage? Rahner asserts that it is not.
We maintain that in the New Testament ho theos, signifies  the First Person of the Trinity… and this applies to every case in which another meaning of ho theos does not become clearly evident from the context. (pp. 126-127)
In other words, normally “God” in the New Testament means the Father, but in rare circumstances, the context will demand our reading “God” as referring to something or someone else.
Rahner rebuts arguments that “God” in the New Testament should just mean God generally, not specifically the Father. (pp. 132-138) One such argument is: aren’t there a lot of texts where Jesus is called “God”? He concedes that there may half a dozen of them. (pp. 135-6)
Thus we have six texts in which the reality of the divine nature in Christ is expressed by the predicate theos. In none of them—it is not unimportant to note—is theos alone, without the addition of modifying clauses but with the article, used to speak of Christ. Theos is either found without the article (John 1:1, John 1:18; Romans 9:5), and so suggests a kind of conceptual generality; or it is particularized in some way, and so suggests that what is being referred to is not simply to be identified with what is elsewhere meant by ho theos. It is further to be observed that in all these cases (with the exception of Titus 2:13), theos stands as predicate or has a predicative sense, and in this way suggests the more general connotation of the word in the context. But the word never appears by itself as grammatical subject, about which something else is said, as though it were a characterization of Christ needing no further explanation, like kurios [“Lord”], for instance (Luke 7:13; Luke 10:1; John 4:11; John 6:23; John 11:2; Acts 9:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:10-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, etc.). But what is decisive for our inquiry is that these few texts in which Christ is called theos are vastly outnumbered by the other texts in which the New Testament intends to express Christ’s divine nature in one way or another, and yet does not make use of the word theos, as one would have expected if the word had a quasi-generic signification. Christ is called ‘Son of God’, the ‘true Son of God’, kurios, ‘Logos of God’, eikon [image] of God… All these are ways of trying to express Christ’s divinity, and what is more to express it as clearly as possible, without any pedagogic attempt to withhold the full sense of the affirmation, as may have been the case when Christ began to reveal himself; and yet in all these texts the writers avoid the use of theos for Christ. (pp. 136-137)
Right. Rahner chooses not to question his Catholic assumption that the writers in the above ways are trying to say that Jesus had a divine nature. One might think they could have done that far more clearly and often! But he surely is correct in noting what is at best an extreme reticence to use theos about God’s Messiah. He immediately continues,
The only way in which this can be explained is that for the linguistic sense of the New Testament theos originally signified the Father alone. Ho theos does not start by being neutral in a generic way, so as to be applicable to the Father and also, without explanation, to the Son. Originally it is associated with the Father and thus primarily signifies him alone; it is only slowly, as it were shyly and cautiously, that the expression is detached from him and evolves in such a way that a few texts (John 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 John 5:20) venture to use it of Christ. (pp. 137-138)
And we should pause to add that various translators and exegetes challenge all three of those cases!
He proceeds (pp. 138f) to give a “Positive demonstration” of his thesis. In brief, Rahner observes the overwhelming New Testament usage of ho theos for the Father. He the God who raised Christ, Christ’s god and Father, the one whom we access through the mediation of Christ. Many passages mention God/the Father and Christ, assuming their distinctness. This is the Father’s spirit which is “the holy spirit.” Even “in the so-called Trinitarian formulas” we often having “God” standing in for the Father. (p. 141)
This same one is Yahweh:
The God whom the Jews believed to be their Father, is the God from whom Jesus has proceeded and who has sent him: the Father in the Trinitarian sense (John 8:32). (p. 142)
Rahner can’t quite get those trinitarian goggles off of his head. Nonetheless, he is seeing clearly the New Testament pattern of usage of God-terms, theos and ho theos.
We may outline our results as follows. Nowhere in the New Testament is there to be found text with ho theos which has unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole existing in three Persons. In by far the greater number of texts ho theos refers to the Father as a Person of the Trinity. It should be noted here that in the texts in which ho theos is used without its being absolutely clear from the immediate context who precisely is meant, the expression never contains anything which is not said of God in other texts; and in just these other texts, this God may be recognized (directly or indirectly) as Father in the Trinitarian sense. Besides this there are six complete texts in which ho theos is used to speak of the Second Person of the Trinity, but still in a hesitant and obviously restrained way (the restriction is concerned of course not with the reality but with the use of the word). In addition, ho theos is never used in the New Testament to speak of the pneuma hagion [Holy Spirit]. These findings are sufficient in themselves to justify the assertion that when the New Testament speaks of ho theos, it is (with the exception of the six texts mentioned) the Father as First Person of the Trinity who is signified. (pp. 143-144)
Rahner ends with a several concluding observations such as that when in the New Testament Jesus is called “the Son of God” this means the Son of the Father. (pp. 144-145)
Really, aside from those six alleged instances where theos is used of the Son, the above conclusions are indisputable facts. Dear student of scripture, a triad of questions for you:
  1. Is this pattern of usage what you would expect if the New Testament authors assume a trinitarian (God is the Trinity) theology?
  2. Is this pattern of usage what you would expect if the New Testament authors assume a unitarian (God is the Father) theology?
  3. What is the evidential payoff of your answers to the first two questions, as concerns the rival hypotheses mentioned in 1 and 2?
It strikes me that this sort of attention to undisputed textual facts is important.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Hans Kung on Trinity --No doctrine of the Trinity in New Testament

Hans Kung Catholic Priest and Theologian in his voluminous  book 'Christianity Essence, History, and future wrote:

Although there are so many triadic formulas in the New Testament, there is not a word anywhere in the New Testament about the ‘unity’ of these three highly different entities, a unity on the same divine level. … In Judaism, indeed throughout the New Testament, while there is belief in God the Father, in Jesus the Son and in God’s Holy Spirit, there is no doctrine of one God in three persons (modes of being), no doctrine of a ‘triune God,’ a ‘Trinity.’
But how does the New Testament understand the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit?
There is probably no better story in the New Testament to show us the relationship of Father, Son and Spirit than that of the speech made by the protomartyr Stephen in his own defense, which has been handed down to us by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles. During this speech Stephen has a vision: ‘ But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ” behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”‘ [Acts 7:55-56] So here we have God, Jesus the Son of Man, and the Holy Spirit. But Stephen does not see, say, a God with three faces, far less three men in the same form, nor any triangular symbol of the kind that was to be used centuries later in western Christian art. Rather:
the Holy Spirit is at Stephen’s side, is in Stephen himself. The Spirit, the invisible power and might issuing from God, fills him fully and thus opens his eyes: ‘ in the Spirit’ heaven opens to him.
God himself (he theos = the God) remains hidden, is not in human form; only his ‘glory’ (Hebrew kabod, Greek doxa) is visible: God’s splendour and power, the brilliance of light which issues fully from him.
Finally Jesus, visible as the Son of Man, stands (and we already know the significance of this formula) ‘at the right hand of God’: that means in throne communion with God, in the same power and glory. Exalted as son of God and taken up into God’s eternal life, he is God’s representative for us and at the same time, as a human being, the human representative before God.
According to the New Testament the key question in the doctrine of the Trinity [i.e. the aforementioned triad] is not the question which is declared an impenetrable ‘mystery’… How three such different entities can be ontologically one, but the christological question how the relationship of Jesus (and consequently also of the Spirit) to God is to be expressed. Here the belief in the one God which Christianity has in common with Judaism and Islam may not be put in question for a moment. There is no other God than God! But what is decisive for the dialogue with Jews and Christians in particular is the insight that according to the New Testament the principle of unity is clearly not the one divine ‘nature’ (physis) common to several entities, as people were to think after the neo-Nicene theology of the fourth century. For the New Testament, as for the Hebrew Bible, the principle of unity is clearly the one God (ho theos: the God = the Father), from whom are all things and to whom are all things.
So according to the New Testament, Father, Son and Spirit are not metaphysical and ontological statements about God in himself and his innermost nature, about a static being of the triune God resting in himself and not at all open to us. Rather, these are soteriological and christological statements about how God reveals himself through Jesus Christ in this world; about God’s dynamic and universal activity in history, his relationship to human beings and their relationship to him. So for all the difference in ‘roles’ there is a unity of Father, Son and Spirit, namely as an event of revelation and a unity of revelation: God himself is revealed through Jesus Christ in the Spirit. This is a thought-structure shaped in the framework of the Jewish-Christian paradigm which, as a structure – unlike that of a ‘triune God’ – need not have been absolutely alien to a Jew even down to the present day..

pgs 95-97

Sunday, October 13, 2019

The Character of Jehovah alludes to usage of his Name

I recently watched a youtube video from David Brener, where he posits that usage and pronunciation of the divine name is really not that important. It's the character that is important. Although I do agree that the Character associated with that Name is important. To in some way belie its importance and usage, in that we vocalize it, Sing praises using it, and vindicate it by our faithfulness besmears a true love for that name. The fact that it is literally found 6828 times in the Hebrew text and is found more than any other name or title including Lord, God, or Jesus, should cause pause in our thinking, and we should truly reflect on biblical text that use that Name.

I suspiciously wonder about David Brener and his belief system and how tied he is to a belief that Jesus and Jehovah are the same. So why bother with Jehovah. Right. After all he is Jesus. Really? Check out Deut.18.15,18,19: "A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you--to whom you people should listen.......A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him." See also Micah 5.2,4 See also Isa. 26.13

2 “But in the latter days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow unto it. And many nations shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem; and he will judge between many peoples, and will decide concerning strong nations afar off: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of Jehovah of hosts hath spoken it. For all the peoples walk every one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God for ever and ever.”Mic. 4:1-5, AS.

Any wonder though the confusion. Substitute LORD. Jesus sounds like it's Jehovah's words when Jesus speaks. Both Lords must be the same lord (PS.110.1) Therefore Jehovah is Jesus.



George Howard in writing in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary, under Tetragrammeton," basically alludes to this very point:

It is possible that some confusion ensued from the abandonment of the Tetragrammaton in the N.T.,
although the significance of this confusion can only be conjectured. In all probability it became
difficult to know whether KS referred to the Lord God or the Lord Jesus Christ. That this issue played a role in the later Trinitarian debates, however, is unknown.

George Howard

Read Psalms 148-150

Praise Jah!*
Praise Jehovah from the heavens;+
Praise him in the heights.
 Praise him, all his angels.+
Praise him, all his army.+
 Praise him, sun and moon.
Praise him, all shining stars.+
 Praise him, O highest heavens*
And waters above the heavens.
 Let them praise the name of Jehovah,
For he commanded, and they were created.+
 He keeps them established forever and ever;+
He has issued a decree that will not pass away.+
 Praise Jehovah from the earth,
You great sea creatures and all deep waters,
 You lightning and hail, snow and thick clouds,
You storm wind, carrying out his word,+
 You mountains and all you hills,+
You fruit trees and all you cedars,+
10 You wild animals+ and all you domestic animals,
You creeping things and winged birds,
11 You kings of the earth and all you nations,
You princes and all you judges of the earth,+
12 You young men and young women,*
Old men and young together.*
13 Let them praise the name of Jehovah,
For his name alone is unreachably high.+
His majesty is above earth and heaven.+
14 He will exalt the strength* of his people,
For the praise of all his loyal ones,
Of the sons of Israel, the people close to him.
Praise Jah!*
149 Praise Jah!*
Sing to Jehovah a new song;+
Praise him in the congregation of the loyal ones.+
 Let Israel rejoice in its Grand Maker;+
Let the sons of Zion be joyful in their King.
 Let them praise his name with dancing+
And sing praises* to him, accompanied by the tambourine and the harp.+
 For Jehovah takes pleasure in his people.+
He adorns the meek with salvation.+
 Let the loyal ones exult in glory;
Let them shout for joy upon their beds.+
 Let the songs praising God be in their throat,
And a two-edged sword be in their hand,
 To execute vengeance on the nations
And punishment on the peoples,
 To bind their kings with shackles
And their nobles with iron fetters,
 To execute the judgment written against them.+
This honor belongs to all his loyal ones.
Praise Jah!*
150 Praise Jah!*+
Praise God in his holy place.+
Praise him in the expanse of* his strength.+
 Praise him for his mighty works.+
Praise him for his exceeding greatness.+
 Praise him with the sounding of the horn.+
Praise him with the stringed instrument and the harp.+
 Praise him with the tambourine+ and the circle dance.
Praise him with strings+ and the flute.*+
 Praise him with ringing cymbals.
Praise him with crashing cymbals.+
 Every breathing thing—let it praise Jah.
Praise Jah!*+


 
   



When Jesus Christ was on earth, he ‘made his Father’s name manifest’ to his disciples. (Joh 17:6, 26) Although having earlier known that name and being familiar with God’s activities as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, these disciples came to know Jehovah in a far better and grander way through the One who is “in the bosom position with the Father.” (Joh 1:18) Christ Jesus perfectly represented his Father, doing the works of his Father and speaking, not of his own originality, but the words of his Father. (Joh 10:37, 38; 12:50; 14:10, 11, 24) That is why Jesus could say, “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.”—Joh 14:9.


This clearly shows that the only ones truly knowing God’s name are those who are his obedient servants. (Compare 1Jo 4:8; 5:2, 3.) Jehovah’s assurance at Psalm 91:14, therefore, applies to such persons: “I shall protect him because he has come to know my name.” The name itself is no magical charm, but the One designated by that name can provide protection for his devoted people. Thus the name represents God himself. That is why the proverb says: “The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection.” (Pr 18:10) This is what persons do who cast their burden on Jehovah. (Ps 55:22) Likewise, to love (Ps 5:11), sing praises to (Ps 7:17), call upon (Ge 12:8), give thanks to (1Ch 16:35), swear by (De 6:13), remember (Ps 119:55), fear (Ps 61:5), search for (Ps 83:16), trust (Ps 33:21), exalt (Ps 34:3), and hope in (Ps 52:9) the name is to do these things with reference to Jehovah himself. To speak abusively of God’s name is to blaspheme God.—Le 24:11, 15, 16.


Jehovah is jealous for his name, tolerating no rivalry or unfaithfulness in matters of worship. (Ex 34:14; Eze 5:13) The Israelites were commanded not even to mention the names of other gods. (Ex 23:13) In view of the fact that the names of false gods appear in the Scriptures, evidently the reference concerns mentioning the names of false gods in a worshipful way.
 
 
I briefly wrote David Brener with my concerns:
I respectfully disagree with you. Not on whether we know or have to use the correct pronunciation, but the usage of that name. To use shem, or ha shem, as a substitute is a copout. The divine name in the "Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia" occurs 6828 times. A failure to use that name and to say that YHWH just wanted us to display, preach, sing praises to his character is indeed a disservice to that very character you claim to want to espouse. "Make melody to YHWH O you holy ones. Is it to his Character we are to make melody? Possibly. But to whose Character are we thus making melody to? Is it not YHWH's?  Ps 30.4. But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth. Ex.9.16. Is it his Character that is to be delclared ? Yes, but in association with who? Yhwh? Exodus 15 Moses' victory song " My strength and my might is Yah, since he serves for my salvation. This is my God, and I shall laud him, my fathers God, and I shall raise him on high. YHWH is a manly person of war. YHWH is his name. "So in the name of Jesus every knee should bend. Philippians 2.10. Is it his character or His literal name along with his character?  "And all the peoples of the earth will have to see that YHWH's name has been called upon you.. Deut. 28.10 Whose name? His Character? Note the text says yhwh's shem