Comments on the Article "Was Jesus Dead?",

on The Father's Call Website.

I recently came across an article on The Father's Call website, that concerned me.

The article is titled "Was Jesus Dead?", and can be found at

www(dot)thefatherscall(dot)org/jesus-dead/

[Copy into your browser and replace "(dot)" with "."]

While it is not my intention to analyse  the article in full, I think that there are some comments that can be made that show the big difference it makes when you read the Bible with the "old" understanding vs with the "new" understanding.

Defining "old" and "new".

The most common, or "old" way, of reading the Bible is to assume that every verse was personally "inspired" by God, and therefore can be used as "absolute truth".

This non-truth has been very carefully crafted by men over the centuries, and repeated so many times, that most Bible readers just take it as fact. But that is a mistake.

Granted - at lot of the Bible is truth - especially the OT - but working out what parts are truth and what parts are not truth, requires a "new" or "different" way of reading the Bible.

The "new" way requires that the words spoken by God are put above the words spoken/written by men (Mat 4:4, Deut  8:3). The second requirement is that we look for themes rather than specific verses in isolation. A copy error in one place regarding a topic is usually not repeated in other places where the same topic is mentioned. Taking the majority of verses that agree, weeds out many of the verses where translation or copy errors have been made.

It may not be a perfect system, but far more accurate than just blindly assuming that you can use the words of men to override the words spoken by God, which breaks the First Commandment (to put God first).

The major problem.

The article brings out the problems that can be caused when someone, or a group of people, come up with a "good idea", and then go looking for verses that back up that idea. In other words, selectively using verses that appear to prove their point.

The Romans 2:1 principle.

Rom 2:1 NET.  Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.

In the third paragraph, the article says "... what men by twisting and wresting [Scriptures] try to make them say."

The article then goes on to do just that.

Point 1.

The first line says:

"It is revealed that Jesus was Emmanuel – that is, God with us – God in the human flesh."

So how is Mat 1:23 "twisted" to suit the purpose of turning the man Jesus into a creator "God".

First up, Mat 1:23 is a quote from;

Isa 7:14 NET.  For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

A number of things to look at here.

Yes, "Emmanuel" does mean "God is with us", but if giving a child that name "turns" him into a "God", then the child mentioned in Isa 7:14 must also be a "God".

He wasn't, so just giving Jesus the title "Emmanuel" does not turn him into a "God" either.

The "confirming sign" that the young woman (in the Hebrew language there is no suggestion that she was a virgin) standing in the court of King Ahaz was to have a child via "conception", was to show that God was still working with Israel at that time - hence his name of "Emmanuel". The "God" that was still working with Israel, was God the Father. The "God" that was still working with Israel when Jesus was born - was God the Father.

Sure, there are strong parallels between the two children who were named "Emanuel", but the two events are NOT exactly the same, and should not be forced to be so.

Very straight forward, and very much a twisting of Scripture to say that "Jesus was ... God in human flesh", just because he was a sign to the nation of Israel, and so named.

Point 2.

From the second paragraph after the heading "God in the flesh".

"The Greek word is Logos. It means Word or Spokesman."

This is either a bad mistake - or a deliberate attempt to make Scripture say what it does not..

Yes - the Greek word  "logos" can be translated as "word or words" (note small letter "W"), and is done so in the KJV over 200 times. However, it should never be translated with a capital "W" (unless starting a sentence), and it most certainly should never be translated as "Spokesman".

While "logos" is masculine in Greek, it should be neuter in English, and this was understood over 400 years ago - as Tyndale correctly translated it.

John Chapter 1
1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.

Tyndale makes it very clear that "logos" can not be a man or "spokesman", but when the Apostle John wrote the original words, he wrote in Aramaic. The original word that was translated into the Greek "logos", was "miltha", and while it can be translated a number of ways, none of them include a "man" or "spokesman".

The writers of the article (they did not include their name/s at the end)  certainly seem to be  "twisting" Scripture .
 

Point 3.

"Christ Was Converted Into Flesh"

This is where the article moves into Science Fiction.

There is no way you can convert a "God" into "flesh" and end up with a "normal" man.

In a foetus, the brain has not developed, so where did  memory banks of all the "spokesman" did for 4000+ years reside?  It would not have been physically possible before the baby was born, for the undeveloped human mind to hold that amount of data.

Was it cloud computing, and he just had access as he needed it? Again, this is not a "normal" human being.

The truth is - an egg in Mary's womb was given the chromosome that it required to start life. Jesus was born a normal physical child. He had no human father, so he was a clone of his mother - except they were different in sex. God the Father was a true father, and saw to it that His son was given the education and knowledge that he needed as he grew up.

Luk 2:40 NET  And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him.

Luk 2:46-47 NET  After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.  (47)  And all who heard Jesus were astonished at his understanding and his answers.

"Listening to them and asking questions" describes a learning process.

There was no "cloud computing" or memory banks on the side.

Jesus was born as a human child, after an act of God that fertilized an egg in May's womb. God went on to "train up" His son, and taught him about His "logos". In Aramaic, "miltha" can have the meaning of "primary cause". If you are building a house, what is the "miltha" - the finished house, or the plans used to build the house?  Thus, "in the beginning", God had a master plan to build up a God family of obedient children, who would love and worship and serve their spiritual Father.


Why?

Why do men go off on such tangents?

A big part of the problem - as I see it - is caused by Satan inspiring men to write lies into the Bible, and then have men believe that the lies have the full backing of God (see  the article "The Great Deception"). Men are then indoctrinated over the centuries, and it becomes very difficult to accept that our modern day Bibles are a mixture of inspired words from God, and uninspired words from men, along with copy errors and translation errors.

Another factor that comes into it, is that men and women have a strong desire to "belong" to a group - no doubt going back to our tribal instincts.  These groups can soon start to take on cult like qualities, where the leader and/or understanding of the group is the supreme authority. Once that happens, maintaining the group becomes more important than looking for the truth.

That is the reason why most members of the "The Father's Call" group - if they were to read this article - would reject it outright. The truth poses a threat to the cohesion of the group. Therefore the groups "understanding" has to take priority.

The fact that someone has written an article which includes the statement "The Greek word 'logos' ... means 'spokesman'" - when all the evidence says it most definitely does not - does not matter, as long as everyone in the group has the same false understanding.




Bob Orchard Feb 2015

While this information is made freely available (Mat 10:8b) , and can be printed out, it is done with the understanding that there will only be fair and honest use of the material, and that it will be copied in full with no alterations.