Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of University Bible Fellowship, UBFriends, or any other member or ex member of University Bible Fellowship.
This article is intended for an audience 18 years old or older and should not be read by an audience under 18 years of age without parental permission
This article is intended to be read by an audience that is 18 years old or older except where parental or parental guardian permission is included and where it is also legal for a younger audience to read. This article contains no pictures or videos of nudity but may contain things some people do not want an audience under 18 years old to read about. The Bible also contains many things some people do not want an audience under 18 years old to read about.
Words that contain "sex" appears in the NIV or New International Version of the Bible 77 times as of the time the biblegateway search was done, presuming the search gave correct number of results on the right section of the page. Anyone who objects to reading about sex should not read the Bible or only read parts of the Bible and not the whole. Samuel Lee cofounder of UBF or University Bible Fellowship used the NIV in his sermons and the NIV is the version I have most frequently seen used in UBF when English translations were used.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220501171150/https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=sex&version=NIV
This article is about the marriage by faith policies in UBF which are policies about sex and as such I can not honestly discuss what marriage by faith policies are without mentioning sex.
Saying that people should not have sex outside of marriage is to automatically discuss sex. There are some who believe you should not have sex with someone outside marriage and should only be married to a maximum of one person. And that when you marry them it is for either their or your life duration and you can not or may not marry anyone else unless they die. For such people, to choose someone as a marriage partner is to choose that person as a sexual partner or to choose to never have sex as long as they live.
But what about divorce? Some but not all people believe you are not permitted to marry a divorced person and also that a divorced person is not permitted to marry you in new testament times.
There are some others who believe you should not have sex with someone outside marriage and should only be married to a maximum of one person. And that when you marry them you remain married to them as long as they live or until a divorce between the two of you occurs. For such people, to choose someone as a marriage partner is to choose that person as a sexual partner or to choose to never have sex as long as they are simultaneously still alive and the two of you are not divorced.
My reading audience might say you should not write an article accusing people in UBF leadership positions of wrong doing because you should not entertain accusations against an elder without two or three witnesses
Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
1 Timothy 5:19-21 NIV
https://web.archive.org/web/20220122125506/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205&version=NIV
These verse are not meant to stop a single witness from testifying in the absence of a second witness. These verses are meant for someone who is not a eyewitness to try to receive information from multiple sources instead of jumping to conclusions based on blind faith in a single witness.
These verses are often misused to try to protect an elder from accusations that are truthful when part of the original intent is supposed to be to protect an elder from accusations that are false. The verses confirm that it is ok for a third party who did not witness the events to entertainment an accusation against an elder if there are at least two witnesses to the events. Someone who is a third party might not know if what other people gossiped about an elder is true, so should not assume the worst at the first witness but should collect mental or physical documentation on what was said or suggest the person report to those who can file a legal complaint depending on the level of severity but not assume the elder is guilty based on what a single person says without due process in which more than that one person is permitted to testify. They should not assume an elder is guilty of something that they have not witnessed themself based on the word of one individual with no physical evidence, no audio recordings, no video recordings, no self incriminating statements provably written by the accused and no due process. They also should not assume the single individual is lying and the elder is not guilty but take any appropriate cautions necessary to protect their safety and the safety of others without ruining the elder's life, career opportunities, finances, freedom or reputation when their guilt status is unknown. If someone actually eye witnessed the events themself they know what happened and this verse is not meant to prevent them from testifying their personal observations of what they witnessed.
Allowing an accuser who misunderstood why what the accused did what they did to say what they thought happened can provide opportunity for reconciliation of friendship after listening to the reply of the accused or other witnesses
Limitations of eye witness knowledge should be considered when listening to testimony but eye witnesses should still be allowed to testify. Allowing an eye witness to testify may help clear up misunderstandings. If someone saw what someone was doing and why they thought it was morally wrong and then other witnesses or the accused themself can fill in missing details they can convince the accuser that their was a reason that why what they did was not morally wrong. After this happens the witness may no longer have reason to bear a grudge against the accused but be reconciled to them when they realize it was all a misunderstanding. The accused might also admit they made a wrong choice and have committed to try to achieve certain means to make better choices in the future providing an opportunity for reconciliation but also possibly warranting caution. Now depending on how serious the offense is maybe the accused should be imprisoned if found guilty in a court of law, maybe the event can be ignored if it is trivial or maybe the person can not be imprisoned in the current local legal culture but is a dangerous individual in which specific action should be taken to prevent them from harming you such as avoiding them or some other action.
The protections that apply to elders should also apply to people who are not elders
There is to be no favoristism or partiality on the basis of their leadership position as an elder. An elder should not entertain an accusation against someone who is not an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. There are many Bible verses that apply to people who are not elders that mention 2 or 3 witnesses which you can find in the link below.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220201000956/https://www.openbible.info/topics/two_or_three_witnesses
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=accusing+elder+2+or+3+witnesses&ia=web
When I was not a elder, elders have entertained accusations against me without 2 or 3 witnesses. Elders have accused me of doing things with wrong motives publicly instead of asking my motive for doing things. If it is ok for them to speculate about my motives and I should follow the example of my elders as they claim then it is ok for me to follow their example and speculate about their motives.
Often when there are multiple witnesses the first witness is dismissed as not counting along with every individual witness after him or her, with each and every witness in a series being dismissed on the grounds of being only one eye witness.
Imagine a complaint box with a built in machine to destroy written complaints as soon as they are put in the box. Only one complaint can be put in the box at a time. A new complaint can not be put into the box until the previous complaint was shredded or burned by the machinery. There can never be two complaints in that box at once but the company has a policy not to deal with a complaint until it is listed twice in that box by at least two different people. The company has a perfect rating based on it's own self published material that says it has received zero duplicate complaints.
Imagine if police or court magistrates refused to accept witnesses who reported crimes unless two witnesses filed reports simultaneously and not even a few minutes apart.
Someone witnessed a crime and filed a report at 9:01 AM, a second person witnessed the same crime and filed a report at 10:00 AM and a third person filed a report for the same crime at 10:59 AM. All on the same day. Each time there was only one person submitting a report so the report was immediately shredded and not filed. They received three reports in less than two hours but did not follow through on any of them because each of them was only one report.
9:01 AM one report submitted, zero simultaneous reports submitted, report is shredded and not filed
Total number of reports received 1
Total number of reports shredded 1
Total number of reports filed 0
10:00 AM one report submitted, zero simultaneous reports submitted, report is shredded and not filed
Total number of reports received 2
Total number of reports shredded 2
Total number of reports filed 0
10:59 AM one report submitted, zero simultaneous reports submitted, report is shredded and not filed
Total number of reports received 3
Total number of reports shredded 3
Total number of reports filed 0
A policy with similar potential for abuse exists in the ultramontane Roman Catholic Church. This policy prohibits witnessing to wrongdoing of Church leaders in certain types of publicly available written mass media outlets without approval of Church leaders.
Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190408012315/https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann822-833_en.html
A similar policy in the largest branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as Mormons
it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.
But not everything that’s true is useful.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120206215346/https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220518053721/https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng
http://web.archive.org/web/20210719172037/https://wasmormon.org/some-things-that-are-true-are-not-very-useful-to-the-mormon-church/
http://web.archive.org/web/20210412104419/https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Dallin_H._Oaks/It%E2%80%99s_wrong_to_criticize_leaders_of_the_Church,_even_if_the_criticism_is_true
Jehovah Witness policy of suppressing lone eye witnesses
"People have been intimidated into not saying anything. There are pieces of this all over the country, where one person has a piece of evidence and another has a piece of evidence, but they're scared to bring it up because they'll be disfellowshipped," Bowen said. "So these people stay silent and they think, 'I'm the only one.' "
A person who is disfellowshipped is considered invisible by denomination members and may even be shunned by members of his or her own family.
http://web.archive.org/web/20171203230053/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/02/18/ex-elder-challenges-jehovahs-witnesses-on-child-abuse/6adbfd21-20ca-4ebd-8993-f71fae88fc5f/
"If you go to the elders, they will generally discourage you from going to [secular] authorities because it will bring reproach on the organization," Shard said.
A former elder agreed: "Denial and secrecy are elemental to the way the society operates," said Mike Terry, of Conway, Ark.
http://web.archive.org/web/20171203230053/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/02/18/ex-elder-challenges-jehovahs-witnesses-on-child-abuse/6adbfd21-20ca-4ebd-8993-f71fae88fc5f/
http://web.archive.org/web/20220323130140/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/20220501113956/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses'_handling_of_child_sex_abuse
http://web.archive.org/web/20220514183012/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses
Jehovah Witnesses hide records of reported accusations collected by their religious instituition from courts to the extent that they are willing to pay excessive legal fines as punishment for disobeying court orders to submit documents
How Jehovah’s Witnesses Leaders Hide Child Abuse Secrets At All Costs
KPBS | By Trey Bundy / Reveal
Published December 12, 2016 at 7:11 AM PST
http://web.archive.org/web/20220312002704/https://www.kpbs.org/news/midday-edition/2016/12/12/how-jehovahs-witnesses-leaders-hide-child-abuse-se
Jehovah’s Witnesses build what might be the world’s largest database of undocumented child molesters: at least two decades’ worth of names and addresses—likely numbering in the tens of thousands—and detailed acts of alleged abuse, most of which have never been shared with law enforcement, all scanned and searchable in a Microsoft SharePoint file.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190322172433/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/03/the-secret-jehovahs-witness-database-of-child-molesters/584311/
Yet all this time, rather than comply with multiple court orders to release the information contained in its database, Watchtower has paid millions of dollars to keep it secret, even from the survivors whose stories are contained within.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190322172433/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/03/the-secret-jehovahs-witness-database-of-child-molesters/584311/
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a $35 million judgment against the Jehovah's Witnesses for not reporting a girl's sexual abuse to authorities.
Montana law requires officials, including clergy, to report child abuse to state authorities when there is reasonable cause for suspicion. However, the state's high court said in its 7-0 decision that the Jehovah's Witnesses fall under an exemption to that law in this case.
“Clergy are not required to report known or suspected child abuse if the knowledge results from a congregation member's confidential communication or confession and if the person making the statement does not consent to disclosure,” Justice Beth Baker wrote in the opinion.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200109062118/https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-reverses-35m-verdict-jehovahs-witnesses-68159631
documents obtained by Bundy would show that since 1997, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the faith’s nonprofit oversight arm, had been collecting extremely precise data from its American congregations about child sexual abuse with a form that amounted to something like a 12-question survey. Elders, or overseers who report to the faith’s governing body, were asked to detail the type and frequency of abuse, the personal information of the perpetrator, how both victim and accused were perceived within the congregation, if either had “lived down any notoriety in the community,” and how many people knew about what took place. They were told not to report the incidents to law enforcement or their congregations, but rather to mail a copy to the Watchtower in a “Special Blue envelope” and keep another in their files. The reports were marked “Do Not Destroy.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20200814092206/https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-database-of-jehovahs-witness-child-abusers?ref=scroll
“The organization keeps meticulous records on its members to an extent that doesn’t happen in other organizations,” Bundy said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “If you go knocking on doors and handing out bible literature, they’re keeping track of how many hours you do that. If you get caught smoking a cigarette and you have to sit in a judicial committee with Elders to talk about it, they’re taking notes. That information is kept. What you do wrong, what you do right—all of that is tracked and archived by the organization.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20200814092206/https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-database-of-jehovahs-witness-child-abusers?ref=scroll
A 1997 memo insists that no information about data collection be shared with congregation members or police. And as recently as 2014, another letter outlined how internal judicial committees handle wrongdoing “(e.g., murder, rape, child abuse, fraud, theft, assault),” while emphasizing that “strict confidentiality must be maintained to avoid unnecessary entanglement with secular authorities.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20200814092206/https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-database-of-jehovahs-witness-child-abusers?ref=scroll
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jehovah+witnesses+hide+abuse+records&ia=web
To the best of my knowledge each Pastor or Chapter director in UBF mails or emails a report to the headquarters listing who taught one to one Bible study to who, with what Bible passage and on what date. Jehovah Witnesses have a similar record keeping policy to University Bible Fellowship in that they track records of who you teach their religion to.
Their records on door-to-door outreach approximates an extreme grass-roots political campaign—noting the names, addresses, religious beliefs, and family circumstances of their intended audience so aggressively that the European Union Court of Justice sanctioned the group in 2018, ruling that they had to comply with data privacy laws and obtain consent before gathering data.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200814092206/https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-database-of-jehovahs-witness-child-abusers?ref=scroll
Jehovah's Witnesses must obtain consent before recording personal details during their signature doorstep visits, according to a new ruling by the European Union's supreme court.
http://web.archive.org/web/20201001233158/https://www.newsweek.com/jehovahs-witnesses-must-now-ask-permission-taking-down-personal-info-eu-court-1016955
Do not let cases of unethical violations of the law go unreported to the police or courts by asking clergy or religious leaders if you should report it
If you witness someone do something illegal for which you desire them to be prosecuted for the purpose of protecting the safety of other people start by reporting it to the police or courts.
Do not talk to clergy or religious leaders first you are wasting their time because they can not legally put people in jail. You are delaying the time to complete the legal report by talking to them. Talking to clergy or religious leaders first might cause a problem if they tell you not to report it in situations where failure to report the incidence to police or courts would put people in danger. By talking to the clergy or religious leader first about what you should instead be telling the police or courts first you put them in a difficult and awkward position.
The purpose of reporting law violations should be to protect people's safety. If no one is put in danger by choosing not to report and you are not legally required to report a non violent crime you witnessed then you can ethically choose not to report a non violent crime.
If the punishment does not fit the crime such as chopping off someone's right hand for stealing or hanging pickpockets then this might also be a reason not to report a crime to police, courts, or possibly anyone at all in some cases.
young pickpockets needed to be skillful so as to not find themselves sitting in jail or worse, hanging from a noose.
http://web.archive.org/web/20170214205640/https://www.geriwalton.com/pickpockets/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hanging+pickpockets&ia=about
http://web.archive.org/web/20211107002332/https://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/on-what-circumstances-the-hand-of-a-thief-should-be-cut-off.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20220324025851/https://www.haaretz.com/saudis-cuts-off-thief-s-hand-as-punishment-1.5346966
http://web.archive.org/web/20210411151207/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4984672/Thief-hand-chopped-orders-ISIS.html
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=right+hand+cut+off+for+stealing&ia=web
When someone is putting people in danger by doing something that is not illegal and talking to police or courts is not an option
There maybe other actions done by members of a congregation that pose danger of physical harm to the congregation without their consent that are not illegal. If the person does not have reason to know what they are doing is harmful you can tell them first without allerting the congregation unless they continue in the behavior after sufficient explanation as to why it is dangerous.
You can also mention to the congregation what action was done, why you think that action is dangerous and that you are not going to say who did it if they stop doing it because they might not have known better. If you choose to do so you should try to leave out enough detail to specify who did it if possible. It might be better not to even say that anyone did the action but simply publicly mention before a group that such and such an action could be done but should not be done because it could be dangerous for the following reasons. If you already privately warned the person you might tell them you are going to make such an announcement but not mention their name because you do not want others to repeat their mistake but are not trying to let other people know that they specifically did that mistake. In some cases it might not be possible or reasonable to privately warn them first but it maybe still good to do a public warning without identifying the individual.
When I say this I am not talking about sharing with a congregation what someone privately confessed to doing confidentially but only about sharing what you witnessed first hand and not through hear say and what is not considered confidential. I heard that a priest shared the confession of a woman in a homily or sermon and might not have mentioned her name but gave enough info to figure out who she was and was sued.
In the case where someone is habitually doing behavior that puts other people in danger of physical harm without their consent and has been sufficiently informed that what they are doing may harm people without their consent and have not sincerely been trying to stop the dangerous habit through personal effort or requesting the help of a third party to stop the habit, it maybe good to warn in public or private any people that maybe harmed by that person's behavior of what that person has been and still is habitually doing when no confidentiality rules prevent you from legally or ethically doing so.
In the case of adultery in which two adults consent but one or more of those individuals does not consent to their spouse doing that it often can not be prosecuted by police and courts in non Muslim countries, except sometimes through changing the allocation of funds in a divorce settlement.
Such matters can be dealt with by witnessing against someone by telling what you saw to that person's spouse or the congregation or religious leaders or clergy or other people in their social circle in order to warn others and socially ostracize the offender to dissuade others from doing it and to encourage the offender to change their ways. The ostracism could be only temporary stopping if the person agrees to stop doing it but resuming if they break their agreement and continue in the behavior. For someone who continues for life the ostracism might end up lasting a life time. There are at least two types of warnings, first a warning to be careful to avoid situations involving this person that could lead to them committing adultery with your spouse against your will and secondly a warning to other people not to copy their behavior if they do not want to be ostracized..
It does not do any good to ask a adulterous clergy member permission to witness to his or her congregation that he or she committed adultery because he or she will not grant you the permission and will then slander your name in front of the congregation before you can report it sometimes.
In terms of public social ostracism I am not talking about in cases where you suspect someone committed adultery but are unsure of what you witnessed but rather where you believe what you witnessed was adultery with sufficient certainty. If you are unsure of if what you saw happened was adultery then you can tell the person's spouse the events you saw and point out that you do not know if they committed adultery but are suspicious of it and then list the reasons why it might or might not have been an act of adultery. For example, you can say you saw the person's spouse drive off with the suspect in a car alone but did not see them have sex with the person. When warning the person's spouse be sure to do so in a way that does not make it look like you are meeting the person's spouse alone to commit adultery with the person's spouse you are warning. If you are unsure of if what you saw happened was adultery then you can also ask people other than the person's spouse or the suspect for clarification if they might know details about the situation without talking to the person's spouse unless after asking for clarification you are sufficiently convinced it was likely enough to be adultery that you should tell the person's spouse.
In terms of ostracizing someone who violated their spouse's wishes through adultery you should consider whether or not the spouse who was the victim wants what the victimizer did to be publicly known or kept confidential.
This explanation has only been a starting point to better understand the concept of entertaining accusations against someone in a congregational setting so that people may no longer misuse Bible verses as easily to defend wrong doing. This explanation might not be a sufficient guide for whatever situation you find yourself in and is not claimed to be accurate legal advice for any situation or jurisdiction.
More than 100 simultaneous witnesses
The things UBF leaders have said they have done in their testimonies were in front of too many simultaneous witnesses for me to count when they speak at conferences. There might have been 166 simultaneous witnesses of what speakers said in one recent North American conference, a little less if some people were using the bathroom or located elsewhere while a speaker was speaking, so maybe only more than 100 witnesses.
Our North American staff conference was held January 10-12 at the Sheraton Hotel O’Hare in Chicago with an attendance of 166 members.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210422030343/https://ubf.org/articledetail/15539
Total conference attendance was 164 people (including children).
https://web.archive.org/web/20220504163526/https://www.ubf.org/articledetail/15932
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ubf+world+conference+attendance&ia=web
UBF life testimony speakers in good standing with the organization unknowingly testified against UBF in front of large crowds.
This reminds me of the more than 500 witnesses at once to see the risen Jesus except in this case it is more than 100 witnesses to people sharing their stories of victimization by their "Shepherds," through their traumatic life testimony stories I heard at conference after conference. You see I went to a lot of conferences and many UBF speakers who said UBF was a good organization and were not kicked out of UBF but were approved to speak by UBF officials and were in good standing shared their life testimonies. And these life testimonies and other types of testimonies were full of stories of how their "Shepherds" or Bible teachers told them what to do and how they did not want to do it but decided to obey.
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:6 KJV
Unfortunately I know of no way to share this eye witness evidence in a believable manner without including links to material that includes the witnesses names, I would exclude their names if possible to do so credibly. The following are eye witness accounts of the enactment of marriage by faith policies.
I have experienced great suffering in my life for many years that lasts to this very day when someone outside of UBF accessed my UBF testimony
I personally have or had a mental illness in which I had thoughts about doing things that I thought would be bad to do and was afraid I would be a criminal. Nobody inside UBF retaliated against me and I received some benefit to being accepted after sharing. However people outside UBF found my testimony and did not treat me as respectfully and put me in a state of fear that horrible things could happen to me by people thinking I am dangerous because of my mental illness. I now know after not doing anything wrong for years that I am not dangerous but it is too late for my life to be completely repaired and there are many things I choose not to do to avoid publicity for my own safety. In many ways this has cost me my ability to have several careers or business opportunities that I wanted and probably made me hundreds of thousands of dollars poorer than if this never happened to me resulting in me being below poverty level with a college degree in a normally higher paying field than most other college degree choices. In some business fields you can make a lot more money if you have a large scale public image in which you are well known and have a good reputation. But, none of those fields are options for me anymore because I have to avoid publicity for my own safety. For this reason I write anonymously about UBF because I do not want my old testimony material shared on a widespread scale, were I to gain publicity. Were UBF to threaten to share my testimony material it would not work well to blackmail me to stop posting, because they would make themself look bad through association with me if they posted my old testimony material. If UBF doxxed or revealed my identity it would result in very bad publicity for UBF through association with me. And I do not want UBF to get bad publicity. Instead, the reason I post this is because I want UBF and other religious organizations to change their practices and for people to think more reasonably and make better life decisions through reading my material.
When I was falsely accused of entertaining accusations against an elder with less than two witnesses even though my accusers admitted to witnessing what the elder said
My memories of this are not perfect having happened years ago and some details maybe wrong but focus on the main points that can be learned from this story
Once I mentioned something an elder said in their life testimony although I did not know the person was a elder. I said I did not think it was right to conclude based on Genesis 22 that they should choose to live in a different country than their spouse to try to raise more disciples. I was accused of saying an accusation against an elder with less than two witnesses. But everyone who accused me of accusing witnessed it themselves. I did not know the person's name or that they were an elder but the angry Pastor and his followers did because they said I was accusing so and so with such an such a name who was an elder. I did not intend to accuse anyone but they pressured me to do it. I merely said I do not believe Genesis 22 means we should sacrifice our family or perhaps live apart from our spouse or neglect our family to do ministry like some people have said but I did not say that person's name because my goal was not to entertain an accusation against anyone but to explain how I thought Genesis 22 was misunderstood by some people and that I did not think it meant that. But after that the Pastor insisted I meant someone specific and wanted me to name who it was. I told the story of what I heard the speaker say and the Pastor said that person is named so and so and that person really did what I said he did but I was wrong to accuse him of doing it, because he did the right thing by leaving his spouse in another country. Wait, that means there were at least two witnesses if you count the Pastor. But there were actually probably more than 166 witnesses of what he confessed because he did so at a world conference not a smaller scale North American conference. Now maybe this is hearsay and there is only one witness the man who accused himself through confession. Was the elder then wrong to accuse himself without a second witness? So was my wrongdoing saying something truthful in regards to history since the Pastor confirmed so and so truly did leave their spouse in another country for years? Or was my wrongdoing thinking Genesis 22 meant something different than so and so thought? In my opinion disagreeing with what someone who I never named thinks a text means is not the same as slandering someone. Because, I did not name the person and also because saying you disagree with what someone believes is not the same as slandering their actions. If anyone was entertaining an accusation against an elder it was the Pastor who said his name and not me. This Pastor said I should stop going to UBF for a certain number of days then report back to him and decide if I should leave UBF or stay. During my time off, I happened to watch a documentary on television about how Jehovah Witnesses are not allowed to question if their organization understands the Bible correctly but must accept it's interpretation without question or get kicked out. I concluded UBF leaders did the same thing to me that Jehovah Witnesses do to their members by forbidding questioning and decided to leave.
How I learned UBF leaders are secretive and dishonest about their religious teachings
When I talked to some of them later they encouraged me to date people or as they might have called it to court people. Dating people was against their religion so I thought they removed their no dating policy. Years later I found out through a third party someone else who joined the same chapter after I left was very happy with Bible study for several months until they were pressured into breaking up with their girlfriend so chose to leave. I concluded they lie to people and pretend not to have a no dating policy when talking to outsiders and decided to treat me as a outsider after leaving.
You do not have to take me at my word if you show up long enough you will witness UBF leaders behavior for yourself
I as an anonymous source might not be credible in a court of law without the accused being given an opportunity to cross examine me but that does not matter. Two people may both have the same evidence but come to different conclusions based on using different methodology to interpret the same evidence. The purpose of this article is not to witness to evidence against UBF leaders but to show a methodology to interpret evidence that you will witness as UBF leaders share their life testimonies at conferences or talk to you personally during one to one Bible study, Sunday worship service or interact with you during other times in your life or at other events. UBF leaders teach a methodology of looking at any and every text including the Bible to come to the conclusion that such a text means you should obey them. I will provide an alternative methodology to look at the Bible and conclude what the text actually teaches as a moral code. Whether or not the claims in the Bible are factually true the conclusions that these so called Bible teachers claim about the moral meaning of the Bible can be confirmed to be factually false. This methodology can also be used for evaluating other denominations. By providing claims about what UBF leaders teach I provide the opportunity for you to evaluate if they are really teaching what I claim they teach when you witness what they teach for yourself and so you do not have to trust me at my word. If you see no evidence that can be understood as wrong doing based on the methodology that I present then maybe they have finally repented and changed their ways or maybe you will find ethical wrongdoing based on another methodology which you yourself should consider writing an article or book about to be shared publicly. It also maybe possible that you may witness evidence of the type of wrongdoing I describe in some UBF leaders but not others. To the degree that they copied unethical behavior from the UBF cofounder Samuel Lee is the degree to which the wrongdoing of the type I describe will occur.
Marriage by faith is an occult practice whose true meaning is hidden from outsiders and UBF is a publicly operating secret society
The true meaning of marriage by faith in UBF is hidden or occulted from the public. UBF like the freemasons is a publicly operating secret society that has information it holds back from those on the outside even though the locations of some of it's buildings are on public record and can be found by outsiders. Marriage by faith is said to be many different things to outsiders but in reality it is a secret tradition whose true meaning is only passed on to select individuals. Marriage by faith in reality is not the same as matchmaking or refraining from dating but is a mortal third party trying to influence you to believe they have the divine right to choose who your marriage partner will be and that you are forbidden by God to decide by yourself.
Marriage by faith and "dead dog training" are similar to a fraternity and sorority hazing rituals
If a fraternity or sorority said in order to join you have to have sex with someone of the higher ranking club members choice and if you are not cooperative they get to prank you with punishments you have to accept or leave the club it could be described as a hazing sex ritual of initiation.
If a fraternity or sorority said to advance in ranks membership you have to have sex with someone of the higher ranking club members choice and if you are not cooperative they get to prank you with punishments you have to accept or leave the club it could be described as a hazing sex ritual of initiation.
UBF tries to do the same thing except you replace the word sex with marriage. But, choosing a marriage partner essentially is choosing a sex partner and it is pretty much the same thing.
"Training students to obey through "dead dog training", such as by having them walk barefoot 5 miles, to drive 3 hours every week to attend meetings, and to stand in ice water."
http://web.archive.org/web/20201129015526/change.org/p/moses-yoon-stop-the-ubf-campus-shepherding
From what I understand people who are not obedient to a marriage by faith matching by either trying to find a marriage partner on their own or rejecting a partner a UBF religious leader told them to marry sometimes receive a form of hazing called dead dog training.
Being required to marry someone else a UBF religious leader chooses is also hazing the same way being required to have sex with someone else a higher ranking club member would choose.
List of reasons why hazing rituals are kept secret
1 Some people enjoy hazing others and would consider telling others about the hazing process in advance ruining the enjoyment of the surprise of the prank.
2 Sometimes the hazing is a secret surprise for a different reason that the more time in advance people knew about the hazing the lower percentage would agree to it.
3 Sometimes people keep the process a secret to prevent mocking because the ritual would be silly to outsiders.
4 Some people like to keep hazing hidden from outsiders for legal reasons or to avoid campus expulsion.
5 Some people feel socially pressured by other insiders to keep it secret and simply do so because that is what other people in their club told them to do
Research if you can press charges for UBF hazing at your local campus
I am not giving legal advice or legal information but I am just going to mention people could ask if UBF is violating hazing policies at their local campus and make a decision based on other peoples legal advice or information.
Marriage by faith might just be a doctrine of demons
Although it maybe debatable if all unethical prohibitions of marriage are demonic or which prohibitions on marriage are unethical and although not everyone believes demons exist the new testament claims that people forbid marriages as a doctrine of demons and marriage by faith is a dogmatic type of doctrine forbidding marriages unauthorized by UBF religious authority figures.
Subjects that seem unrelated to marriage by faith in this article actually are related. Overview of subjects that will be included in this article.
This article contains a wide range of subjects that seem initially totally unrelated to marriage by faith but which will be related by the end of the article. I am showing a methodology for how to read the Bible with systematic understanding and thus cover many subjects within the Bible before explaining five marriage by faith policies and comparing and contrasting them with the conclusions about marriage one can get by using this systematic methodology to understand the moral teachings in the entire 66 book canon of the Bible used by UBF. I also explain or mention some teachings by other denominations for comparison purpose but I am not saying those other denominations have a monopoly on the truth or are right or wrong in everything they teach either.
In order to explain this methodology of figuring out the moral teachings in the Bible, I will explain to some degree how to tell if parts of the old testament law applies today. I will go through many old testament laws and whether or not they can be applied today as examples to help understand this methodology even if the laws might not directly apply to marriage. Explaining whether or not laws that do not pertain to marriage can be used today will be helpful in understanding this methodology in relation to laws that do apply to marriage.
I am not telling people to either obey or disobey the Bible, but rather simply explaining a methodology to understand what the moral teachings in the Bible are. There are many moral viewpoints and some viewpoints are incompatible with others. My goal is to show whether the five marriage by faith policies I will list later are compatible with or incompatible with the moral teachings in the Bible. If they are incompatible with the moral teachings in the Bible then it shows either dishonesty or a lack of knowledge for people who say to obey the Bible to also say to obey these five policies.
I will additionally show how some moral teachings can be derived from certain moral viewpoints without using the Bible as a starting point. Some of these moral teachings that can be derived without the Bible overlap with some moral teachings found in the Bible to some degree.
People with tyrannical personalities while read Bible stories like rorschach ink blots to tell other people what to do but shun the use of the law. Tyrants hate laws if they themselves are expected to obey them. Tyrants also hate laws if other people will obey the law instead of the tyrant. Part of this methodology is related to understanding the difference between case and statute laws when reading the Bible but is not legal advice nor is it claimed to be accurate legal information.
The gospel is often misused as an excuse to ignore the moral teachings in the Bible as such I explain the gospel but in order to explain the gospel I must explain the incarnation in relation to claims about the humanity and divinity of Jesus and the trinity or lack of a trinity depending on what of definition of trinity is used.
I will argue that the correct understanding of the divinity of Jesus leaves open the possibility that belief in Jesus means having the correct type of relationship and attitude towards God and does not mean believing the correct denominational statement of faith is factually true.
Historically there have been many disagreements about what the correct trinity is and about what the correct understanding of the incarnation is in regards to the humanity and divinity of Jesus which were used to classify people as part of a in group or outgroup. In the case of some denominations people are required to claim belief in a 2798 Latin character statement of faith called the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed in which most of the text focused on minute details about these things to be in the in group. In the case of Jehovah Witnesses someone must reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus or be shunned.
2798 charecters counting punctuation and letters but excluding spaces
http://web.archive.org/web/20130524125133/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://wordcount.com
The gospel has been either used or misused as a means to classify people as part of a in group and out group by which people are told they should only marry people in that group and thus will have relevance in examining the marriage by faith policy. This separation by in group and out group is also used as a form of information control in which people are told listening to the out group may result in believing a false gospel and being eternally condemned. Teaching followers to refuse listen to a outside group makes it easier for a false teachers followers to be mentally enslaved into obedience to the false teacher.
Purpose of the use of legal terminology in this article is to explain the difference between reading legal or moral codes and reading history or stories and not to provide legal advice or factually accurate legal information. I am not telling people to violate local laws. I am also not telling people to use laws to harm people who are both non violent and non dangerous.
Discussion of law here usually refers to moral codes of religions and not to the laws of any State, Nation or Government. I am not telling people to use Bible verses as a reason to violate any local laws for the nation they live in. I am also not telling people to enforce any law that would cause physical harm to someone who poses no current nor reasonably foreseeable future danger of physically harming someone else without their consent.
I am not providing legal advice or claiming to have accurate legal information but simply comparing some aspects of how someone might interpret case law and statute law differently in relation to how someone might get meaning from Bible stories vs Biblical moral codes which I will call statutes. I am not doing this for legal purposes but to explain differences in methodology of interpretation that should be used in reading different styles of writing found in different parts of the Bible.
The mention of Bible verses in this article is not to tell people what to do but to explain to them how to better understand the meaning of the text. Since, I am not telling people what to do if I mention that a section of the Bible might be understood or misunderstood to prescribe something unethical or illegal then I am not telling people to do that unethical or illegal thing which it is understood or misunderstood to prescribe.
I am not even telling people whether or not they should obey the Bible but simply explaining what parts of the Bible might mean in context of the entire Bible. Some people think some parts of the Bible teach people to do some things they view as unethical. For some sections of the Bible I will explain two or more mutually exclusive possible meanings people believe that section might have. In some cases the section will have a possible meaning some people consider to be unethical along with another possible meaning some people do not consider to be unethical. Including a possible meaning that is unethical or illegal does not mean I am saying people should live according to the unethical or illegal meaning.
Legality of saying, obeying or believing something is determined by local law
Whether or not obeying, saying or believing a certain potential meaning of a section of the Bible is illegal is determined by local law and I am not claiming whether or not obeying, saying or believing any Bible verse is legal or illegal in the jurisdiction of your local government.
The physical consequences of doing an action are based on the laws of physics and chemistry and not based on your viewpoint as to if that action is ethical or unethical. Your viewpoint however may influence your choice of actions.
Whether or not you think something is unethical is based on your personal viewpoint. Your viewpoint as to if an action is ethical or unethical does not control whether or not performing the action causes physical harm to humans, other living things, the environment or property. Changing your viewpoint as to what actions are ethical or unethical will not change the physical consequences of any actions you might choose to take but may change what actions you choose to take. Doing something because a law is written down that you must do it does not change the immediate physical consequences of that action. Doing something because someone told you to has the same immediate physical consequence in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry as doing the same thing if no one else told you to do it regardless of motive. Doing something because someone told you to do it as opposed to doing it even though no one told you to do it might not have the same social consequences regardless of motive if people reward you for obedience to them and punish you for disobedience to them which might result in different long term physical consequences based on their choice of actions.
Example of how legality, good intentions, obeying orders or motives do not change the immediate physical consequences of an action but may have social consequences which result in long term physical consequences due to other peoples actions in response to your action
For a hypothetical example if a soldier shoots a civilian with a instant kill shot that civilian will still die whether or not anyone gave orders to shoot the civilian. The civilian will not be unharmed if a commander told the soldier to shoot the civilian and the soldier obeyed orders because the soldier thought obeying orders was doing the right thing. Good intentions do not change the laws of physics and chemistry so that nobody can be harmed as long as people have the right motives. If the soldier was not ordered to shoot the civilian and had no reason to believe the civilian posed a danger he or she might be prosecuted for war crimes in some military cultures but if the soldier was ordered to shoot civilians he might get promoted in other military cultures. If a law was written claiming that it was either legal or illegal to shoot civilians the existence of such a written law would not change the laws of physics or chemistry to prevent the civilian from dying on the basis of whether or not the soldier obeyed or disobeyed the written law. Either way the immediate physical consequences for that civilian will be the same but in one case the long term physical consequences for the soldier could be execution or imprisonment and in the other case it could be access to more physical resources as a result of a promotion.
Using deception, rewards or threats of punishment to influence someone's actions such that they would harm someone who posed no danger to anyone else can be considered to be unethical influence from some viewpoints. This is why from such a viewpoint people should not bear false witness against their neighbor.
If you start with a viewpoint that it is unethical to harm someone who poses no current nor reasonably foreseeable future harm to someone else without their consent. Then anyway to use your social means of influence to deceive someone about the physical consequences of an action that they take which might result in harming someone who posed no danger to harm someone else without their consent is unethical influence. Rewarding people for harming someone who posed no danger to harm someone else without their consent is also unethical influence. Punishing someone for not harming someone who posed no danger to harm someone else without their consent is also unethical influence.
In addition, deceiving someone to claim they will be rewarded by God, gods, other people, karmic, natural or supernatural laws for taking an action that could harm someone else without their consent is unethical influence.
Deceiving someone to claim they will be punished by God, gods, other people, karmic, natural or supernatural laws for not taking an action that could harm someone else without their consent is also unethical influence
Why if you do not want other people to abduct, detain, harm or kill you then you should have a moral viewpoint that abducting, detaining, harming or killing people who pose no current or reasonably foreseeable future danger of doing such things to other people without their consent is unethical and you should also avoid doing such things.
If you do not want those things on the list done to you then you should try to live in a society where people who intentionally do such things to other people who pose no current or reasonably foreseeable future danger of doing such things are abducted, detained, harmed or executed to prevent or discourage them from doing such things to other people. You could also punish them by other means such as fines to prevent such action but fines must ultimately be backed up by one of the things on the list or people will just refuse to pay the fines if you will not do any of those things to stop them. Out of these options I have a personal preference for avoiding execution or physical harm and for sticking to detainment such as imprisonment. If you then choose to live in such a society then you should not do those things or they will be done to you. Unfortunately people can not always choose the type of society they live in, but those who can not move can try to change their society to be the type they want.
Why bearing false witness can physically harm people without their consent
I already described this earlier when explaining what unethical influence is. I would like to add that if you lived in such a society as above and people beared false witness against you it could result in those list of bad things being done to you so you would want that society to additionally punish people for bearing false witness against someone. And if that society punished people for bearing false witness against other people it would be in your best interest not to bear false witness against other people if you choose to live in such a society. Bearing false witness against someone requires there to be a victim or potential victim who is harmed or potentially harmed by false information.
When it might be ok to say false statements or convince people of untrue things
1 Using camouflage, hiding your tracks or trail or misdirection as a form of self defense to deceive through actions without use of words
If you deceive someone who is trying to murder you about your location or whether or not you exist
2 To prevent murder
If you know someone is planning to murder someone who it would be unethical for them to kill and you lie about their location to prevent murder
3 When you are not trying to convince people that false statements you are saying or writing are true
This can include
sarcasm
making hypothetical claims
writing fiction that is published as fiction and not as non fiction
4 To prevent unethical actions
If you know someone is planning to use information you give them to do something unethical and they would succeed if you gave them true information or omitted information but would fail if you gave them false information
5 When you are rounding, omitting precision, or approximating the truth because you lack the time, knowledge or ability to present enough details for the statement you present to be 100% true
6 When someone has information phobia and telling them something true would lead them to believe something false so you omit a true statement leading them to believe you do not believe that statement so that they will listen to you about other true statements.
For example you could avoid telling someone you think they are in a mind control cult. But, if you omitted this information then you might persuade them to believe something untrue, since as a result they could potentially assume you do not believe they are in a mind control cult. However, telling them you believe they are in a mind control cult could influence them not to listen to you in the future and prevent you from telling them the truth that mind control cults unethically influence people by telling them bad things will happen if they listen to negative claims about their group.
7 Stage performances
When people are temporarily and consensually persuaded that untrue things are true : demonstration of slight of hand and tricks that "deceive the senses" on a consensual audience for entertainment and education if you explain what you did afterward instead of deceiving them that you possess supernatural "magical" powers which you know you do not
For example if someone put a glass walking board in a swimming pool and made it look like they walked on water but afterward explained that they were not using supernatural magical powers but that they put a glass board in to make it look like they walked on water that would not be unethical
But, if someone put a glass walking board in a swimming pool and made it look like they walked on water and explained that they were able to supernaturally have the magic power to walk on water because they worship Satan or demons or certain gods and that if you want that power you should join their religious group and obey everything they say that would be unethical
8 Use of hypnotic suggestions that describe reality in a false way on someone who consents
Use of the placebo effect and guided imagery of fictitious stories or claims of fictitious body sensations on someone who consents to be hypnotized with the intent of producing psychosomatic effects or producing feeling positive or negative hallucinations of real body sensations or the absense there of that might not truthfully represent reality
For example during a consensual hypnosis session, you could have repeatedly told someone who had a fever their forehead is icy cold when they actually had a warmer feeling forehead then usual based on their personal sensory experience and a higher forehead temperature than usual as measured by a forehead thermometer and what you said would have been false. But, after hearing the false statement their forehead temperature might feel colder to them in their personal sensory experience and or their forehead thermometer reading might become colder.
9 Anesthesia on a consenting person
Sometimes the difference between anesthesia and analgesia is that anesthesia is a absense of sensation where as analgesia is an increase in comfort or decrease in pain or suffering. Pain treatments that are anesthesic are also analgetic. But, many over the counter pain medicines like Tylenol are analgetic but not anesthetic since someone maintains their sense of touch even though they have reduced pain. Drugs that make someone fall asleep or lose consciousness and also lose their sense of touch are anesthetic.
Using drugs, hypnosis or physical manipulation such as acupressure, acupuncture or massage can all be used to produce anesthetic negative hallucinations. These means of providing comfort may deceive someone about reality with their consent when they temporarily lose their sense of touch.
10 Security related, simulation, training games and white hat hacking in which people consent to let you try to deceive them with benevolent intent for the purpose of learning to defend against other people who would deceive them with malicious intent
Why physical sexual adultery can physically harm people without their consent
If one man physically commits sexual adultery with another man's wife against the other man's wishes he puts the other man at risk for disease without his consent. Also if the sexual adultery is done in secret the wife may give birth to a child from the other man than her husband but people may think it is her husband's child. This might result in accidental incest if the man who was not her husband has biological children with another woman and they marry their half siblings without knowing it. Marrying your half siblings without knowing it may result in physical harm through birth defects if you have any biological children.
Why stealing can physically harm people without their consent
If someone steals too much of your food too often you will starve. If you do not want to starve it is in your best interest to live in a society that has property ownership conventions and means to enforce them in such a way that people can find a way to get food and keep food without stealing or being stolen from. There is much debate about what such a society would be and there are many options for how such a society could function. But, it would be in your best interest to be in such a society if you do not want to starve and if you are in such a society it would be in your best interest not to steal if you do not want to suffer the consequences such a society would surely have enforced to prevent stealing.
Idolatry as wrong belief that leads to doing unethical behavior or idolatry as a form of unethical influence
By unethical behavior I mean stealing from, bearing false witness against or committing adultery against, abducting, detaining, harming or killing people who pose no current or reasonably foreseeable future danger of doing such things to other people without their consent
List of ways idolatry can be related to unethical influence or unethical behavior
1 Doing unethical behavior to worship a sentient being they imagine exists but does not really exist
2 Following the unethical influence of a person who prescribes how to worship a fictitious sentient beings by doing rituals that include unethical behavior
3 Prescribing to other people to worship a fictitious sentient beings by doing rituals that include unethical behavior
4 Following the unethical influence of a real sentient being they worship by doing rituals that include unethical behavior
5 Imagining artificial intelligence is sentient, has free will and is wiser than humans and being unethically influenced by programmers to obey devices they programmed which instruct to do unethical behavior
6 Misrepresenting a real sentient being in order to prescribe worshiping that sentient being in a way that sentient being does not desire by doing rituals that include unethical behavior
Misrepresenting someone's name or using their name in vain as a form of idolatry, unethical influence or bearing false witness
1 Slandering their name is bearing false witness
2 Claiming their name as a source of information they did not say or misattributing them is bearing false witness
3 Claiming their name as a source of authority to excuse doing something they did not authorize is bearing false witness
4 Signing their name instead of your own or calling yourself by their name instead of your own with the intention to misrepresent them is bearing false witness but must not be confused with choosing to use a different name to represent yourself than that which other people have assigned you which may coincidentally overlap with someone else's name. An example of this might be using a screen name, username or pen name to be anonymous might be ok but forging someone else's name to unethically embezzle resources would be morally wrong
5 Misrepresenting the name of a deity is a form of bearing false witness that could be potentially classified as idolatry
6 Claiming a fictitious sentient being is not fictitious and using their name to bear false witness in an unethical manner is morally wrong
7 Using someone else's name in a vow to deceive people is bearing false witness
What is coveting?
In this context by coveting I mean to want or desire something. This want or desire can be good, bad or neutral. The Greek word with Strong's number G1937 transliterated in dictionary form as epithymeo is sometimes translated to the word covet in English.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220501201247/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1937/kjv/tr/0-1/
Sometimes epithymeo is considered a good thing and at other times a bad thing to do in the new testament
Epithymeo may mean to want, desire, lust or covet as well as possibly other meanings I do not understand which I have seen listed, such as "to turn upon a thing." Some translators might sometimes tend to use words like "covet" or "lust" when they want Epithymeo to sound bad and "desire" when they want to make it sound good or neutral.
But, I am just going to use the English word covet instead of using the Greek word epithymeo whether or not it sometimes does not translate correctly from covet to epithymeo or epithymeo to covet.
This will be important later in this article but for now I will try to explain what someone could conclude about the consequences of coveting without reference to the Bible as a moral starting point.
Good or neutral coveting
There are goods, services or romantic/sexual partners which someone may want which you can get without stealing from, bearing false witness against, kidnapping, detaining, abducting, physically harming, committing adultery against or killing someone without their consent who does not pose any current or future threat of doing any of those things to someone else without their consent. Contemplating a way to get such things, wanting to have such things, or taking actions to get such things in a morally achievable manner is not morally wrong according to the moral viewpoint I have described above.
Bad coveting
There are goods, services or romantic/sexual partners which you may want which you can get through stealing from, bearing false witness against, kidnapping, detaining, abducting, physically harming, committing adultery against or killing someone without their consent who does not pose any current or future threat of doing any of those things to someone else without their consent. Taking actions to get such things in such a manner is morally wrong according to the moral viewpoint I have described above. Wanting to get such things in any of the unethical manners I have described either will be acted on or will not be acted on. Wanting to achieve it through an unethical manner and choosing to take action to achieve it in an unethical manner is unethical. Wanting to get such things in an unethical manner and choosing not to achieve it from an ethical manner may result in a feeling of suffering from the unfilled want. Feeling guilty about wanting to get such things in an unethical manner and choosing not to achieve it from an ethical manner may result in a feeling of suffering from guilt.
Solving the problem of bad coveting
The solution to bad coveting is not guilt but a change of state of mind in at least one of two ways.
Being satisfied without getting the thing
Feeling satisfied with your circumstances as being good enough without getting such things in an unethical manner and choosing not to achieve it from an unethical manner even if it might mean you never achieve getting such things may result in a reduction of the feeling of suffering.
Replacing bad coveting with good or neutral coveting and making a decision if it is worth it to take action to get the thing
Making up your mind not to get the thing by unethical means is not the same as making up your mind not to get it by ethical means. You can choose to contemplate how to get such a thing by ethical means. Getting something by ethical means may require a cost of physical labor, mental labor, trading goods or services or with someone else, or loss of social status. If you conclude that you want something but would rather not pay the cost and not have it then pay the cost and have it then you should choose not to have it and learn to be content or satisfied without it. Alternatively you can contemplate how to achieve getting the thing at a different cost until you find a cost where you are more happy to pay the cost and get the thing then not pay the cost and not get the thing. Sometimes you can get something later ethically but not right now ethically, by exercising patience you can get your reward later through ethical means, but through a lack of patient some people choose to get something earlier through unethical means. Not choosing to exercise patience has physical consequences someone who stole an item from a store to get it immediately may end up in jail when they could have waited until they could have purchased it or received it as a gift later without ending up in jail. Sometimes you may try to pay the price in an ethical means to get something you want and not get it such as asking a person to marry you and them saying no or asking to trade something from someone for something you want them to give you and them saying no, or trying to make a physical item with your own mental and physical labor out of other goods you own but failing and making something defective or planting a crop but it not growing. In such a case you can either try again by ethical means or choose to be content without having it, someone who chooses instead upon failing once to get it by ethical means and who then tries to get it by unethical means may end up suffering physical consequences as a result. I strongly advise against trying to get a woman to marry you again if you fail the first time, however in the current 2022 United States culture for reasons of avoiding imprisonment or fines. I would advise such a person to instead learn to be content with not being married to her.
Sometimes society can punish you for doing something that is neither unethical, nor illegal according to a correct understanding of the written local laws in order to achieve your goals
A good way for a man not to covet a unmarried woman could be for him to ask her to marry him in a ethical society except it is not a good idea unless the man is willing to go to jail or be fined in 2022 United States.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110810044005/https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
As long as a legal aged man is not using his first amendment right to freedom of speech to deny or disparage the rights of a legal aged woman any law on a federal level that prohibits the man from talking to that woman is in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. If additionally there is no local law in the jurisdiction of his local State and the woman is located at the same jurisdiction as him during the event of talking then it is legal for him to talk to the woman. Additionally if he is not using unethical influence when talking to the woman then it is ethical for him to talk to the woman. But if it is culturally prohibited to talk to the woman then her or someone else can imprison or sue him successfully in the United States even though he violated no law. This is because jury nullification works two ways. If a jury feels that someone has broken the the written law they can still vote that the person is not guilty if they do not want the person to go to jail. The jury can also vote that someone who they feel has not broken the written law is guilty. Even if it is unconstitutional to punish a man for talking to a woman and the man is not breaking the letter of the law by talking to a woman and it is not unethical for the man to talk to a woman, if the judge and jury both feel like punishing him then they can. Although it is unlikely to happen in a society where it is culturally acceptable for a man to talk to a woman, in a society where it is culturally acceptable for women to be allowed to punish men for saying things they do not want them to it is highly likely for a man who receives a court trial to be punished for talking to a woman even though he broke no written law. Sometimes people may punish you for doing something that is neither unethical or illegal without using the court system. I maintain that it is not morally wrong to ask your bosses legal age unmarried daughter to marry you if you are not using unethical influence in doing so, but your boss might fire you for asking his daughter to marry you instead of resorting to using the court system. Sometimes it is better to obey a cultural custom even if it is not unethical from your point of view and also perfectly legal to violate that cultural custom from a correct understanding of the law because people who have a different point of view may abduct, detain, kidnap, torture, murder or cause physical harm to you.
To some people in some situations it may be better to obey a law even if it is not unethical to violate that law from your point of view because people who have a different point of view may abduct, detain, kidnap, torture, murder or cause physical harm to you.
Since some of my audience may say we should obey the Bible and Romans 13 commands us to obey the government, I will just say that in some jurisdictions of some countries it is illegal to give people Bibles and many people who say we should obey the government according to the Bible also give people Bibles and in doing so disobey the government. People have been arrested for feeding the homeless without a permit in some States but felt they had an obligation to do so, however maybe they could have done so by buying them food at a grocery store or restaurant instead without getting arrested or could have got the permit. They could have contemplated all the ways to feed homeless people without violating the law before deciding to violate the law to feed homeless people. I am not saying it was unethical for them to violate the law but I am saying maybe they could have avoided being arrested by following the law.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=is+it+illegal+to+distribute+bibles+in+muslim+countries&ia=web
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://lovepackages.org/bibles-dangerous-illegal-covert/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pastor+arrested+for+sharing+food&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=is+it+illegal+to+feed+homeless+without+a+permit&ia=web
https://web.archive.org/web/20171201154835/https://popularresistance.org/activists-arrested-in-atlanta-for-feeding-homeless-without-a-permit-before-thanksgiving/
Sometimes people think they can get away with doing unethical things, but when someone contemplates some of the ways to get away with doing unethical things it is not possible to persistently get away with in the long run
1 Living in a society where people are not punished for doing unethical things. But this will backfire because people would not be punished for doing unethical things to you if you choose to live in such a society
2 Not getting caught. But this will backfire when you do get caught.
3 Getting caught doing unethical things to someone who chooses not to retaliate against you because they think you did not know better. Such as a child not being punished for doing something an adult would be punished for but if such a child does not learn to behave better by the time they are an adult then they will eventually be punished. Or an adult accidentally doing something they were not told to do and being told what is expected the first time, but being punished the second time because the person knows they told them not to do it.
Why "the gospel" or "love" for God and neighbor or some laws being found in the old testament can not justify ignoring all Biblical moral codes for people living in the time period after the new testament was written. And why love and the gospel instead provides reason to read and be familiar with Biblical moral codes
The gospel enables people who have lived less than morally perfect lives an opportunity to know God's offer of forgiveness. Someone who remembers they are forgiven will possess virtue in increasing measure ( 1 Peter 1:8 ) but someone who habitually uses forgiveness as a license for immorality until the day they die with no repentance about doing so ever even for a moment is condemned ( Jude 1:4, Romans 3:8)
Someone knowing they are forgiven by God ( Luke 7:41-47 ) is inspired to love God. But how does someone love God? By loving their neighbor ( 1 John 4:20-21 )
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
1 John 4:20-21 KJV
http://web.archive.org/web/20080607110248/kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-Chapter-4/
But how do we love our neighbor? By following the commandments not to murder, steal or commit adultery and any other commandments God has given in the Bible for how to treat your neighbor ( Romans 13:8-10, Matthew 22:40 )
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Romans 13:9 KJV
http://web.archive.org/web/20211117162151/kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-13/
Those four of the ten commandments I just mentioned which include things not to do to other human beings in Exodus 20:13-16 are repeated in the new testament probably more times than I have listed below.
do not murder (Romans 13:9, Matthew 18:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, 1 Peter 4:15, Matthew 5:21, 1 Timothy 1:9, Romans 1:29, Matthew 15:19 )
do not commit adultery (Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Luke 18:20, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Mathew 5:27, Matthew 15:19 )
do not steal (Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Matthew 19:18, Luke 18:20, 1 Peter 4:15, Ephesians 4:28, Matthew 15:19, Luke 3:14 )
do not bear false witness against your neighbor (Revelation 21:8, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, 1 Peter 4:15, Ephesians 4:25, 1 Timothy 1:10, Romans 1:30, Matthew 15:19, Luke 3:14 )
https://web.archive.org/web/20150630083612/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
https://web.archive.org/web/20160914183851/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_commit_adultery
https://web.archive.org/web/20160914184808/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_steal
https://web.archive.org/web/20160914185002/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_bear_false_witness_against_thy_neighbour
Additionally, the old testament statute not to kidnap people is also repeated in the new testament in (at least) 1 timothy 1:10 (check later to see if it is also forbidden anywhere else in the new testament)
The command to love ones neighbor in Leviticus 19:18 and Leviticus 19:34 are surrounded by other commands throughout Leviticus 19 including commands not to deceive people in multiple ways such as slander, lying, swearing falsely in God's name, defrauding, using dishonest standards for measurements or dishonest scales, putting a stumbling block for the blind, cursing the deaf or putting a stumbling block for the blind, or to steal in multiple ways such as holding back wages, defrauding, and using dishonest standards for measurements or dishonest scales. There are also many other types of commands in Leviticus 19 I have not listed. Leviticus 19 itself is surrounded by commands for who you can not lawfully marry or who you can not lawfully have physical relationships with in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20
Someone who vaguely claims to love you is sometimes more dangerous than someone who precisely says what they hate about you. What some call love others call hate.
Sometimes someone commits adultery because they say they love the person they commit adultery with even if a spouse does not want the adultery to occur and is put in danger of disease through it. Sometimes someone commits murder out of a crime of passion, which could be called a love crime instead of a hate crime. Sometimes the only way to love victims of violence and attempted violence is to hate when people use or try to use violence and to take action to stop the violence. Sometimes someone steals or commits fraud against or uses unethical business practices against many people to have money to support another person who they love. Sometimes someone tells people "white lies" because they love them and when the person finds out they were not told the truth they get mad. Sometimes someone turns a blind eye on people who engage self harmful behavior because tolerance is the loving thing to do. Sometimes people say executing the baby of a pregnant mother is the best way to love the mother. Sometimes someone will kill someone claiming to put them out of misery without asking their permission claiming to do so because they love them.
Clearly people need guidance as to what actions are loving or not loving and that is why there are many lists of many rules in the Bible.
Authority, Rules, Rulers, Archons, Tyranny, Anomie and Anarchy
Anomie is the absense of rules
Anarchy is the absense of rulers or archons
Archons are rulers, slavemasters, tyrants, dictators and so on
Dictators are those who insist you should do things because they said so
The four types of authority listed here are definitions made up specifically for this article
Tyrannical Authority is to prescribe and or enforce obedience to an authority figure even if obedience to the authority figure requires disobedience to rules
Intermediate Authority is to prescribe obedience to an authority figure except when the authority figure tells you to break a rule
Intermediate Authority permits enforcement of obedience to an authority figure unless such enforcement violates a rule
Anarchist Authority prescribes obedience to an authority figure only if they are telling you to obey a rule you would also be prescribed to obey if they did not tell you
Anarchist Authority permits enforcement of rules except when the method and degree of enforcement is prohibited by other rules
Voluntary Authority is an agreement to do something someone tells you voluntarily in exchange for them to do something you tell them to do voluntarily
Voluntary Authority is only voluntary authority if the mutual agreement is achieved without the use of unethical influence
Voluntary Authority can be a means of creating rules and creating rules about the enforcement of rules in an anarchist community
Voluntary Authority permits an exchange of goods and or services between two individuals such as barter or working in exchange for goods or services
Examples of exercising different types of authority
A pope who commands priests to murder people who it would be unethical to kill is exercising tyrannical authority
A pope who commands priests to say a certain set of Bible verses in the liturgy on a certain date or cyclical repeating set of dates is exercising intermediate authority
A pope who requests priests to say a certain set of Bible verses in the liturgy on a certain date or cyclical repeating set of dates as part of a mutual agreement is exercising voluntary authority
A pope who reminds priests that the Bible and or deposit of faith in their denomination prohibits murder is exercising anarchist authority
Rules prevent tyranny
People with tyrannical personalities do not like rules because when enough people choose to obey rules when it is impossible to obey both rules and rulers this prevents them from achieving sufficient tyrannical authority to satisfy their desire to succeed at unethically influecing people at the scale they desire to achieve
Historical non fiction or historical fiction
God could be viewed as a fictional character in a multi part historical fiction novel series in which case this methodology would show the moral code this fictional character asked fictional people to abide by in the novel series. Or the Bible could be viewed as a series of non fiction history books some of which contain interactions between other human beings and an individual that really exists called God as well as historical records of what the real individual called God said, in which case this methodology would show the moral code this real individual has prescribed to humanity. Either way the moral code that one gets using the same methodology of study would be the same for the same text whether it is fiction or non fiction. I am not trying to persuade people who do not believe God exists to believe this specific deity exists nor am I trying to persuade individuals who do believe God exists to disbelieve this specific deity exists. I am trying to persuade people that God did not proclaim people should do many of the things that a wide variety of Pastors and Bible teachers say he proclaimed which I believe they claim in order to unethically influence people to obey them. I believe that if Jesus really exists and is the God of the Bible or at least a resurrected prophet of the God of the Bible then he would wish me to inform people how he is being misrepresented to the degree that I am reasonably able to. If Jesus does not exist as described by the Bible the consequences of people believing the false teachings used to unethically influence those who believe he exists would still be very real because their behavior would be influenced by their belief and their behavior would have physical consequences which could physically harm people.
Presupposition of non fiction shall be made to expose that the moral codes that would derive from a non fiction reading of the Bible would be incompatible with the teachings of false teachers who wish to instill blind obedience to themselves through misuse of the Bible
I desire to hold those accountable who claim a God exists and said things to Prophets that were recorded in the Bible and which should be obeyed yet continue to misrepresent the moral codes of the character known as God. Whether they are misrepresenting the moral codes of a fictional god or a God who is a real individual, is irrelevant to proving they are misrepresenting the moral codes of this character found in the Bible. Nonetheless, in order to hold such individuals accountable to their words, throughout the rest of this article I shall go by the assumption that the Bible really is historically accurate, that the character of God is a real individual and that prophecy of future events was really given by God to the prophets as recorded in the Bible before the events happen and that prophecy was not fabricated after the fact but was at a minimum given orally to the prophets beforehand but may have been written down either before or after the event. Upon assuming all these things I shall then show how these assumptions lead to the sure conclusion that such false teachers as who I have written this article to refute have misrepresented the moral code of God, are using this misrepresented moral code to do unethical influence of the type I described above and also that by doing such they are in violation of the actual moral codes of God found in the Bible.
False teachers who have taught a false gospel to teach you to disregard rules so that you will obey them as rulers. Although my description of the gospel or good news is speculative and uncertain. Their description of the gospel is bad news and certainly wrong. Their gospel is centered on a hatred of rules because rules discourage blind obedience to mortal rulers.
Some parts involving both the trinitarian and non trinitarian understandings of God, the incarnation of God, the deity of Jesus Christ and the gospel which I shall present are of a more speculative nature and are mere educated guesses. These guesses however are made for a purpose in that such false teachers as I refute in this essay use what they call the gospel, which is no good news at all, as an excuse to violate the moral code. Any good news would uphold, support or encourage trying to live more fully according to the moral code to anyone who does not want things that violate the moral code done to himself or herself. Any gospel these false teachers who I refute present however is based on uneducated guesses, uneducated in the sense that they want to use it to persuade you to be uneducated in terms of examining the gospel for yourself. They try to make you fear if you come to a different conclusion to what it means then what they say you will be eternally condemned and to thus take them at their word without examining for yourself what it actually means. If you take them at their word they will persuade you to live in obedience to them instead of living in obedience to moral principles. They will persuade you to obey mortal rulers instead of rules. These false teachers hate the Bible's moral code because it contains rules which interfere with their ability to be rulers. Whether the rules in the Bible's moral code are good or bad to live by is irrelevant to why they hate it. They simply hate it because anyone obeying the rules whether such rules are good or bad is not obeying them if they tell you to act contrary to the rules whether their command is for good or bad.
My conclusions regarding the moral code of the God of the Bible unlike the gospel is of great certainty in regards of certain actions to do or not do. Other actions are less clear as to if they should or should not be done and I try to specify there are multiple potential meanings. My conclusions are speculative however in regards to why you should do or not do certain actions.
Although much of what I say about those subjects are educated guesses what I proclaim about the moral code is not a guess but is very much objective with some areas of uncertainty which I try to specify that I am uncertain about and could have multiple potential meanings. What I say about the moral code the God of the Bible told the prophets is at least as objective as the way a judge or lawyer today interprets laws. And if these false teachers claim a judge or lawyer can not interpret laws objectively than these false teachers have undermined their own message for they teach to blindly obey such authority figures except when it specifically goes against the whims of these false teachers, but how can you obey these judges who false teachers tell you to obey when the judges do not objectively tell you what to do? Although what I say about the moral code is extremely objective in terms of what someone should and should not do according to that code, what I guess as the reasons why someone is told they should or should not do an action according to that code are sometimes speculative.
A Purpose to Bible history that does not involve imagining rules people should live by from the text of stories
1 Historical Bible stories sometimes should not be understood to provide meaning as to what actions are morally right or morally wrong to do
2 The words of Bible characters that are not God should not be confused with the words God said in the text of the Bible.
3 Historical Bible stories can be used to show fulfillment of the prophecies that God said to prophets
4 The fulfillment of prophecy gives reason to believe the moral codes or statute laws that God said to prophets in the Bible were really said by God and not an impostor god or human scam artist
5 The moral codes or statute laws in the Bible that God gave provide moral guidance as to what actions are morally right or wrong to do according to the God of the Bible
"70 AD destruction of the temple"
The temple has been destroyed multiple times. The most recent time as of the time of writing this was after Jesus crucifixion and resurrection was claimed to have occurred by Christians. In Mark 13:2 Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple. I do not know the exact date the temple was destroyed after Jesus resurrection but some online sources claim the most recent date the temple was destroyed was in 70 AD. Because it was too long and confusing to write, "the destruction of the temple after the resurrection of Jesus" every time I want to reference the most recent destruction of the temple I am going to call it the "70 AD destruction of the temple" even if the exact date might be debated.
Examples of prophecy
1 Genesis 6:17, Genesis 7:4
2 Genesis 15:13-20
3 Moses predicts punishment and possibly exile of Israel
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moses+predicts+exile&t=chromentp&ia=web
4 Daniel and Greece
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=daniel+greece&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=daniel+greek&ia=web
https://web.archive.org/web/2021*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel's_final_vision
5A Jesus execution and Resurrection predicted by others
5B Jesus predicts his own execution and ressurection
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=did+jesus+predict+his+resurrection&t=chromentp&ia=web
6 Mark 13:2 destruction of the temple in 70 AD predicted by Jesus
If Jesus is God then To trust, obey, believe or have faith in Jesus can mean to trust, obey, believe or have faith in God rather than to believe a list of claims about Jesus such as a statement of faith someone else told you. Jesus also has a human incarnation but when the human incarnation of Jesus asks you to believe in him he is asking you to believe in the deity who is Jesus or asking you to believe what the deity who is Jesus told the human prophet who is Jesus to tell you.
Here is a book by Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda which claims to have many proofs of the divinity of Jesus. You can read the proofs as he calls them and decide for yourself.
Each of these looks slightly different in terms of pictures, graphics or illustrations and might be two different editions of the same book
https://web.archive.org/web/20210412054313/https://www.copticchurch.net/pdf/theology/divinity_of_christ_pope_shenouda.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20181008100048/http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/THE%20DIVINITY%20OF%20CHRIST%20-%20HH%20Pope%20Shenouda%20III.pdf
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pope+shenouda+proofs+jesus&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pope+shenouda+divinity+of+jesus&ia=web
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Shenouda_III_of_Alexandria
My speculation as to the incarnation, the human nature of Jesus, the divine nature of Jesus and the trinitarian or non trinitarian nature of God. Out of all the sections in this article this should be taken the least seriously,
Is God one single individual or multiple individuals?
Some people who call themselves Jews and Muslims as well as other religions claim the trinity is polytheistic because it is three individuals and therefore three gods
There are many different versions of the trinity and not all of them are polytheistic.
Mormons will deny they believe in a trinity but do believe in three gods, in a single Godhead of which only one member heavenly father is to be worshiped by humans in the current time period on the planet earth. Although they do not call this a polytheistic Trinity it is very tempting for me to call their Godhead by such a name.
The General monotheistic version of the trinity is to claim there is one God who is the
the Father, the Son or the Word and the Holy Spirit. This general version does not specify if the Father, the Son or the Word and the Holy Spirit are separate mutually exclusive things or inclusive overlapping things. For example one could say that God is like a Father and has or is a Spirit and not count that as two separate things or separate individuals but two inclusive overlapping descriptions or properties of God. One could also say the Father, the Son or Word and the Holy Spirit are actually three separate and different individuals all mutually exclusive of one another. But, either way whether this one God is one individual or three individuals this God could still be considered to be a monotheistic trinity based on this general definition. One could make up specific versions of a monotheistic Trinity some but not all of which are mutually exclusive.
I will list four specific versions of the Trinity although many more exist
1 a Trinity made up of exactly three individuals
2 a Trinity made up of exactly one individual described in three different ways
3 a Trinity made up of exactly one individual who has interacted with the world in three different modes like a single actor playing multiple characters in a play each with a different persona or face mask. But, only one at a time in a specific chronological sequence first in time with the persona of the Father, second in time with the persona of the Son then third and last in time with the persona of the Spirit and not in any other temporal order and never all three simultaneously throughout history. Some people claim Sabbelius believed this and was denounced as a heretic although it is difficult to know for sure what he believed with the deterioration and destruction of manuscripts over time.
4 A Trinity made up of exactly one individual who has interacted with the world in three different modes or manifestations sometimes or always simultaneously throughout history.
All four specific versions of the Trinity I listed fit within the General monotheistic version of the Trinity I described without problem even though some of them are incompatible with each other. I would suggest that number three on the list is wrong because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not listed in a specific chronological order in which one did not appear in the text until the others stopped appearing in the text. Even though number three has been called non Trinatarian by some people it could also be called a Trinity of three personas for one individual who is one God.
Theoretically one God could be three different individuals without being three gods, since the definition of "god" is not the same as the definition of "individual" and the word "god" is not the same as the word "individual."
One single deity could be composed of multiple individuals just as one single family could be composed of multiple individuals
One family could be composed of a wife and husband and all their children but still only be exactly one family and no more
However a larger family consisting of a husband and wife and their children plus their brother in laws and their sister in laws and their in laws children might be counted as multiple families but could also be counted as one family
A single deity could theoretically be three different individuals if each of the individuals are different
But if each of the individuals that compose the single deity have exactly the same properties then that is not possible because you can not have two different individuals with exactly the same properties. Even identical twins are different because they are in different locations and therefore do not have exactly the same properties. But each of the three persons of God are described by Roman Catholics, Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans as omnipresent, omnipotent, and having the same likes and dislikes by which I mean they do not disagree with each other but are in perfect agreement. The three persons of each of those denominations trinities share all the same properties and therefore can not be different individuals.
There are allegedly two fundamental differences between the "persons"
The divine person of the Son is incarnated and the other two people are not but this is not a difference because although the Son can be divine the incarnation of the Son can not be divine. The properties of being a mortal human are incompatible with the properties of being a God. Additionally, prior to incarnation all the properties of the Son are the same as the Father therefore the Son can not be a different individual than the Father prior to incarnation. The number of individuals in the Trinity was not supposed to increase by one upon the incarnation but eternally be set at three if person and individual can be used interchangeably and if the trinity is three persons. But, if the Son had the same properties as the Father prior to the incarnation but different properties than the Father after the incarnation then the number of individuals in the trinity would have switched from two to three as a result of the incarnation and would not have been eternally constant. This is because two 100% identical individuals can not exist. What is mistaken as two 100% identical individuals is actually one and the same individual not two different individuals. Therefore the divine Son and the divine Father can not be two different individuals.
The Holy Spirit is supposed to proceed ( or be sent ) from the father or proceed ( or be sent ) from the father and the son but this is not true if the Holy Spirit is omnipresent because you can not travel or proceed ( or be sent ) anywhere new if you are already everywhere. Therefore the Holy Spirit can not be different from the Father by proceeding or moving in space if both the Spirit and the Father are omnipresent. The sending of the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for God communicating with humanity and not a difference between some individual called the Holy Spirit and another individual called the Father.
The divine person of the Son and the divine person of the Father can not be two different individuals but are one and the same individual. And also the divine person of the Father and the divine person of the Holy Spirit can not be two separate individuals but are one and the same individual. Therefore the divine person of the Son and the divine person of the Holy Spirit can not be two different individuals but are one and the same individual. Therefore God as they describe him can not be three separate different individuals who are identical which would be contradictory, but instead God must be one individual who can be described metaphorically in at least three overlapping ways as a Father, Son or Word and Holy Spirit.
Therefore the trinity as those religious groups describe them can not exist if it is one God who is three different individuals with identical properties because that would be a contradiction.
One Biblical Trinitarian God composed of three individuals could exist if the individuals are not omnipotent but simply very powerful and each have different properties and abilities. These individuals might also have different desires and moral preferences.
A trinity could hypothetically exist without contradiction in which one God is composed of three individuals who are different because they are not omnipotent and each individual can do different things the other two individuals can not do. 0, 1, 2 or 3 out of 3 individuals might be corporeal. 0, 1, 2 or 3 out of 3 individuals might be omnipresent. 0, 1, 2 or 3 out of 3 individuals might exist in a specific spatial temporal location instead of being omnipresent. 0, 1, 2 or 3 out of 3 individuals might not exist in any spatial temporal location nor be omnipresent. Each might or might not have different desires, moral preferences or knowledge than one or both of the other two.
The Bible does not actually contain the word "omnipotent" in it, but simply describes God in many ways possibly implying he is more powerful than all other sentient beings described in the Bible. I say possibly because some Bible readers might argue God's behavior can be controlled through a sacrifice system or other behavior by sentient beings based on many cases where God "goes berserk" until a religious ritual is done to stop his wraith or where God repents based on human decisions. An example might be Exodus 4:24-26 where God is stopped from killing through a circumcision ritual, which might be viewed as a weakness most humans do not have in which God either can not stop himself from killing of his own volition without the ritual or wants to kill of his own volition but is prevented from doing so by the ritual. If humans can force God to kill or avoid killing through performing or choosing not to perform rituals then there are certain aspects in which humans are more powerful than God. There are other ways to look at this in which it is not a weakness and God could kill or not kill as he pleased but chose to make a transaction of not killing in exchange for the ritual and a transaction of killing in exchange for the lack of a ritual. Thus the ritual or lack of the ritual could not be used to force God to kill or to stop God from killing and thus this does not demonstrate a weakness God has that humans do not have. Someone might also argue that it is not the ritual but the condition of the human heart performing the ritual and that if someone performs the correct ritual with the wrong attitude then God will not honor the transaction.
I do not deny the possibility that the God of the Bible is one God who is composed of three individuals, but I do deny the possibility that the God of the Bible is one God composed of two or more omnipotent individuals. In order for an individual to be omnipotent they must also be non corporeal, undetectable, omniscient and omnipresent in the sense of being able to exert their influence over all of space and time.
An omnipotent individual can not be created because if it was created it's creator would have at least one ability it does not have since the creator could have chosen not to create the omnipotent individual. If omnipotent individuals had to have a physical body exist in space -time whether they wanted to or not they would be limited in power because they could not choose not to have a body. The body of an avatar or incarnation of an omnipotent individual could not be the same as the omnipotent individual because the body would be created since the omnipotent individual can choose whether or not the body is there and since the body would be created then the body could not be an omnipotent individual because an omnipotent individual would have to be uncreated therefore omnipotent individuals must be non corporeal or lacking a physical body. An omnipotent individual could not exist as a corporeal body that could be killed ending their power.
An omnipotent individual must be undetectable because if they did not want someone to know something about them and could not prevent that person from knowing it there would be a limit to their power. An omnipotent individual must also be undetectable through the five senses because they are non corporeal. A omnipotent individual however could choose to reveal their existence either through communicating using physical things they created or planting thoughts in the minds of individuals non materially.
An omnipotent individual must be omnipresent in the sense of having no point in space-time they could not control. An omnipotent individual must be present or located nowhere in the sense of being non corporeal and having no location people can go to in order to interfere with them or stop them from doing what they want to through through physical force. There is no location someone can go to in order to physically harm or kill an omnipotent individual.
An omnipotent individual must be omniscient or at least know everything that can be done because if there was something they could do only if they knew certain things and not knowing those things prevented them from doing it then not being omniscient or at least not knowing everything that can be done would prevent them from being omnipotent. Also if there was something they wanted to know and if they lacked the power to know it then they would be lacking in power and not omnipotent.
Two or more omnipotent individuals can not exist simultaneously because all those properties omnipresence, non corporeal and non detectable would have to be the same in order to be omnipotent and additionally two omnipotent individuals can not desire for different mutually exclusive outcomes to happen because then only one could get their desire satisfied and the one who did not get their desire satisfied would not be omnipotent. They can not be in a different location, have different powers, skills or abilities, different mutually exclusive goals, moral preferences, desires, wills or anything else that makes them different in order to be different individuals if they are both omnipotent.
I do not deny the possibility that the God of the Bible is one God who is composed of three individuals, but I do deny the possibility that the God of the Bible is one God composed of three individuals with the properties Roman Catholics, Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and Missouri Synod Lutherans claim each of the three persons have.
Person is a very bad word choice and was not the original word used in the different definitions of each of their versions of the Trinity used by early Christian denominations. The Trinity was not originally defined as three persons but three personas or three hypostasis or three qnuma or three substantia ( or maybe three something else I have not listed ) in any of the early definitions that were later mistranslated as person in English.
Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance); thus when speaking of three "hypostases" in the Godhead, they might suspect three "substances" or tritheism. However, from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220530202009/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)
In early Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ousia ('essence'), substantia ('substance') or qnoma (specific term in Syriac Christianity).
http://web.archive.org/web/20220530202009/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)
Qnuma, is an Aramaic word. The nearest equivalent is the Greek “hypostasis”, in Latin “substantia” and in English “substance”.
http://nestorian.org/
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
http://nestorian.org/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trinity+three+substantia&ia=web
person (n.)
early 13c., from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "mask, false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to sound through" (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), "but the long o makes a difficulty ...." Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." Klein goes on to say this is ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone.
In legal use, "corporate body or corporation having legal rights," 15c., short for person aggregate (c. 1400), person corporate (mid-15c.). The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). In person "by bodily presence" is from 1560s. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls.
http://web.archive.org/web/20171024130921/https://www.etymonline.com/word/person
But those groups do not say that God is the three individuals of the Father, the Son or Word and the Holy Spirit but instead that God is the three persons of the Father, the Son or Word and the Holy Spirit.
A person to me implies exactly one single individual human. But, some judges ruled that corporations are people. If one single corporation is a single person then is that person made out of multiple people since a single corporation maybe owned by multiple board members who are people, who hire multiple employees that are people and serve multiple customers who are people? Person is a very poor word choice and was not the original word choice in the early Church institutions.
Historically in many creeds there is one God who is listed as the set of the hypostasis / persona of the Father, the hypostasis / persona of the Holy Spirit and the hypostasis / persona of the Son
The word person should never be used because it is misleading when the original creeds either said hypostasis or persona but not person. The word person did not exist to the best of my knowledge based on the eymological dictionary entry until the 12th century AD and thus could not have been used in any creed or translation of a creed written prior to that date. In modern English both the word person and the word persona are used so it would not be wrong to use the word persona in English when translating a Latin text that has the Latin word persona in it. When reading the creeds persona will sometimes appear as personae because that is it's plural form which would be equivelent to personas in English. The words person and persona in English both come from the Latin word persona which comes from the Etruscan word persona. Choosing to use the English word person instead of the English word persona is in modern English translations is theologically biased because three persons in modern English is three individuals and can not include exactly one individual in the mind of a common person but three personas in English is one or more individual and can include one or three individuals. Now in a legal setting one individual can try to register as being a separate corporate person and thus be multiple persons on paper or multiple individuals can register to be counted as only one corporate person on paper. But, that is not what a common person usually first thinks of when they hear the word person.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220609024743/https://latin.cactus2000.de/noun/shownoun_en.php?n=persona
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=persona+noun+decline&ia=web
One individual can have multiple personas each being a facemask used in acting to play the part of someone else
Or a single woman can have at least seven different personas, as a mother, as a wife, as a daughter, as a sister, as a friend, as a business owner, and unfortunately also as an employee and act differently as each persona but be the same individual
This is very confusing then is the trinity three individuals if it is three persons or is it one individual that is three personas.
The three hypostasis model of God is used by the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and many other denominations with Roman Catholic origins such as Lutherans and Anglicans who copied the trinity from Roman Catholics. But, as far as I know only one hypostasis is mentioned in the Bible in regards to God and or the incarnation of God in which the son is called the express image of the hypostasis of God in Hebrews 1:3
The Greek word in Hebrews 1:3 KJV that is misrepresented as Person is a translation of the Greek word transliterated as hypostasis in one of it's dictionary forms for strong's number G5287 and is sometimes translated as nature, being, charecter, substance or essence in other translations of Hebrews 1:3
http://web.archive.org/web/20220508054122/https://www.biblehub.com/hebrews/1-3.htm
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 1:3 King James Version
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his hypostasis, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
http://web.archive.org/web/20201124063334/https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/heb/1/1/t_conc_1134003
How many hypostasis does the Bible say God has?
Hebrews 1:3 leaves us with a one hypostasis model of God, maybe two if the image of a hypostasis is an additional hypostasis, or maybe zero if the human incarnation of God is a hypostasis of God who has zero hypostasis. Zero hypostasis could be justified because God has no physical body, is transcendent, undetectable, invisible, and can not be touched, seen, heard, tasted, smelled or physically harmed, at the same time God's incarnation has a physical body and could be the one hypostasis mentioned in Hebrews 1:3. Two hypostasis could be justified if the Son is counted as a hypostasis and whatever or whoever the Son is an image of is also counted as a hypostasis. Any number more than two including three could be justified because there could be hypostasis not listed in Hebrews 1:3. Exactly one could be justified if it is in singular form because it is not plural and it is counting a constant non variable number of things. Singular and plural forms do not explain quantity when used to describe items whose quantities change with time.
The Bible does not confirm or deny that God could be any number of hypostasis someone could claim. The other uses of the Greek word transliterated as hypostasis other than the one in Hebrews 1:3 do not make sense for use in counting how many hypostasis God has.
The original author could have used a Greek word that clearly means person in Hebrews 1:3 but chose not to, yet some translators chose to put the word person there when they could have chosen other words that do not mean person as other translators have done. My guess as to why is because some of the Latin versions of the Greek creeds that use hypostasis use the word persona so when they saw hypostasis in the Bible they chose to use the word person to make it similar to the Latin creeds that replace hypostasis with persona.
In Hebrews 1:3 the word person was translated from hypostasis not from anthropos nor aner nor any other Greek word I have not listed that would better fit the definition of a person. A person would be a human individual. A human individual is sometimes called a man without regard of gender. Therefore a man can mean a person. Anthropos can mean humankind in general but can also mean an individual human or individual man or a certain man or in other words a person or a certain person as in Matthew 13:44 or Matthew 21:28. The word Aner can have a gender specific meaning of husband but also can have a gender neutral meaning of a man as in a person.
K. Wuest, "There are two words in Greek which mean 'man,' anēr, which refers to a male individual of the human reace, and anthrōpos, which is the racial, generic term, and which has the general idea of 'mankind' " (3, Great Truths to Live By, 46).]
http://web.archive.org/web/20220515160847/https://www.biblehub.com/greek/444.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20211006214329/https://biblehub.com/greek/ane_r_435.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20200929045942/https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/anthropos
http://web.archive.org/web/20220609063314/https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/13/1/t_conc_942044
http://web.archive.org/web/20220609064354/https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/mat/21/1/t_conc_950028
http://web.archive.org/web/20220419163135/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G444&t=KJV&ot=TR&word=%E1%BC%84%CE%BD%CE%B8%CF%81%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%82
Hypostasis has several meanings but does not mean person
Three out of those five refer to hypostasis as confidence or confident in King James and one out of five as substance in King James, the only place it is translsted ss person is in Hebrews 1:3 where some other translations do not call it a person but a nature, substance or essence. If hypostasis does not mean person in Hebrews 1:3 then there are zero verses in the Bible in which hypostasis means person. A hypostasis can mean a foundation but can not mean a person. The substance of someone's faith is their foundation of faith as in Hebrews 11:3. If something has a sturdy, strong, stable or firm foundation you can be confident in it as in the other uses of it to refer to confidence. Hypostasis comes from the preposition hypo plus the word stasis neither of which means person and neither of which when combined means person. A person can be a real thing with foundation in reality or a hypostasis as opposed to a non existent thing like a two dimensional square circle with no foundation in physical or mental reality which is not a hypostasis, but that does not mean that the word hypostasis has the same meaning as the word person. In much the same way that a person is brown or pale or can be brown or pale or has brown or pale skin but that does not mean the word brown or pale has the same meaning as the word person. To say that a person has a hypostasis or is a hypostasis can mean that the person foundationally exists in reality. To call a hypostasis a person is to say that something that foundationally exists in reality is a person.
Thayers - "that which has actual existence; a substance, real being:"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220420080904/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g5287/kjv/tr/0-1/
http://web.archive.org/web/20220420080904mp_/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g5287/kjv/tr/0-1/
http://web.archive.org/web/20210813002216/https://biblehub.com/greek/5287.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20220602185353/https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hypostasis
http://web.archive.org/web/20220428221932/https://biblehub.com/greek/5259.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20220313050112/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2476/kjv/tr/0-1/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220419172334/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g5259/kjv/tr/0-1/
http://web.archive.org/web/20211103170426/https://www.etymonline.com/word/stasis
http://web.archive.org/web/20211118104453/https://www.etymonline.com/word/Hypostasis
http://web.archive.org/web/20220317075438/https://biblehub.com/greek/2476.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20220430153118/https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20220609143155/https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4714/kjv/tr/0-1/
As far as I am concerned there is no fixed number of hypostasis that God is and they could be divided differently just as the ten commandments could actually be anywhere from nine to eleven commandments depending on how the last and first two are split or fused. Roman Catholics divide the ten commandments differently than some protestants by merging the first two and splitting the last one in two or those protestants split the first one and merge the last two. A double merger would result in nine and a double split in eleven. Many other things could be counted as different numbers depending on what definition is being used. For example body composition could be divided into two components of fat free mass and fat mass or into four components of water, muscle, fat and bone and there would be no heretical answer resulting in wars with blood shed and banning people from membership to health clubs or academic research societies.
So I suggest that God is not three separate and different individuals a Father, a Son or Word and a Holy Spirit. But, that God is one single individual who is metaphorically described in many ways, like a mother, like a vine with branches, like a Shepherd, like a consuming fire and also like a Father, Son or Spirit. Father, Son, Word and Spirit are four different metaphors used to describe God. Sometimes the Son or the Word describes God metaphorically and sometimes the Son or the Word do not describe God, but instead describe the human incarnation of God metaphorically.
The Father
God has no biological children
God is neither biologically male nor female
When the pronoun "he" is used instead of "it" to refer to God this maybe because in Hebrew all words were only linguistically masculine or feminine. When speaking to a mixed audience of men and women in Hebrew masculine linguistic gender is used to greet the audience and when speaking to an audience of only men masculine linguistic gender is used to greet the audience but when speaking to an audience of only women female linguistic gender is used to greet the audience. When you do not know what gender a human is the default linguistic gender to use in Hebrew is masculine
Sometimes God is called a father or a mother as a metaphor with how he interacts with that which he has created, especially humans and or sentient beings like a parent
Sometimes when God is called the father it is a metaphor for the transcendence of God
https://web.archive.org/web/20220409153642/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)
Sometimes when God is called the father it refers to his non corporeal and undetectable nature and to that his mind can not be read by sentient beings he has created.
No one can know anything about God except that he chooses to reveal it through a physical means or through working on a sentient beings mind, conscience or spirit non materially.
The father can refer to a metaphor of how a father or mother can sometimes be unseen by people far away from him but send his son or daughter as a messenger to people who can be close enough to them to see them, hear them, touch them and smell them and receive a message through the unseen parent through them.
The Son of God, The Word of God
God is neither biologically male nor female
God has no biological children
God is called by the name of Jesus or salvation as well as many other names, titles or descriptions
God created a human body who has the same name as himself that I will call human Jesus. God could be called divine Jesus but I will simply call divine Jesus by the name of God throughout most of this article.
Human Jesus is not divine having been created.
Divine Jesus is neither corporeal, nor detectable. Divine Jesus has no physical human body and in that sense divine Jesus is not human.
Human Jesus can not be divine and divine Jesus can not be human because some of the properties of humanity and the properties of divinity are mutually exclusive. Someone might object and say the properties of humanity and the properties of divinity can overlap because man was made in the image of God and because humans can be partakers of the divine nature. But I would argue that partaking of the divine nature or being in the image of God only applies to humans for those properties of divinity which are not mutually exclusive with the properties of humanity and does not apply with the properties of divinity which are mutually exclusive with the properties of humanity. See 2 Peter 1:4, Genesis 1:27, Genesis 9:6, Romans 8:29, 1 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Corinthians 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15 and Colossians 3:10
Divine Jesus is God and God did not create himself. Divine Jesus was not conceived, born, begotten, created, generated or adopted by God nor by the Father who is a metaphor for God. Sometimes the Son is called Monogenes which may lead to many misunderstandings when it is translated as begotten. The Word transliterated as Monogenes can translate to begotten but can alternatively translate to unique. Monogenes can mean one of a kind, an unique thing, a child or an only child, or an only son, and or an only daughter. When the Son is used as a metaphor for God it does not mean that he was conceived, born, begotten, created, generated or adopted but it has a different meaning or set of meanings at least some of which I will speculate later. God is monogenes, or unique from the point of view of any sentient beings he created in that he is more powerful than all sentient beings he has created. God is monogenes, or unique from the point of view of any sentient beings he created in that all sentient beings that God created can only communicate with other sentient beings created by God with the one unique exception that when they communicate with God they are communicating with a sentient being that has not been created by God. God is probably monogenes or uniquely different in a one of a kind way from the sentient beings he created, from the point of view of the sentient beings he created in many different ways I have not mentioned. Human Jesus was born so it maybe correct to call human Jesus monogenes in the sense of being begotten if that is to mean created, or born. God has no body and thus no sperm and no DNA and is not human Jesus biological father nor genetic father but God instead created human Jesus body supernaturally inside of the virgin Mary's womb or uterus without sexual intercourse or sperm donation. Human Jesus Y chromosome does not have God's DNA because God has no DNA. Human Jesus X chromosome might or might not contain the DNA from one of the virgin Mary's two X chromosomes. Human Jesus might be an adopted child of God in some of the same ways that other humans can be called adopted children of God. Human Jesus might be an adopted child of God in some unique or monogenes way that other humans can not be called adopted children of God in that specific way. In any correct sense that Human Jesus was adopted by God it does not negate that divine Jesus is God. If human Jesus was adopted by God I would guess it was probably immediately upon his creation and not delayed until his his baptism, his resurrection, his ascension or some other later event in his life. Human Jesus might be unique among all humans that have been born in some specific way that could be called monogenes. Human Jesus might be a uniquely begotten or monogenes child of God in the sense that no other human was born of a virgin and Adam and Eve might be the only other humans than Jesus created by God without the union of a sperm and a egg. Human Jesus might be unique or monogenes among all other humans that have been born in that he is the incarnation of God in a special and unique way they are not and possesses a unique, brain, mind, will, spirit and or personality to represent God in a special unique way in this regard as I will speculate later.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220324003006/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogen%C4%93s
https://web.archive.org/web/20220520083526/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism
Another name or title shared by both human and divine Jesus is Immanuel or Emmanuel meaning "God with us." In the case of human Jesus, the name Emmanuel refers to human Jesus being the created incarnation of God made to dwell with humanity in the flesh. In the case of divine Jesus, the name Emmanuel refers to that God would create a human incarnation to be with humanity. In the case of divine Jesus, the name Emmanuel refers to the immanence of God.
Sometimes when God is called the Son it is a metaphor for the immanence of God
https://web.archive.org/web/20220507011232/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
The father can refer to a metaphor of how a father or mother can sometimes be unseen by people far away from him but send his son or daughter as a messenger to people who can be close enough to them to see. In such a case when the Son is used as a metaphor to describe God it refers to God communicating information about himself or the moral code he wishes humans to obey. The Word also can be a similar metaphor for God communicating information. The Son is also used as a metaphor for human Jesus who is a messenger of God that people can see, hear and touch up close even though they can not reach God who is non corporeal, silent and invisible having no body to touch, hear or see. The Word can also be a similar metaphor for human Jesus communicating information as a messenger of God.
God reveals information about himself to humanity through words spoken audibly through a physical medium, written on a physical medium or put in the mind non materially or spiritually without the use of a physical medium
Sometimes the Son or the Word are metaphors for God. When the Son or the Word created all physical things that the sentient beings he created can physically interact with he created a medium by which God can communicate with sentient beings through if and when he chooses to do so. One example of doing such is the fulfillment of prophecy which is the means by which creation reveals God's nature as described in Romans 1:19-20
The Word is sometimes a metaphor for human Jesus. Human Jesus reveals what a life in obedience to God's words would be like
Human Jesus has a human will, mind, spirit and conscience that I will call a mind for short, not personally knowing the difference if any between a mind and a spirit
Human Jesus mind has God's personality but not God's level of knowledge
Human Jesus mind likes for humans to choose to do the same things that God likes humans to choose to do and hates for humans to do the same things that God hates for humans to choose to do except that Jesus human mind does not have the same amount of knowledge as God's mind
Human Jesus has one human mind and one human personality not two minds nor two personalities. Human Jesus does not have God's personality or God's mind inside him plus an additional second mortal personality or mortal mind. Human Jesus has the same personality that God would have except modified to be the way his personality would be different if he was a detectable corporeal mortal human able to be effected by physical and chemical changes, who was not omniscient, not omnipresent and not omnipotent.
For an example Jesus human mind like God's mind both hate murder but Jesus human mind and or brain needs to be educated as to know what physical actions cause death in order to understand if a physical action is murder therefore Jesus still needed a moral education as he grew up. Human Jesus was not born having a knowledge of the words in the old testament but needed to read or hear the words to know what they were expect possibly if revealed to him by God as God could reveal information to a Prophet. But, even if God sometimes prophetically revealed portions of the old testament to human Jesus without him reading or hearing those words through a physical medium he at least read and studied some of the old testament in order to learn it because he was not omniscient. The Mosaic law was not based on God's moral preferences alone. The Mosaic law was based on a combination of God's moral preferences and a system for enforcing punishment for violating God's moral preferences that a specific community of humans unanimously agreed to as mentioned in Exodus 19:7-8. Different individuals sometimes have different moral value systems. The Mosaic law might or might not have also additionally included punishments for actions that violated the preferences of members of that community that did not actually violate the moral preferences of God, but only to the degree that enacting such punishments would not violate God's moral preferences. This might have occurred if people in the community really did not want something done and agreed to the possibility of being punished for such things in exchange for the assurance that other people doing those things they did not like would be punished. Even though God might have been indifferent to such things he might have been OK with punishment for such things as long as the community unanimously agreed to it as long as such punishment was not against God's moral preferences in such a case. Human Jesus having the same moral preferences as God would not be sufficient for human Jesus to automatically know the Mosaic law without study because it required additional historical knowledge of what that specific community agreed to do.
Human Jesus through his physical nature is born having some likes and dislikes that mortal humans would have such as liking physical pleasure or disliking physical pain and thus could be tempted to sin in a similar manner to other mortal humans and yet choose not to take sinful actions
Human Jesus is biologically male
Human Jesus has no biological father but Joseph was his adopted father
Mary is the biological mother of human Jesus but is not the mother of God.
Mary was a virgin when human Jesus was created inside her womb by God and was still a virgin until the birth of Jesus, but sometime after Jesus birth she had physical relations with Joseph. I will have a separate section later on this in regards to Roman Catholic officials giving their seal of approval to translations of Mathew 1:24-25 that seem to confirm this claim
The Spirit
The Spirit as a metaphor for God sometimes means that God reveals information about himself to humanity through spiritual or non material means
The proceeding or sending of the Holy Spirit might not literally refer to travel but as a metaphor for God using spiritual or non material means to remind eye witnesses of the words of human Jesus teaching after human Jesus physical body left or no longer exists near his disciples upon his ascension so that they could orally preach the history of human Jesus words and actions and so that people could later write down what they witnessed human Jesus say and do or write down what other witnesses told them about the words and actions of human Jesus
The proceeding or sending of the Holy Spirit might not literally refer to travel but as a metaphor for God using spiritual or non material means to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment or in other words to communicate God's moral code to people even after human Jesus ascension just as God has done prior to human Jesus ascension even prior to human Jesus birth and as far back as in old testament times. But, Jesus told them the spirit would be sent to comfort them that they would be reminded of God's moral code spiritually or non materially even without Jesus there to use a physical medium to tell them verbally.
Sometimes God reveals moral information to someone's conscience without revealing physical, scientific or historical information. God spiritually or non materially reminds or reveals his moral code to people through interacting with their mind and conscious but does not make them omniscient when doing so and often does not provide non moral sources of information to them. Sometimes is up to an individual to figure out the physical consequences of an action by studying the laws of physics and chemistry. Sometimes, the spirit will tell the person whether the physical consequences of an action the person thinks would happen are ethical or unethical to do but not whether the physical consequences that will really happen as the result of an action are ethical or unethical to do. Sometimes the Spirit has provided non moral sources of information to people who were Prophets in the past such as future events to help confirm that they are receiving information from God.
Regarding the relationship between Joseph and Mary
"And he knew her not til she brought forth her first borne Sonne: & called his name IESVS."
Mathew 1:25 Douay Rheims earlier edition not written in modern English spelling
https://web.archive.org/web/20210418032516/https://originaldouayrheims.com/matthew
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Mathew 1:25 Matthew 1 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110804033915/biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=DRA
One definition of the word "knew" when used in some Bible translations is as follows
From c. 1200 as "to experience, live through." Meaning "to have sexual intercourse with," also found in other modern languages, is attested from c. 1200, from the Old Testament (Genesis iv.1)
https://web.archive.org/web/20220408123615/https://www.etymonline.com/word/knew
How can you tell if a Bible is Catholic?
Another thing to check if it is a Catholic Bible is to check the imprimatur and Nihil Obstat with the signature of the Pope, Cardinal or Bishop:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220501165859/https://www.caagesf.org/faq/faq-why-is-the-catholic-bible-different.html
Some Douay Rheims editions are marked with a Roman Catholic Imprimatur as Nihil Obstat
https://web.archive.org/web/20220501094227/https://originaldouayrheims.com/imprimatur
Imprimatur is an official approval from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church stating that a literary or similar work is totally free from error in all matters of faith and doctrine and hence acceptable reading for faithful Catholics.
noun, Roman Catholic Church.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040920055737/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur
nihil obstat
noun, Roman Catholic Church.
1.
permission to publish a book, granted by an official censor who, upon examining it, has certified that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160413162724/https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nihil-obstat
More reading on nihil obstat and imprimatur is available here
https://web.archive.org/web/20131206083901/https://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-are-imprimatur-and-nihil-obstat-in-catholic-book/
Rules about publishing according to the code of Canon law
https://web.archive.org/web/20190408012315/https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann822-833_en.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190406231512/https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/cic_index_en.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220501160925/https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/publishing-whatever-one-wants-to-romes-nihil-obstat-and-imprimatur-and-current-trends-in-catholic-apologetics/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=is+the+douay+rheims+nihil+upstat&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=let+it+be+approved+catholic+stamp&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nihil+obstat+catholic+bibles&ia=web
Extent and limit of God's knowledge and power
There is no physical object we mortals interact with that the deity Jesus has not created and is not in charge of except that which he chooses to give us choice to control which he could remove from us at any time. Jesus either created the laws of logic and chose to only have that which he has created work in ways consistent with the laws of logic such that no irreconcilable contradictions occur among created things or the deity Jesus is limited by the laws of logic not by choice but by the nature of what the deity Jesus is. The deity Jesus power is so great that no thing created by the deity Jesus can prevent the deity Jesus from doing what he would choose to do or force him to do what he would not choose to do. There is no physical or chemical change in the universe a mortal can cause that the deity Jesus is incapable of causing were he to choose to do so. There is no physical or chemical change in the universe a mortal can prevent from happening that the deity Jesus is incapable of preventing were he to choose to do so. But the deity Jesus is bound and limited by a moral code and will not chose to do things that violate his own moral code. The moral code that the deity Jesus is bound by is not the same as the moral code the deity Jesus requests of mortals in that the deity Jesus is incredibly permissive there are many decisions the deity Jesus would prefer mortals do not make but yet has not stopped them from making. The deity Jesus does not want humans to disobey the moral code he has prescribed for them and yet often does not miraculous prevent them from taking the physical actions that violate the moral code he prescribes for mortals. The deity Jesus for example prescribes mortals should not murder but does not always miraculously stop mortals from murdering. There is nothing any sentient being God has created knows about that God does not know about. Some humans and or sentient beings may think God can not personally experience what it is like to suffer, be miserable, experience pain or be tempted to sin, although it may or may not be true that God might not personally experience such things in the way they do he can read all the minds of every sentient being he has created and know what their experiences with such things were like for each and every one of them individually.
Non corporeality, immortality, bodylessness, immortality, not subject to physical or chemical change
Presence
Everywhere in the sense of
Some places but not others in the sense of
Nowhere in the sense of
Some of the properties of humanity are mutually exclusive with the properties of divinty
There is a metaphor that the mutually exclusive properties of humanity can not mix with the properties of divinity in the same way that mixing blue ink and yellow ink would produce green ink that is neither blue nor yellow but that a word could be written in balloon letters with Blue ink on the outside and Yellow ink on the inside where neither ink changes the properties of their colors and the written word contains a union of adherence between Blue and Yellow as opposed to a mingled union of Blue and Yellow that is neither Blue or Yellow but Green. I have changed the colors to be more understandable to modern readers who learned about the three primary pigment colors then the colors referenced in the book of Marganitha which are based on specific artistic and writing technology of their time period.
Insert image later
https://web.archive.org/web/20200722220109/http://nestorian.org/body_book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html
Watch video can anyone see God by Dr Brown Messianic Jewish PhD if it is still available links do not play video with archive but may help you find the video
https://vimeo.com/39426411
https://web.archive.org/web/20190420061451/https://vimeo.com/39426411
http://web.archive.org/web/20220429231813/https://vimeo.com/39426411
If I must call God three hypostasis or three persona or three modes for simplification sake even though I think it is wrong on certain details to do so and more or less than three can be used.
When these terms refer to hyostasis or persona then the father refers to God's transcendance or mode of non communication, the Son or Word to God's immanence through the mode of communicating through physical medium and the Spirit to God's immanence through the mode of communicating through non physical means.
The father does not always refer to a hypostasis in the Bible since it is used as a metaphor for God being like a parent. When the father is used to refer to a hypostasis it refers to God's non corporeal nature non obligation to communicate with sentient beings through physical medium and his non obligation to communicate with sentient beings in a non material manner. It is God's ability to retain a mode of undetectable non interaction from the point of view of sentient beings he has created. God can hide from sentient beings by simply not communicating with them since they can not read his mind without his consent to detect him non materially and he has no body to detect with the five senses so they can not detect the hypostasis of the father except as revealed by the hypostasis of the Son / Word or Spirit. The Son / Word does not necessarily always refer to a hypostasis but when it does it refers to God's mode of communicating with that which he has created through physical medium. The Spirit does not necessarily always refer to a hypostasis but when it does it refers to God's mode of communicating with that which he has created through non material means.
Each of these hypostasis maybe mistaken for different individuals because the mode by which they interact with humanity may create the appearance of a different persona with a different personality but they are three hypostasis of one and the same individual. Someone may behave differently by phone, text message, video chat, email, writing letters, face to face, in crowds, in groups of friends, alone by themself or meeting someone one to one and have multiple personas in which they behave differently using different modes of communication or choosing to act differently in different circumstances but be the same individual.
The Father sometimes refers to God not being obligated to communicate so may seem like a different persona then the hypostasis of the Son / Word and the hypostasis of the Spirit.
The hypostasis of the Son / Word may seem like a different persona than the hypostasis of the Spirit because the Son communicates through physical means such as the incarnation.
The divine hypostasis of the Son is the mode by which God communicates through physical means including human Jesus who was a created non divine human who represents how God would behave if he was not divine but had the same limitations as humans and also was obedient to the moral code God prescribed for humans in the Israelite community during a specific place and time. Because the human incarnation the divine hypostasis of the Son created as a means to communicate is not divine and is subject to human limitations the divine hypostasis of the Son may seem like a different persona than the hypostasis of the father and the hypostasis of the Spirit.
The hypostasis of the Spirit may appear to be a different persona than the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Father because of the non material means of communication as opposed to the Sons material means of communication and the Fathers non communication.
When people listen to understand correctly and obey the moral principles in harmony with the natural laws by which the universe created by God functions as communicated to them physically by the hypostasis of the Son and non materially through the hypostasis of the Spirit they become partakers of the divine nature. Each partaker of the divine nature represents God but if you look at each one of them every one of them has a different persona unique to them as a individual. God does not require everyone to act the same he simply prescribes them not to do certain things but people can behave differently while meeting those requirements. God is one individual and each partaker of the divine nature is a different individual than God yet their persona represents both themself as an individual and represents God as a individual. If each one was thought to represent God then God could be mistaken for many individuals each with a different personality. The partakers of the divine nature might have different oreferences for food and hobbies but would be united in certain moral principles they have in common like not to murder. Even though God is often thought of as three personas, he has as many personas as there are people who chose to partake in his divine nature and yet God is still no more than one individual. Those who partake of God's divine nature do not decrease from a group of many individuals to a uniform template copy of one individual mind, will and personality in many different bodies but retain their identities as multiple unique individuals, with each individual's body having it's own unique mind, will and personality.
Different denominations claims about specific versions of the Trinity and Incarnation and how those claims were used to unethically influence people by dividing them into insiders and outsiders over petty issues of no moral relevance in terms of day to day life decisions
http://web.archive.org/web/20220516124304/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
http://web.archive.org/web/20220314203811/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
http://web.archive.org/web/20220601151308/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism
http://web.archive.org/web/20220601151253/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism
http://web.archive.org/web/20220529071741/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils
http://web.archive.org/web/20220501112510/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_ecumenical_councils
http://web.archive.org/web/20220609033956/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_Catholic_ecumenical_councils
http://web.archive.org/web/20210516160110/http://nestorian.org/unofficial_home_page_of_the_one_holy_catholic_and_apostolic_chur.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20220516153555/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutychianism
http://web.archive.org/web/20220601151253/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism
Although these groups debate about in what manner Jesus is God with regards to his human nature most groups that label themselves as Christian believe Jesus is God in one manner or another, even if in different manners.
How the divinity of Jesus relates to the gospel
Belief, Trust, Obedience or Faith in Jesus does not mean
1 To believe in the trinity even if the trinity is true
2 To believe Jesus was executed even if Jesus human nature really was executed
3 To believe Jesus human nature rose from the dead even if Jesus really rose from the dead
4 To believe your sins are forgiven through Jesus execution and or ressurection even if those are the means by which God chose to forgive sins
5 To believe you are not saved by doing good works even if you are not saved by doing good works
6 To believe you have sinned even if you have sinned
7 To believe any claim in a Churches statement of faith even if that claim is true
8 To believe any claim in the Bible is true even if that claim is true
9 Believing in Jesus does not mean believing something someone else told you even if they are correct this time. It certainly does not mean believing everything an authority figure tells you even when that authority figure can be confirmed to have given incorrect information if you bothered to investigate
10 Obeying Jesus does not mean obeying everything an authority figure tells you to do without examining if it would be unethical to obey them on a case by case basis
Belief in Jesus is an attitude of the heart
It is wrong to claim belief in Jesus means belief in certain facts about Jesus. What does belief in Jesus mean then? If Jesus is God in some manner or another then someone who believes in Jesus believes in God. Belief in God might influence someone to be willing to investigate whether or not those claims are true or not out of having a listening attitude towards God, but someone who believes in God will not necessarily automatically believe such claims are dogmatically true without investigation just because a human being who is not divine has made them. For those who deny the divinity of Jesus in any way shape or form but still believe Jesus was a prophet or for those who do not even believe Jesus was a prophet but believe he taught good moral principles in allignment with the natural law or moral code God has ordained for humanity to live in harmony with, belief in Jesus means an attitude of willingness to learn what God has taught through Jesus and still means belief in God in that sense or way.
"However, Jesus learned that because of their attitude of heart, some could grasp his teaching and be great men and members of the kingdom of God, but
some were crooked-hearted. They would never accept the word and make it
take root and grow themselves together with the word of God."
Quote from portion of Samuel Lee Sermon on Mark chapter 4:1-20
https://web.archive.org/web/20220426084710/http://www.chicagoubf.org/sermon-2/message-category?wpdf_download_file=L2hvbWUzL3ViZnR2b3JnL3B1YmxpY19odG1sL2NoaWNhZ291YmYvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzL2FyY2hpdmUvU2FtdWVsTGVlL01rMjAwMFNML21lc3NhZ2VzL01rMDRfMjEtMzRtLmRvYw%3D%3D
https://web.archive.org/web/20190827040650/https://www.chicagoubf.org/sermon-2/message-category
Some theologians think killing things and achieving a high score is necessary for forgiveness
There is a game you have to win to get forgiveness
You have to get to either zero points or a positive score when you die, make it to the end when everyone is judged while still alive or are prematurely raptured before dying to win. If you are playing in purgatory mode if your performed well enough but did not make a high enough score to win and one of these three events happen you get to play over time and can not win until you receive a high enough score
Winning will result in eternal life, in heaven, paradise or a newly recreated earth
Losing occurs if you die or stay alive to the end when everyone is judged but still have a negative score
Losing will result in eternal suffering or going out of existence
You are born with negative points because you inherited guilt from Adam
If you violate any of God's commands even one time you receive more negative points than you can ever gain through a lifetime of good deeds
Good deeds are worth no points or not enough positive points to earn forgiveness. Not doing a good deed you could have done might cause you to lose points
If the final boss Jesus has not been killed yet then if not enough animals are killed through proper sacrifices to temporarily cover over negative points through rule violations, all of humanity is disqualified or people individually are disqualified and can no longer play, or perhaps if they are lucky enough not to be disqualified God will instead throw in some calamities like plagues, invading armies, animals eating your crops, people being struck dead, and so on until more animal sacrifices are made
Killing animals through a proper sacrifice are worth enough positive points to keep you in the game or reduce the number of calamities but never enough to earn forgiveness
Killing the final boss Jesus is the only way for people to earn enough positive points for any human beings to be able to win the game, but the people who kill Jesus do not get any points by killing him, instead they allow other people to have access to Jesus points
There are multiple versions of the game for how to access Jesus points some are called imputed righteousness and infused righteousness
In the imputed righteousness version you have to make certain criteria and then those who meet the criteria will receive more positive points transferred from Jesus game account to their game account and always win as long as those criteria are met
The imputed righteousness game can include some but not all of the following game variations
1 Performing the work of believing in the right things is mandatory to receive imputed righteousness
2 Believing in the wrong things will disqualify you from imputed righteousness you must perform the work not to believe in the wrong things. For example some people believe that anyone who believes they are saved by works is damned but ironically those people are trying to be saved by the works of not believing they are saved by works and if their belief is correct then they are surely damned for believing the work of not believing you are saved by works is necessary to be saved.
3 Predestined not to have a choice - God unconditionally elects some for irresistible grace who receive imputed righteousness whether they want it or not and unconditionally elects others for irresistible disgrace who God will not impute righteousness and prevents from having the choice to receive imputed righteousness.
In order to ensure specific people are conceived who he elected to be saved or damned before their conception God also chooses who procreates with who because if someone could choose not to procreate with someone else they could prevent the election of their children by preventing their existence this might causes irresistible adultery for some people or might cause irresistible violations of Deuteronomy 24 if they have to change which man is their current husband to try not to commit adultery when God forces a woman to irresistibly procreate with man A then man B then man A again. God also causes irresistible infertility in the event that two people mate who could have potentially created someone who was not elected to be saved or damned.
This also becomes more and more doubtful with every occurrence of words like choice or choose or chose in the Bible when referring to humans. But what do I know maybe he lets them choose what flavor ice cream if any they want but not if they receive imputed righteousness. Some say people who are elected to be damned can not choose whether or not they violate rules but people who are elected to be saved can choose whether or not they violate rules. The idea that God let's those unconditionally elected to be saved choose not to violate rules is a highly problematic claim as in order to choose which people are conceived so he can unconditionally elect to damn them or save them, God forces saved people to perform irresistible mating in ways which sometimes violate God's rules as I already explained.
4 Predestined to have a choice - Those who choose to accept the imputed points receive them and those who choose not to do not receive them. God knows what choice you will make and you could not choose to accept the points if God did not first offer to give them to you.
5 Repentance - Having a change of mind, heart or attitude is necessary to receive imputed righteousness
6 Must maintain qualification for imputation - Continuing to qualify to receive Jesus imputed points until death, rapture or time runs out and everyone is judged is necessary to win, those who do not maintain qualifications until death, rapture or time runs out lose the game
7 Once qualified always qualified - Once you receive the imputed points you can not lose them and will automatically win no matter how many rule violations you commit.
8 Limited atonement - Killing Jesus did not earn enough total points to forgive everyone once distributed for imputation. This is often combined with "exact change only" mode where you can not buy $15 worth of groceries with a $20 bill.
9 Unlimited atonement - Killing Jesus totaled a value of the same number or more points then all the negative points all of humanity combined ended up with minus their discounts for animal sacrifices and good deeds if such discounts apply
10 improved gameplay mode activated with imputed righteousness - people who receive imputed righteousness will make less violations, do more good deeds and or kill more animals through sacrifice
11 Performing the work of receiving baptism and or someone else performing the work of baptising you is necessary for you to receive imputed righteousness
12 Performing the work of hearing the preaching of the Word is necessary to receive imputed righteousness
Infused righteousness game
1 You can not earn enough points to receive your own salvation without Jesus sacrifice
2 When Jesus was sacrificed points became available to access from Jesus account
3 By doing good deeds you get points from Jesus account transferred to your account but these deeds can not earn your salvation without Jesus sacrifice because you are getting the points out of Jesus account
4 By doing bad deeds you still lose points
5 You need to transfer more points from Jesus account through good deeds than you lose through bad deeds plus original guilt
6 The good deeds can include treating other people kindly, sacraments, reading and hearing the word of God, sharing the infused righteousness gospel with others and Church attendance
7 Good deeds may activate infused righteousness which activates improved gameplay mode making it easier to perform future good deeds and avoid future bad deeds
Ransom game or capture the messiah / flag
1 When Adam sinned Satan was put in charge
2 Even though God is all powerful he can not be in charge anymore because he handed the keys over to Adam who gave them to Satan
3 In exchange for Jesus being killed God racked up points he could trade with Satan to get the keys back by capturing Jesus and giving him as a ransom to Satan who God could destroy if he wants to but would prefer to make a "deal with the Devil" and trade Jesus for a pair of keys he could have recreated or retooled and replaced along with the lock any time his omnipotent self wanted to
Playing in place of Adam
1 Adam was really bad at a first person shooter and could not get enough points to win
2 Jesus played instead of Adam like one of those robots that never miss people using instead of human players in multiplayer games that people call cheating when other people use. Jesus did the most good deeds and shot the most animal sacrifices winning the game.
3 Either people can learn from his example of how to play the game well and make better life choices or not so much and just take a screenshot and with photoshop editing and replace Jesus name with their own but keep his score.
Why I think both the infused righteousness and imputed righteousness and any and all other kill based point systems could be wrong
These both assume kills are good and more kills are worth more points killing Jesus is worth a lot of or unlimited or infinite points and killing animals in proper sacrifices is worth a smaller number of points. The bottom line under these point systems killing innocent things is a good deed that can make up for bad deeds.
God does not require humans to kill animals or other humans to forgive other humans. In fact God expects humans to forgive other humans without having to kill animals or other humans first.
Someone might argue that if humans must forgive without killing but if God is unwilling to forgive without killing, then humans are expected to live to a higher moral standard than God
If Justice is to punish the wicked will avoiding punishing the innocent then if Jesus is innocent having to punish Jesus to forgive wicked humans is injustice
If God is willing to forgive without killing but unable to forgive without killing then God is less powerful than humans who can forgive without killing. I do not need to either kill something or go out of my way to take actions to cause problems for someone who did something I did not like.
I know someone might argue that I could not forgive other people if Jesus and or all those animals were not sacrificed. That might be true but it might not be true. Is God unable to create a human that can not forgive without things being killed or unwilling to create a human that can not forgive without things being killed if that is the case.
Someone might argue without the point systems I am claiming to be a good person who can merit God's forgiveness by good works but this could not be farther from the truth. All points systems that do not involve universal salvation have requirements people must meet to receive the benefit of forgiveness through Jesus sacrifice and whatever those requirements are that humans must choose to meet could be described to be works except the one in which God is the author of sin because he forces unconditional election and with it irresistible violations of his commands regarding his own sexual laws in order to force who was conceived by what parents
I claim instead that it could be possible that both no one can merit being forgiven by God and also God does not have to kill humans or other animals to forgive humans
I claim it could be possible that God forgave everyone but those who do not choose to receive the benefits of his forgiveness are self condemned
If someone is forgiven by God but continues to choose to make bad decisions they will continue to suffer through the results of the bad decisions they make
A God who has not already forgiven people before the crucifixion would not be willing to do the crucifixion in order to forgive people because he would not be doing acts of mercy in an unforgiving state
I claim it could be possible that God forgave people before Jesus was sacrificed but allowed Jesus to sacrifice himself to show he forgave humanity how certain his forgiveness for humanity was that he could even forgive people that were killing and torturing him
I claim that it could be possible that God's judgment against mankind is allowing them to receive the physical consequences of their bad decisions
I claim that it could be possible that humans who do not change their attitude to love God through loving humanity will as a result of that attitude continue to make bad decisions that harm themselves and that those who throughout every moment of the future throughout eternity continue to choose to maintain such a unloving attitude will throughout every moment of the future throughout eternity bring about suffering upon themselves
I claim that it could be possible that unloving people put with other unloving people would torture each other if given eternal life but unloving people could be spared from being tortured by other unloving people by being put in solitary isolation in which case they would suffer through loneliness
I claim that in order for loving people to be free from the suffering inflicted by unloving people they must be separated from them. There is a saying that heaven has a wall and strict immigration policies and hell has open borders
I claim that it could be possible that through God's demonstration of love he helps change man's attitude that they may learn to love God and humanity and in doing so be free from self inflicted suffering and thus saved from the judgment of eternal self inflicted suffering
Jesus execution and or ressurection being the means of forgiveness does not necessarily mean belief that the execution and or ressurection of Jesus occurred as a historical event is required for forgiveness
Many protestants teach beliefs in facts is the requirement for salvation and the means is Jesus execution
Many Roman Catholics teach proper beliefs in facts, plus rituals to atone for bad deeds, plus rituals you have to do anyway even if you did not mess up and do a bad deed, plus good works is the requirement for salvation and the means is Jesus execution
Many 5 point Calvinists teach double predestination with limitted atonement. They claim that being chosen unilaterally by God is the requirement for salvation and the means of Jesus execution is paid toward them and them only so they can not decline that choice and that others are unilaterally condemned and can do nothing to change it because the means of Jesus execution has not been paid towards them
But I maintain that having the right attitude is the requirement for salvation and God offers all the opportunity to have an attitude adjustment and we would be helpless and could not receive salvation if he did not first offer it to us but upon offering it to us the choice is ours
All people have been given this offer through God working on their conscious even those who have never heard all the historical facts about Jesus but people who witness about Jesus if they do so correctly make this offer more abundantly heard
Belief, trust or faith in the God known as Jesus is the requirement for salvation and this type of belief, trust or faith in Jesus is having a certain relational attitude toward God rather than believing in a set of facts or doing or refraining from doing certain things
Having the wrong attitude will result in bad actions and eternally choosing to have the wrong attitude will result in an eternity of bad actions and thus eternal self inflicted suffering
We must have an attitude that is open to trying to love God and neighbor in the proper manner to be saved. Hearing of God's forgiveness may help people have an easier opportunity to adjust their attitude if it is done in a proper manner and not as a license to sin
If you stick your hand in a fire believing it will burn you will not cause it to burn you and believing it will not burn you will not prevent it from burning you. You would be burnt by means of your hand being in a fire and not by having or not having beliefs. You would avoid being burned by the means of not sticking your hand in the fire whether or not you believe sticking your hand in the fire would burn it. Your beliefs however might effect your decision about whether or not you stick your hand in the fire.
If you do not drink water you will die of dehydration through not utilizing the means of drinking water whether or not you believe drinking water could prevent dehydration.
Some of the verses that say believe in Jesus do not say to believe Jesus was executed but 1 Corinthians 15 says remembering that historical event is necessary for salvation so you better not get amnesia due to an illness or accident before you die
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
So now you have to believe the gospel plus do the work of not forgetting historical facts to be saved rather than a transformation of the heart?
Contemplate this possibility
1 Humankind said God can not handle the suffering we experience and would do morally wrong if he was in our position or in our shoes and humankind was angry with God
2 Because humankind was angry with God to such an extent, humankind could not be reconciled with God. Although God did no wrong to humankind to require forgiveness, humankind felt they could not forgive God.
3 God created a body for his personality to dwell in and humankind tortured him to try to force him to give in to moral compromise but he would not and furthermore demonstrated constant forgiveness being faithful to the point of death
4 God was not limitted to be unable to forgive without sacrifice but humankind was limitted in their mindset to receive reconciliation to God without a demonstration of his love. God was not limitted to be unable to forgive humans who would not believe the right facts, but humans who believed the wrong things about God would have trouble reconciling with God, believing God to be the wrong doer not them.
5 Although God already offered forgiveness to humankind, many people could not receive the effects of God's forgiveness until they had a change of mindset by learning that God forgave them through knowledge of what the incarnation of God did on the cross loving them without compromise to the point of death.
6 Even so many people still refused God's offer of forgiveness I am not claiming everyone is saved even people who would not want to be
7 Paul preached Christ crucified as of first importance not because God can not forgive humans who do not believe those facts but because those facts had two purposes, firstly as evidence of the human Jesus as a prophet and second as evidence that Jesus was not any ordinary prophet but the incarnation of God, showing that if God was in their mortal shoes he would love them to the point of death without compromise
Four things the gospel is not
1 Salvation by avoiding bad works and or by doing good works
2 An excuse to do bad works nor an excuse not to do good works
3 Salvation by knowledge of facts
4 An excuse not to learn
The gospel is not salvation by avoiding bad works or by doing good works
"We believe that we are made righteous by grace alone, through faith alone."
https://web.archive.org/web/20200513205218/https://ubf.org/about/statementoffaith
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Epheians 2:8-10 KJV
The gospel is not an excuse not an excuse to do bad works nor an excuse not to do good works
"not by faith alone" section of James 2:24 NIV
"a man is justified, and not by faith only" section of James 2:24 KJV
https://web.archive.org/web/20210822010559/https://biblehub.com/james/2-24.htm
We believe that regeneration is by the work of the Holy Spirit, and that it is necessary if one is to enter the kingdom of God.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200513205218/https://ubf.org/about/statementoffaith
This "Biblenote" section on 1 John 4 mentions regeneration 5 times
https://web.archive.org/web/20220426112944/https://www.ubf.org/resourcedetail/17090
https://web.archive.org/web/20220426112944/https://www.ubf.org/resourcedetail/17090
Regeneration is the impartation of divine life which is manifested in that radical change in the moral character of man, from the love and life of sin to the love of God and the life of righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Peter 1:23). ―Principles of Faith, Emmanuel Association of Churches
https://web.archive.org/web/20220418070538/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(theology)
The Central Yearly Meeting of Friends, a Holiness Quaker denomination, teaches that regeneration is the "divine work of initial salvation (Tit. 3:5), or conversion, which involves the accompanying works of justification (Rom. 5:18) and adoption (Rom. 8:15, 16)."[21] In regeneration, which occurs in the New Birth, there is a "transformation in the heart of the believer wherein he finds himself a new creation in Christ (II Cor. 5:17; Col. 1:27)."[21]
https://web.archive.org/web/20220418070538/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(theology)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=regeneration+theology&ia=web
In his "Introduction to Romans," Luther stated that saving faith is, "a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220412005518/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antinomianism&ia=web
Salvation is not by knowledge of facts.
Let's presuppose idol worship can mean worshipping the wrong god, if someone is not saved by works can this be forgiven? Yes. Should this be done? No
Let's presuppose idol worship can mean believing the wrong facts about the right god, if someone is not saved by works can this be forgiven? Yes. Should this be done? No
If you have to study or do anything to learn the right facts to be saved then that is salvation by works.
A heresy can mean either a choice or a departure from an original teaching
One meaning of the heresy of gnosticism is that, "People are saved by acquiring secret knowledge (gnosis), which is imparted only to the initiated."
https://web.archive.org/web/20211216022842/https://www.catholic.com/qa/whats-gnosticism
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+do+catholics+consider+to+be+gnosticism&ia=web
Gnostics were “people who knew”, and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150712063003/catholic.com/encyclopedia/gnosticism
Gnosticism (pronounced NOS tuh siz um) was a second-century religious movement claiming that salvation could be gained through a special form of secret knowledge.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191221065106/https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-gnosticism-700683
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+do+catholics+consider+to+be+gnosticism&ia=web
The gospel is not an excuse not to learn
Not being saved by learning knowledge is not an excuse not to learn knowledge anymore than not being saved by doing good works is an excuse not to do good works
Knowledge of facts is not necessary for salvation because someone is not saved by doing the works of learning things since they are not saved by works. Not being saved by works does not mean someone should not try to do good works and try to avoid doing bad works. Someone who is saved will have at least some desire to do good works and avoid bad works and you can better understand what works are good or bad by learning than by being willingly ignorant. Therefore just because people are not saved by a knowledge of facts does not mean people should not try to learn things.
Mature Christians learn to discern good from evil
It is more mature to focus on discerning whether actions are good or evil than to spend time emphasize focusing on outward rituals like laying on hands and baptism or questions of historic fact or potential future events like the resurrection and eternal judgment.
Examples of things of lesser importance than discernment of good and evil
Mature Christians try to decide whether or not actions they are contemplating taking are moral or immoral but immature people try to focus on history, eschatology, rituals and seals of approval from denominations like, who "the Antichrist" or "the beast" will be or who "the Antichrist" or "the beast" was, should they sprinkle or immerse for baptism, is it a post or pre tribulation rapture or no rapture, what will heaven look like, was the Shroud of Turin used on Jesus when he was executed, or try to show people they are ordained by having someone lay hands on them and give them a certificate of ministry while ignoring important moral questions about their day to day decisions. There is nothing wrong with asking those questions unless it is a distraction from learning to discern good from evil or learning to teach others to discern good from evil. But I will save you some time the word Antichrist is not found in any respected translation of Revelation I have read.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Hebrews 5:14 - 6:2 KJV
Duty to have an informed conscience
Proscribe means to forbid and does not mean to prescribe
It is vital that we maintain a healthy, functioning conscience. To do so, the conscience must be informed by the Word of God. In this way, our minds are renewed with the knowledge of the requirements of the Holy God, the same requirements that are written on the heart. By exposing the conscience to the Word of God, we equip it to trouble us with feelings of guilt when we bear actual guilt, and we inoculate it against producing feelings of guilt over behaviors that are not proscribed by the Scriptures.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120701123834/http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/an-informed-conscience/
“Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act” (CCC, no. 1796)
Everyone has a duty to form their conscience. Formation of conscience simply means educating and training it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160901203250/beginningcatholic.com/conscience
http://web.archive.org/web/20220426143339/https://www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/what-does-it-mean-to-have-a-well-formed-conscience/
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220426140624/https://cogforlife.org/the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-on-moral-conscience/
http://web.archive.org/web/20220112164753/https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P60.HTM
it is important to understand the difference between conscience and personal preference or arbitrary private intuition (cf. Vatican II, The Church in the Modern World (1965), §30
http://web.archive.org/web/20210418092631/ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catholic-teaching-on-conscience--dissent-10362
If our conscience isn't well-formed, we aren't well-equipped to determine right from wrong. All of us have the personal responsibility to align our consciences with the truth so that, when we are faced with the challenges of daily life, our consciences can help guide us well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20201030082655/usccb.org/committees/pro-life-activities/understanding-conscience
In Catholicism, a formed conscience is one that is built upon through learning and experience, whereas an informed conscience is one that is researched and thought out through logic and reason. A person with a well-formed and well-informed conscience is less likely to reject God’s law.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200919124723/reference.com/world-view/informed-formed-conscience-a0a49350c4ad0d1d
Most people who fail to act correctly do so because they mistakenly believe they have an informed conscience. A person has a duty to correctly form his conscience (i.e., his judgment, the moral character of his actions) with great care, and he is under a strict obligation to do so.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160904180958/https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/you-have-informed-conscience.html
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=informed+conscious&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=duty+to+have+an+informed+conscious&ia=web
Since salvation is not by knowledge we should not be afraid to lose salvation by listening to, watching or reading the wrong source of information. The Bible commands us to listen to opposing claims. The Bible has a test of a prophet which can not be done without checking information found outside the Bible. Test everything do not treat prophecy with contempt.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Test+everything+do+not+treat+prophecy+with+contempt.&ia=web
https://web.archive.org/web/20210209201809/https://askdrbrown.org/library/don-t-despise-prophecy
The eternal gospel in Revelation applies to both the old and new testament
Problem with labeling people who have not read the new testament due to having not been exposed to it as unsaved unbelievers who can not be married
thefreedictionary.com/nescient
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nescience+vs+ignorance&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ignorance+vs+nescience&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nescient+vs+ignorant&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ignorant+vs+nescient&ia=web
Can you then know if someone is saved or unsaved and therefore tell other people not to marry them
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100202005809/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+2&version=KJV
Does UBF tend to unequally yoke two people if one person has strong faith in the organization and the other weak?
What do I mean by case law vs statute law
When I mention case law and statute law in the context of this article when explaining Biblical text I do not exactly mean the same meaning as in United States or English law but something conceptually similar. As of the time of writing this I am not currently familiar enough with how Bible translators translated ancient languages to be certain that the word statutes in some Bible translations has the same meaning as I am using in this article either. There are many words such as Statutes, Commands, Precepts and Laws in Bible translations but I am only using two categories for figuring out the moral claims in sections of the Bible text case law and statute law. Sometimes case law is called common law but I will primarily be calling it case law in reference to the Bible in order to emphasize the narrow focus of it in relation to individual one time events or cases that occurred in Biblical history or Biblical stories.
Statutes are rules
In this context by statute laws I mean lists of rules in a section of the Bible text, that the text's author is claiming God prescribed to obey in the circumstances those rules were meant to apply
An example of a list of rules that could be read like statute law would be the ten commandments in Exodus 20
Cases contain rulings
Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220321094017/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
In this context by case law I mean looking at God's judgment in the Bible about different cases where each case involves actions specific people took in a specific single one time historical event or story.
Hypothetical example of misusing case law beyond it's proper scope in a secular court trial
Let's presume there is a statute law that says any human being who deliberately kills another human being with premeditation except in defense of the life or health of themself or someone else or as a executioner as prescribed by this or other statues shall be either executed or sentenced to life in prison as decided by a judge for first degree murder upon being found guilty of such by a jury.
How can you interpret conflicting Bible rules when reading a section of the Bible as Statute law
By application I mean the actions that you are supposed to either do or avoid doing according to a law
If you have two laws and the situations in which they are listed as applying do not overlap then it does not matter if the applications of one law contradict the applications of the other law
If you have a narrow law and a broad law and the narrow law is not listed as applying in any situation in which the broad law does not apply. But, the broad law is listed as applying in situations in which the narrow law applies. Then if the application of the narrow law contradicts the application of the broad law. Then the narrow law must be applied not the broad law if someone is in a situation in which the narrow law applies but not the broad law.
This is because if it was the other way around and the broad law applied instead of the narrow law then the narrow law would never ever be applied and would be useless. For example if there is a broad law that says you may turn right on a red light. And there was a sign at a specific stop sign saying not to turn right on a red light that sign would be meaningless if the broad law was applied instead of the narrow law so people could turn right on a sign saying do not turn right on red. Therefore one applies the narrow law in such circumstances as an exception to the broad law.
If you have two laws in which the list of situations they apply to overlap but each of these two laws both have a list of situations that do not overlap with the other law. Then this methodology for determining conflicts between two law statutes does not apply and the answer as to what to do can not be known by looking at those two laws alone and must be determined some other way or may not be possible to solve at all.
I addressed how to deal with conflicts between Statute and case law in the section, "Case law examples from the Bible usually have a much more narrow scope than statute law in the Bible. Here are some reasons why"
If a historical event or story in the Bible contains at least one of these four elements then it can be treated like case law but if it does not contain at least one of these four elements it should not be treated as case law and should simply be viewed as just a story or just history and should not be used to justify claims about God prescribing certain moral rules
1 A moral claim by God about if a action one or more sentient beings ( humans, Satan, fallen angels, demons and so on ) in the story did was good or bad
2 A prescription by God about what the sentient beings in the story should do or should avoid doing
3 A reward or punishment prescribed by God for other sentient beings to do to one or more other sentient because of a action they did in the story
4 A reward or punishment God himself directly imposed on a sentient being because of a action they did in the story
Case law examples from the Bible usually have a much more narrow scope than statute law in the Bible. Here are some reasons why
1. If the story does not say why an action was good or bad then it provides no principle to be obeyed when it mentions that an action was good or bad
God punishing someone for an action implies it was bad and God rewarding them for an action implies it was good. But having bad things happen to someone is not the same as God punishing them and someone having good things happen to them is not the same as God rewarding them. For example someone could be persecuted for doing the right thing but that should be viewed as other sentient beings with free will punishing them and not as God punishing them. It is not enough to mention something good or bad happened to them but must include that God personally rewarded or punished them himself or asked a third party to do it on his behalf.
If God said someone did something good or bad, or punished or rewarded someone either directly himself or through a third party but was not specific about why what they did was good or bad we might not know any principles from it to apply to our lives to know if choosing to do something ourself is good or bad according to God.
If the actions in the story were in obedience to a Bible statute and what they did was labeled as good then we might guess that the principle was obeying that statute is good. If the actions in that story were in disobedience to a Bible statute and what they did was labeled as bad then we might guess that disobeying that statue is bad
If the actions they did in the story appear to be in obedience to a Bible statute and God said what they did was bad then we can learn that either we understood that statute wrong or there are exceptions to that statute. If the actions they did in the story appear to be in disobedience to a Bible statute and God said what they did was good then we can learn that either we understood that statute wrong or there are exceptions to that statute. In such a case we can look for a statute that provides exception to that statute or reason in the story why the situation was an exception in which that statute does not apply. If there is a reason where God says why that statute did not need to be obeyed in the situation in that story then if that same reason would apply to a situation in our life then that might be a situation where it is ok to disobey that statute according to Biblical standards. But, if there is a reason where God says why that statute did not need to be obeyed in the situation in that story then if that same reason would not apply to a situation in our life then it would not provide any reason to disobey the Bible statute in our personal life if we are trying to live according to Biblical standards. In the absense of any reason where God says why it was good for people to disobey that statute in that story then we should follow the statute and not follow the example of the people in the story of breaking that statute if we are trying to live according to Biblical moral principles. In the absense of any reason where God says why it was bad for people to obey that statute then we should follow the statute if we are trying to live according to Biblical moral principles.
In the absense of a known statute if God does not say a reason why what they did was good or bad in the text we should disregard claims that we should apply the moral principle in the story to our life because we do not know what the moral principle is.
We should not trust people who make principles up not found in the text using a Bible story like a rorshach ink blot test to try to get us to do what they want
2 If the group of people God commanded in a story to do something does not include us then it does not apply to us
3 If the people in the story were only commanded to do something as a one time action and not commanded to do that action habitually then that command does not apply to people today because it was only meant to be done that one time in the distant past and would not have even applied to the people who were told to do so at a later time in their life after they did it the first time
When reading many Bible stories no moral rules should assumed to be taught by those stories and they should simply be viewed as stories about history not as examples to generate case law from
Many times the Bible stories give no moral judgment on the actions of people in those stories. If someone did something then bad things happened to them in the Bible it does not mean they committed sin, for example Job was afflicted by Satan not for doing anything wrong, but in retaliation for being blameless. In many Christian denominations Jesus is dogmatically believed to be sinless but he still has bad things happen to him, meaning it is wrong to assume bad things happening to someone means what they did before the bad things happen is a sin. Bad things happening to people who do good things is also mentioned in Mathew 5:10-12 which says, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Good things happening to someone also does not mean whatever someone did before the good things happened was not a sin.
Good things can happen to people who did bad things,
"for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Mathew 5:45 KJV)
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. (Psalm 73:3-5 KJV)
the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. ( Psalm 73:12 KJV)
Someone doing a single or even many specific morally bad actions in the Bible does not mean anything else they did in the Bible should be classified as morally wrong for other people to do. Someone doing a single or even many specific morally good actions in the Bible does not mean anything else they did in the Bible should be classified as morally good.
In many cases where people treated Bible stories as case law they should not have been treating those stories as case law but instead as either history or fiction.
there are at least six wrong assumptions I have observed people commonly make when they incorrectly use Bible stories as case law
1 Something bad happened to someone so something they did was bad and we should therefore avoid doing some specific thing they did
2 Something good happened to someone so something they did was good and we should therefore do some specific thing they did
3 Something they did was labeled as good therefore we should assume something else they did was good even if it is not labeled as such
4 Something they did was labeled as bad therefore we should assume something else they did was bad even though it was not labeled as such
5 People did something in the Bible therefore we should re enact it and put it in our liturgy or rituals even if the Bible does not explicitly state to create and do such a ritual. I am not saying it does not prescribe any rituals just that not everything people did in a story should be repeated as a ritual.
6 After concluding a rule that certain actions should be done or avoided in certain narrow circumstances similar to what happened in a story someone may over generalize following that rule in many situations for which it should not be applied
Making broad rules out of narrow rules or worse broad rules out of one time historical events is problematic
It is not valid to use a story as an inkblot to get broad reaching moral rules out of it that apply outside the narrow situation of the story. It is also not valid to take a narrow moral rule and apply it outside the narrow circumstances it applies to and make it into a broad sweeping rule.
Examples of making broad reaching moral rules from stories
In Genesis 4 Cain offered vegetables and he also killed his brother so we should not eat vegetables or not be a vegetarian
Cain was a murderer and in Genesis 4 Cain's descendants played musical instruments, forged tools out of bronze and iron. So it is wrong to forge tools out of bronze and iron, play musical instruments.
King Solomon acquired horses from Egypt in 1 Kings 10:28 and the Kingdom fell apart therefore no one should get horses from Egypt not even Christians who live in Egypt
Noah got drunk in Genesis 9 and then Canaan got cursed and Lot got drunk in Genesis 19 then his daughters committed incest with him producing the Moabites and Ammonites which were enemies to Israel later in Numbers 22 and Judges 3:13 therefore we should not drink any alcohol even if it is not enough to get drunk. This ignores Jesus turning water into wine in John 2 and 1 Timothy 5:23 in which Paul recommends a specific person to drink alcohol and Proverbs 31:5-7 saying to let the pour drink
In the book of Job bad things happened to Job so we should not do certain things Job did. This ignores that Job was righteous and upright. You can be righteous and upright and bad things can happen to you so therefore bad things happening to someone in a story does not prove you should not do what they do.
Jesus was crucified so we should not do what Jesus did to avoid getting crucified. This ignores the dogmatic claim such Church denominations often make that Jesus was without sin.
Ezra in in Ezra 9-10 is believed to have prescribed divorces and listed people as guilty of marrying "foreign women" ( NIV 2022 April 19 ) therefore we should prescribe people not to marry unbelievers, or foreigners or people of a different race or we should prescribe people to divorce certain people if they are in one of those categories. This ignores the fact that the Bible did not say God thought those marriages were bad in Ezra and ignores any Bible verses that would allow people to marry someone the Bible teacher wants them not to marry in the absence of actual statute laws forbidding such marriages. It ignores any prohibitions on divorcing such people without valid reasons that maybe found in the Bible. It also ignores that God did not tell them to get divorces but Ezra did. It says Ezra thought such marriages were bad but not that God thought such marriages were bad. It ignores that there is no demonstration that Ezra is a prophet in the book of Ezra, and there is no suggestion God told him to do that. It ignores the fact that the Bible did not say Ezra was without sin in doing this.
In Genesis 24 God provided supernatural information to a human servant who was not God to pair Isaac and Rebekah therefore all marriages should be done from matchmakers. This ignores that there were not any human servants other than Adam and Eve who were not God who could have been matchmakers for Adam and Eve in Genesis 2.
Examples of making narrow rules into broad sweeping rules
A high priest should not marry a widow or divorced woman in Leviticus 21:14 since high priests must set the best moral example no one should marry a widow or divorced woman regardless of whether or not they are a high priest. This ignores Deuteronomy 25 which recommends marrying a widow under specific circumstances, Deuteronomy 24 which allows a divorced woman to get married and Romans 7 that allow a widow to get married
A King acquiring horses from Egypt violates Deuteronomy 17:16 therefore no one should get horses from Egypt. I guess Christians living in Egypt would have difficulty with this one.
Proverbs 31:4 says wine and beer are not for Kings therefore no one should have alcohol ignoring proverbs 31:5-7
1 Timothy 5:18 says not to get drunk on wine therefore no one should drink any alcohol at all even if they only drink a small amount not enough to get drunk. This ignores Proverbs 31:5-7
People that emphasize using the "application" of Bible stories to tell other people what to do maybe performing unethical influence. People that avoid Bible statutes maybe trying to avoid other people catching them violating those statutes which forbid the unethical influence they are doing.
Since the sections of the Bible containing statutes or lists of rules tend to have a more broad scope they properly apply to people's lives more often than the sections of the Bible containing Bible stories. So, if you want to know the moral principles in the Bible that might apply to your life you should read the statutes or lists of rules.
A Bible teacher or Pastor who avoids reading statutes or lists of rules in the Bible sometimes does so, so that the congregation or student will have no rules to hold the Pastor or Bible teacher accountable to. A Pastor or Bible teacher who additionally focuses on lots of Bible stories, sometimes does so to fabricate counterfeit moral rules from the stories "application" to impose on the congregation or students.
Different ways Bible teachers and Pastors may try to avoid the moral accountability provided by Bible statutes
1 Claiming someone can be saved and live a life completely lacking in virtue while also not growing in virtue after the salvation experience
2 Claiming it is ok to disregard moral codes in the Bible that apply to your specific situation in order to obey something they claim is the application of a Bible story which they claim you should do instead
3 Claiming the new testament or the application of their story means the law is bad
4 Claiming the new testament or the application of a story means the entire law no longer applies as opposed to only some parts of the old testament rules like not performing any more animal sacrifice rituals after the 70 AD destruction of the temple
5 Calling trying to follow rules found in the new testament not living under grace even if you are not doing so to earn salvation but because not murdering people is the loving thing to do
6 Using stories where bad things happen to people and claiming that the bad things happened because people criticized people in leadership positions. Then claiming that mentioning Bible rules is criticizing them which is forbidden in the application of those stories
7 Claiming the application of a story is you should obey an authority figure even if doing so means violating a Biblical moral code or statute law that would otherwise have applied to your situation
8 Giving a nasty face or mean looking emotional expression when you mention a Biblical moral code
9 Giving sermons on the Bible chapter by chapter instead of topic by topic and then skipping many chapters of the Bible that have material they do not want covered and starting over doing multiple Sermons on the same chapter of the Bible without doing other chapters such that they have a favorite set of stories they repeat on a cyclical basis and have other sections of the Bible they go out of their way to avoid.
10 Reading through almost the whole Bible on a cyclical basis as part of their liturgy but never in the order it was written so that people would hear almost the whole Bible but always out of context and feel no need to read the whole Bible on their own. You can read the books in any order but I am talking about not sticking with one book and reading that individual book in the order it was written before switching what book you read in the liturgy.
11 Going through the Bible in sermons topic by topic instead of chapter by chapter while avoiding the topics that expose how they are unethically influencing people
12 Going through the Bible topic by topic and using Bible verses to explain a topic but avoiding Bible verses about that topic which contain inconvenient exceptions to their claims in their topical Bible sermons
The legal time periods
Did absense of proper courts create the change under Jeremiah?
1 From Adam until Noah
People could sin without violating a law of whatever sort is meant in Romans 5:13-14 and Romans 2:12 during this time period but had another sort of law which was their conscious described in Romans 5:14-15
Cain was found guilty of murdering Abel in Genesis 4 but it was not written in the Bible that any command not to murder was given before he murdered Abel. Either God may have given such a command beforehand but it was not recorded in the text or he may have known not to based on his conscious and the warning that sin was crouching at his door and violated it.
Incest was not yet punished
2 From Noah until Moses
During Noah's time humanity was given a law not to murder
Abram fed the God known as YHWH whose name is mentioned in Genesis 18:1 meat and milk in the same meal in Genesis 18:8
Deuteronomy 14:21 forbids cooking a goat in it's mother's milk
Either that meal was not forbidden in the law of Moses because it was not cooked in the milk but separately or was not a goat or was not cooked in it's mother's milk but the milk of another animal or this hints that some of the laws of Moses did not yet apply during this time period
Incest was not yet punished as Abram married Sarai his half sister even though that would later be illegal in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20
3 From Moses until Jeremiah
The laws of Moses were given to Moses and the nations the Israelites were to invade were guilty of incest and sentenced to be destroyed for it in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 even though incest was not yet outlawed until Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20
The Jebusites already lived in Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 5 before king David invaded it
Perhaps God already gave a law against incest the other people and they broke it before God told Moses to invade in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20
4 From Jeremiah until the destruction of the temple after the resurrection of Jesus
Deactivation of Mosaic law was not just a new testament thing
Parts of the law of Moses were deactivated during Jeremiah's time before Jesus was even born
In Jeremiah 27:8 the instructions were to obey a King who would probably have been required to be executed not obeyed according to the earlier established Mosaic law against idol worship
Daniel never executed the King for enforcing idol worship even though that would have been prescribed under the law of Moses and this to was before the new testament
Mosaic law rituals were still being performed by Christians in the book of acts until the destruction of the temple
5 From the destruction of the temple after the resurrection of Jesus to the present day
More mosaic laws were deactivated after Titus destroyed the temple than were deactivated from the time of Jeremiah to the time Titus destroyed the temple
Giving of the statute laws to Moses
In Exodus 18 Moses judged disputes between people in cases and it tired him out but in Exodus 19 a ritual or ceremony occurred before God gave Moses Statute laws in which the community Moses was overseeing agreed to obey the statutes in Exodus 19:8 and these statutes start in the next Chapter in Exodus 20 and continue throughout later Chapters of Exodus as well as in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
I do not know if Exodus 18 occurred after Exodus 19 and he was judging cases based on the statutes you read about later or if Exodus 18 occurred before Exodus 19 and he made many judgments without the aid of statutes which tired him out in addition to the fatigue of too many cases too handle alone.
If he did not use statutes in Exodus 18 he might have created common or case law by his judgments of disputes before the giving of the statute law and used those rulings to help decide other future rulings. Or alternatively he might have made rulings on each case but not used the rulings on past cases to effect the ruling on future cases.
Giving of at least one Statute law to humanity through Noah
After the flood Noah was given a statute law not to murder to share with all humanity in Genesis 9:6
Noah was also given a command about not eating blood and a command about being supposed to multiply whether the other two were intended to apply to all humanity except unmarried people or just certain people is more difficult to tell. The command to refrain from eating animal blood was repeated in Leviticus and might have been repeated again a third time in acts. The command to multiply was repeated many times.
Comparing blood restrictions given to Noah, new testament and Mosaic law
In acts 15:20 people are told to refrain from blood which could mean either not to murder, not to have sex with women on their period or not to eat animal blood or possibly any combination of those or something else.
There is a phrase "bloody murder" in English. Avoiding blood can mean avoiding murder. Murder is called various phrases that include the word "blood" in Genesis 9:6 and Proverbs 1:11, Proverbs 1:16, Proverbs 1:18 and probably many other parts of various Bible translations.
The prohibition of eating animal blood might have been a prohibition on idol worship involving the use of animal blood. Avoiding raw meat or avoiding drinking animal blood whether avoiding raw blood only or avoiding both raw and cooked blood might be beneficial for one's health.
Sex with a woman on her period is forbidden in Leviticus 18:19 and Leviticus 15:24 or at least requires isolation from the rest of the community for seven days after doing if it is not forbidden. Some feminists today put other peoples lives in danger through a practice called free bleeding which might be forbidden to do if done in such a way as to contaminate surfaces other people use in Leviticus 15:19-28. It might also be forbidden for men to contaminate public services other people use if they have a discharge in Leviticus 15:2-13 which might also protect the public health for similar reasons to the restrictions on women's blood.
Leviticus 17:10-15 , Psalm 16:4 and Psalm 106:38
Free bleeding is the practice of intentionally menstruating in public, without blocking or collecting the period flow.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220315042452/https://helloclue.com/articles/culture/whats-all-fuss-about-free-bleeding-why-does-it-matter
Be aware that blood-borne diseases, like HIV, can be transmitted via menstrual blood
http://web.archive.org/web/20220315042452/https://helloclue.com/articles/culture/whats-all-fuss-about-free-bleeding-why-does-it-matter
menstrual blood may contain the virus and that exposure to these fluids through mucous membranes (in the vagina or mouth) could potentially lead to HIV infection.
http://web.archive.org/web/20181031180534/https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html
Compared to other viruses, HCV is a relatively hardy pathogen. Known to survive outside the body for days in dried blood on surfaces, Hepatitis C can persist for months in a liquid medium under favorable conditions. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HCV can survive on environmental surfaces at room temperature for at least 16 hours but no longer than four days. In contrast, the HIV virus can only live on surfaces for several hours.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150102022714/https://www.hepatitiscentral.com/news/hepatitis_c_sur/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hepatitis+objects&ia=web
Verses about multiplying in other parts of the old testament and new testament
Regarding specific people
Genesis, Jeremiah, elsewhere
Cases where multiply clearly did not refer to raising disciples as UBF claims because people had biological children. The Bible may teach to raise disciples elsewhere but these verses specifically meant for those historical figures to have biological children and did not mean to raise disciples. There are Bible verses that do request people to teach their children God's moral code, and there is no need to change the meaning of verses saying for married people to have biological children to mean to raise disciples. I believe the intention of changing this meaning is so they can have more disciples to unethically influence and also so they can justify their policy of controlling whether or not a couple has biological children by claiming Bible verses that mean to have biological children do not have that meaning. Some UBF Bible teachers have told people not to have any more biological children or that they are granting them permission to have a biological child or what the names of their biological children should be. Need to confirm claim that they told someone they may have children the other two claims about naming children and telling them not to have anymore children are definitely true.
More general locations that could apply to larger groups of people today
Malachi 2:15
1 Timothy 2:15
An urging suggestion to multiply for young people, young women or young widows in 1 timothy 5:14
Locations saying to teach children God's moral code
Locations saying to raise disciples either to specific people during specific times or in general
Common sense that we will be in a very bad situation if we do not teach moral principles to people even if no general verse to raise disciples for everyone exists
No verse in the entire 66 book version of the Bible where married people are told not to multiply or to use birth control
Roman Catholic prohibitions on birth control
Repeating of some old testament statutes in the new testament
I already explained how the commands not to murder, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness against your neighbor are statutes that are repeated in the new testament and gave a list of verses in parenthesis by each one above. There are many other old testament commands repeated in the new testament.
The command not to covet material possessions is repeated in the new testament in relation to bad kinds of greed
Coveting can be causing yourself internal suffering due to your mental relationship with wanting things but it does not forbid wanting to get things in a manner that is not unethical
Coveting can be letting your want for things lead to unethical behavior
The command not to covet people in Exodus 20 is repeated in the new testament in Matthew 5:28 which is frequently misunderstood as being something new not taught before Jesus or misunderstood as having a more broad scope
Some Old testament statutes are not repeated in the new testament
The Sabbath
The old testament statutes of not doing certain activities on the Sabbath were not repeated in the new testament and no longer apply according to Collosians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6.
Types of meat
A list of forbidden animals to eat no longer applies today according to Romans 14 but Romans 14 also allows Christians to be vegetarian
Eating meat which might have been required for some people in old testament animal sacrifice rituals in which people were assigned meat to eat as part of the rituals unless the eating of that meat was optional and it was simply a gift. Being a vegetarian might not have been permitted for some people before the new testament.
Other restrictions on eating meat might still apply such as avoiding blood, the meat of strangled animals and not knowingly consuming meat involved in idol worship.
Some old testament statutes not only should not be repeated today but can not be repeated today
Many old testament statutes involving rituals to perform in the temple or tabernacle can no longer apply since the destruction of the temple after the ressurection because they are rituals to be performed in the temple.
The temple was destroyed after the ressurection in fulfillment of Mark 13:2 it was also destroyed multiple other times before that
Animal sacrifice at the proper location might be physically impossible and might also be forbidden after the destruction of the temple after the ressurection
If Animal sacrifice must be at the temple or tabernacle it would be forbidden after the destruction of the temple after the ressurection
Many Christians consider animal sacrifice forbidden after the destruction of the temple after the ressurection because Christ alone is the only sacrifice that counts and the previous sacrifices only pointed to his sacrifice. Isaiah 66:3 might be a prophecy that animal sacrifice would be forbidden by God in the future.
Unless I am wrong and animal sacrifice is permitted to be performed at high places or possibly other locations but only when the temple and tabernacle are unavailable but forbidden when they are available
http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_place
Proper Tithing physically impossible
Others such as tithing can not be done today because they were to go to people of a certain genealogy with specific biological ancestry tracing to Levi and go to a specific storehouse location in the middle east that is not used by any Christian denomination today. The only people you could theoretically possibly tithe to are the specific type of Jews who have rejected the deity of Jesus as I am sure the nation State of Israel would not allow Messianic Jews who believe in the deity of Jesus to collect tithes at that location. Although tithing might have been possible after the new testament was written but before the temple was destroyed in Mark 13:2 it is no longer possible for a Christian to tithe in the manner prescribed by the old testament statutes today. When Jesus told people to tithe in Matthew 23:23 it was still possible to do following the old testament statutes but is no longer physically possible for a Christian to do in the manner prescribed in the Bible today even if the individual wanted to. It is still physically possible to donate today but not to tithe. Pastors that teach you should tithe according to the Bible probably should not get any money donated to them for teaching the Bible because they are teaching the Bible very badly. If you want to donate money to them for other reasons I guess you can if you feel they are helping the community in ways not related to teaching the Bible such as taking time to listen to people's problems or helping the poor with their resources or visiting people in jail but please do not give them money for teaching the Bible badly.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe
Many old testament property laws can not apply today
People were given specific plots of land in the old testament based on their genealogy. Since the Jews were expelled from Israel for so long they can no longer know which plot of land would belong to them. You would know what belonged to you to some degree based on what you planted and harvested in your own land with many exceptions such as not muzzling an ox while it is treading grain or allowing people to take food around the plants at the edges of your property. Without knowing what land you own there is little or no objective basis for knowledge of who owns what according to the Bible in modern times. Also many gentile Christians today would not have historically had ancestors who were given such a plot of land. Many but not necessarily all old testament rules about property therefore can not apply today even if someone wanted to apply them today.
There is difficulty with objectivity in knowledge of proper ownership required to avoid stealing but the simple solution is just to follow local property laws if you value your life more than your property
The command to steal theoretically applies today, but you can only steal something someone else owns. If someone does not own something it is not stealing to take it and the Bible does not described who actually owns anything in new testament times. I believe this is because your life is more valuable than property and in new testament times it easier to simply obey your local governments laws for property ownership than to try to figure out who owns what by other means. If you disagree with your government about who owns what and act according to your beliefs you may end up being punished by the government for "stealing" and avoiding this punishment maybe more valuable and better protect your life than owning more things.
Regarding enforcing the law vs mere obedience to the law
I claim that the old testament commands not to commit adultery, not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal and not to bear false witness against your neighbor in a court of law are repeated in the new testament and apply today for how Christians should behave. I claim Christians in new testament times should try to obey those rules but should not enforce punishment against other people for breaking those rules except as allowed by their local government and never in excess of the maximum punishment that was permitted in the old testament even if permitted to do so by their local government.
Similarity between secular example of case law misuse above and Ishmael and Isaac UBF nonsense
In UBF Bible study Abraham putting away Ishmael and sacrificing Isaac are both used as case examples in which Abraham sacrificed something for God by either sending away Ishmael or being willing to sacrifice Isaac only being stopped once he is about to.
In the case above Steve could not show the ruling involving Bob's case applied to him unless he could show the reasons for the ruling also existed in Steve's case.
Unless the Bible teacher proves God says in the Bible for you to sacrifice that specific thing the alleged principle that God wants you to sacrifice things from those two stories does not apply because you can not know which things to sacrifice unless it says elsewhere in the Bible. And if it says which things to sacrifice elsewhere in the Bible you do not really need to read those two other Bible stories to know that but could have known that by reading that other part of the Bible. So telling you to sacrifice whatever the Bible teacher wants because of the stories of Ishmael and Isaac are non sequiters.
Problems with UBF understanding of pruning in John
The alleged claim you should cut off certain hobbies or activities from your life does the Bible teacher says does not follow from the Bible unless the Bible says not to do those specific activities not whatever activity the Bible teacher feels like telling you
Problems with proving a specific person is an unbeliever
The claim that you are not supposed to marry an unbeliever whether or not it is actually taught in the Bible do not apply unless there is proof the person is an unbeliever
Entire Major Denominations replace the moral codes in the Bible with policies fabricated through story telling
University Bible Fellowship (UBF) like many other Christian Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic Organizations ignore the ethical codes, moral principles, moral codes, moral laws, or moral rules in the Bible when they contradict with the policies fabricated by their denominational leaders. The policies fabricated by such denominational leaders are often justified by treating Bible stories like a psychological ink blot test to mean whatever they want the stories to mean.
One example of such a policy in UBF is marriage by faith.
Five rules for the for marriage by faith policy
1 It is wrong to ask someone to marry you if the leaders did not ask you to marry that person first
2 It is wrong to ask the person the leaders suggested you to marry to marry you if they changed their mind and wanted you to marry that person in the past but no longer want you to marry them
3 Saying yes to marry someone the matchmaker suggests you to marry is considered an act of faith and therefore saying no might be considered by some UBF Bible teachers wrong to do because it is not done "by faith" (Compare with Hebrews 11 and how people did things "by faith")
4 It is wrong to date anyone even if you do not kiss them, touch them or have sex with them unless the leaders have suggested you marry that person and permitted you to date the specific person they suggested before marrying them. Sometimes they do not permit you to date the person and you must decide if you marry them without dating them.
5 It is wrong to have romantic feelings for someone the matchmakers have not suggested you marry. In some cases it may even be considered wrong to like someone too much who they suggested you to marry, since your motive should not be because you like them, but, because God through his servant told you to marry them and liking them too much maybe considered idolatry. If my memory is correct I have heard people in testimonies say liking people they were assigned to marry before they marry them was idolatry.
Marriage by faith is not the same same as strictly not dating before marriage.
In some Christian denominations and sects of Islam that forbid dating, someone can ask someone to marry them or ask their parents for permission to marry their adult aged child but UBF does not allow this unless they matched you with the person before you asked them. In these denominations and sects you are permitted to ask someone to marry you because you like something about them (not necessarily because you think they are pretty or handsome it could be something about their personality) where as in UBF you are not permitted to like someone unless the leaders gave you permission to like them first.
Marriage by faith is not the same as matchmaking in other cultures and religions
Marriage by faith is not the same as matchmaking because if you say no to a match you are labeled as not having the faith to marry that person. Although some religious cultures have a preference for matchmaking and not dating to avoid premarital relationships they often do not claim the matchmaker is getting direct revelation from God for who you should marry but rather the matchmaker is presented options for you to choose from without dating. Often matchmaking is also combined with dating, such as when people set their friends up on blind dates to see if they like each other and those people might get married later.
Marriage by faith disregards the moral codes in the Bible and replacing them with story telling
Marriage by faith is based on the Bible stories in Genesis 2 and Genesis 24 but ignores the rules about how to get married in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and the New Testament. Some might debate whether or not the old testament or certain parts of the old testament apply today but Genesis 2 and 24 are from the old testament.
Jesus did not use Genesis 2 to explain numerous moral codes that other people have claimed are in Genesis 2
When Jesus explained Genesis 2 in Mathew 19 and Mark 10 he did not use it to explain that people should get married only according to the five rules I listed above as the marriage by faith policy. Many people claim Genesis 2 forbids homosexual marriage. Jesus did not use Genesis 2 to explain whether or not homosexual marriage was allowed or forbidden. You can find rules which prohibit homosexual physical relations between two men in the Bible such as Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27 and 1 Timothy 1:10 but not in Genesis 2. These specific Bible verses do not forbid homosexual attraction between two males but only homosexual physical relations between them. Any preacher who says Genesis 2 forbids homosexual marriage is not setting a good example for how to interpret the Bible. Bible teachers using such reckless and careless teaching methodology as to use the story of Genesis 2 to justify any set of rules they want to have set the grounds for University Bible Fellowship to now use Genesis 2 to justify their marriage by faith policy by using the story in Genesis 2 to fabricate excuses for their set of rules. If there was a law against teaching the Bible badly then I would call those who use Bible stories to justify dogmatically prescribing broad reaching rules as criminally negligent Bible teachers.
Jesus had prophetic revelation to any additional information about the intended application of Genesis 2 but other people who have failed to show evidence of receiving such revelation should be disregarded
One should not presume that one can interpret a Bible story to have a specific meaning in terms of moral rules just because Jesus did for Genesis 2. Jesus did on the grounds that Jesus was the human incarnation of the God of the old and new testament and was a prophet. Those who claim to have prophetic revelation to the moral meaning of Genesis 2 should be tested with the test of the prophet in Deuteronomy 18 and disregarded as having such authority to know what moral principles God really meant from stories upon failing such tests and those who make no claim of revelation from God should be disregarded when they dogmatically claim it means whatever moral policies they fabricated. There is a difference between dogmatically claiming Genesis 2 means something and simply saying it might possibly mean something. In the case of University Bible Fellowship the actions of many people in leadership positions reveal that they treat marriage by faith as dogma. Dogma is a tenet a denomination teaches as axiomatically true and as something certain people such as members of their denomination or other groups of people are not morally permitted to disbelieve.
When Jesus explained Genesis 2 in Mathew 19 and Mark 10 he used it as a prohibition against reckless divorce without justifying circumstances. Below is a systematic listing of Bible verses about divorce and remarriage of a divorced person with explanations
Explanation of how the NIV translation of Mathew 5 32 changed in meaning regarding divorce
According to the some editions of NIV divorcing a woman makes her a victim of adultery which makes sense. According to other editions of NIV the act of divorcing her causes her to become an adulteress which makes absolutely no sense to me if becoming a victim of someone else's sin does not make someone commit a sin.
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery..." Section of Mathew 5:32 NIV (2022 April 18)
https://web.archive.org/web/20101114061119/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew+5&version=NIV
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress..." Matthew 5:32 Section of NIV 1984 edition
https://web.archive.org/web/20220419095246/https://www.studylight.org/bible/eng/n84/matthew/5.html
Rules about divorce, and rules about remarriage of divorced people according to Mathew 5, Mathew 19, Luke 16, Mark 10, Malachi 2, Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 24
A man divorcing a woman for being unfaithful or unclean is not an act of adultery according to Mathew 5:32 because of the phrase "except for"
A man divorcing a woman who is not unfaithful nor unclean is an act of adultery according to Mathew 5:32
A man divorcing a woman who is not unfaithful nor unclean and not marrying another woman is considered an act of adultery according to Mathew 5:32
A man divorcing a woman who is not unfaithful nor unclean and marrying another woman is considered an act of adultery according to Mathew 5:32
A man divorcing a woman for being unfaithful or unclean and marrying another woman is not adultery according to Mathew 19:9 because of the phrase, "except for"
A man divorcing a woman who is not unfaithful nor unclean and marrying another woman is an act of adultery according to Mathew 19:9
Mathew 19:9 does not say that it is adultery for a married man to marry another woman and not divorce the woman he is already married to. But, it also does not say it is not adultery for a married man to marry another woman and not divorce the woman he is already married to.
A woman divorcing her husband and marrying another man is adultery according to Mark 10:12
A woman divorcing her husband and not marrying another man is neither described as being or not being adultery in Mark 10:12
"And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife."
Deuteronomy 24:2 King James
https://web.archive.org/web/20100527115536/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+24&version=KJV
I am not saying the King James translation is infallible or the best translation in all things but in the case of Deuteronomy 24:2 it has the word "may" granting permission for a woman divorced by her husband to remarry where as some other translations do not have the word "may"
A woman who was divorced by man A then marries man B later is forbidden from marrying man A again if man B divorces her according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4
A woman who was divorced by a man is not forbidden from remarrying the same man who divorced her in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 if she has not married a different man after he divorced her
Exodus 21:10-11 provides one more exception in which divorce may not be an act of adultery, uncleanness or unfaithfulness and that is if you can not provide food, clothing or conjugal rights. Although deliberate failure to provide these things maybe unfaithfulness, it might not be an act of unfaithfulness in the case where it is not done intentionally for example if someone is physically separated from their spouse by means beyond their control such as if they are lost and can not find their spouse and it is presumed they will not be able to find their spouse again or unable to find them again within a reasonable amount of time or any other beyond their deliberate control that prevents them from being able to provide at least one of these three things.
Malachi 2:16 teaches that God hates divorce but this clearly applies to hating all divorce except that is done with the valid reasons described in Exodus 21:10-11, Mathew 5:32 and Mathew 19:9
Malachi 2:16 teaches does not teach that God hates divorced people getting remarried it only teaches that God hates them divorcing without legitimate reason.
The prohibition of a man marrying a divorced woman in Mathew 5:32, and luke 16:18 must take into account the prohibition of a woman divorcing her husband and marrying another man in Mark 10:12 and the exception in which a woman who was divorced by her husband is permitted to marry another man according to Deuteronomy 24:2 KJV
The prohibition of a man divorcing his wife and marrying another woman in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 must be considered in the context of the exception in Matthew 19:9 in which a man may both divorce his wife and marry another woman without committing adultery if the woman he divorced is unfaithful or unclean and the exception in which a man divorcing a woman is not adultery if she is unfaithful or unclean in Matthew 5:32 and the exception in which a man divorcing his wife is permitted without the man or woman committing acts of unfaithfulness or becoming unclean if due to circumstances beyond the couples control the man is no longer able to provide food, clothing or conjugal rights to the woman.
In summary the rules about divorce and remarriage from those verses are as follows
Valid reasons for a husband to divorce his wife can include uncleaness of the wife, unfaithfulness of the wife or failure of the husband to provide the wife with food, clothes or conjugal rights. Unfaithfulness of the wife could include a long list of things such as adultery or using violence against her husband but could be summaised as intending to cause harm or problems for her husband or persistent indifferent negligence to her husband's well being such as not directly trying to harm or cause problems for her husband but not caring if he gets harmed or has problems either. Uncleaness of the wife could be adultery or contracting a contagious permanent incurable disease without intentionally committing any act of unfaithfulness such as adultery against her husband. It would be a unethical act of unfaithfulness for a husband to intentionally fail to provide his wife with food, clothing or conjugal rights without a valid reason. However a husband maybe unable to provide food, clothing or conjugal rights to his wife due to circumstances beyond the couple's control, without the husband being unfaithful to his wife nor the wife being unfaithful to the husband.
A man who divorces his wife without a valid reason has committed adultery whether or not he remarries.
A man who divorces his wife with a valid reason does not commit adultery by marrying another woman.
A unmarried woman who was divorced by her husband does not commit adultery by marryimg another man
A woman who divorces her husband without a valid reason and marries another man commits adultery. It is unclear if there are any valid reasons a woman may divorce her husband without committing adultery. One possible valid reason might be if her husband failed to provide, food, clothing and conjugal rights in Exodus 21:10-11. If a woman can force a man to divorce her based on Exodus 21:10-11 she might be considered as a woman who was divorced by her husband and be permitted to remarry. If she considered her husband to have become permanently unclean that might be morally legitimate reason to refuse conjugal relations with him and vaild reason for divorce based on Exodus 21:10-11. If she did not attack her husband first and her husband violently beats her that might be grounds to flee from her husband's location and never come back to him resulting in a legitimate reason to refuse conjugal relations with her husband and thus unprovoked wife beating could be valid reason for divorce based on Exodus 21:10-11. If the couple is separated by means beyond their control or if the husband abandons and intentionally leaves the wife that might be a valid reason for the wife to divorce her husband or force her husband to divorce her based on Exodus 21:10-11. If for any other reason that is not the woman's intentional doing the husband is unable to provide food clothing or conjugal rights that might be a valid reason for the wife to divorce her husband or force her husband to divorce her based on Exodus 21:10-11. It would be a unethical act of unfaithfulness on her part for a woman to intentionally force her husband to be unable to provide her with food, clothing or conjugal rights without a valid reason in order to try to force a divorce in which her husband appears to be guilty of failure to provide food, clothing or conjugal rights.
Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 do not forbid an already married man from marrying an additional woman if he does not get a divorce. But, Mathew 19 does not permit an already married man to marry an additional woman if he does not get a divorce either. Matthew 19 only permits a man divorced for valid reasons to get married. Matthew 19 does not permit or forbid a never married man to get married. Matthew 5, Mark 10 and Luke 16 do not permit or forbid a never married man to get married. Matthew 5, Mark 10 and Luke 16 do not permit or forbid a never married woman to get married.
I believe that it was not sufficient to say not to commit adultery without describing what adultery is. And it is not sufficient to describe what adultery is unless you know who can and can not marry who and who is and is not married to who.
This might be why immediately after listing the ten commandments in Exodus 20 descriptions of how to get married occur in Exodus 21. The Mosaic law found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the first time in the Bible statute law is given for what is and is not adultery and for who may or may not marry who and in what circumstances. Genesis should not be applied to people in general today the way people in UBF use it to justify the dogma of "marriage by faith" because it contains no broad scope statute law for who can marry who and only contains case law examples in the form of stories which are too narrow in scope to apply to understand who may or may not marry who either today or in the time period of Mosaic law. Having read the entire Bible in English translation multiple times I claim that understanding the Mosaic law will help you understand most cases in which someone was allowed to get married in the old testament time period.
Why the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy can disprove that the dogma of marriage by faith is supported by the Bible
If the five rules of the marriage by faith policy described above were instituted in Genesis and never ceased since God instituted it then there would be nothing to negate the five rules of the marriage by faith policy in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But if the five rules of the marriage by faith policy are negated in all situations during that time period for the Israelite community and not just in some situations then it would refute the claim that the dogma of marriage by faith is supported by the Bible.
Outline for future things that need to be mentioned
Prohibited marriages in the statute laws of moses
Prohibted kidnapping in the statute laws of moses and not returning a runaway slave
Two types of incest both prohibited both biological consanguinity and non biological affinity incest
http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity
http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_(law)
types
http://web.archive.org/web/20220418033820/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
Genocide of nations nearby that committed incest, male with male homosexuality, bestiality and human sacrifice vs marrying prisoners of war from nations far away
King getting too many wives however many that is, too much wealth however much that is and of whatever type nor too many horses of the type forbidden, restrictions on the type of person appointed to be King and God not wanting them to appoint a King
Bestiality and males with males forbidden
Prohibited marriages in the new testament
Prohibition(s) on kidnapping in the new testament
Adultery
Polyandry as adultery
Types of marriages forbidden for priests vs high priests
Types of marriages forbidden in new testament
Was person with fathers wife committing adultery or incest of affinity 1 Kings 5:1
King Herod committing adultery with his living brother philup's wife in Mark 6:18 or with his deceased brother's wife as permitted in Deuteronomy 25
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=brother%27s+wife+new+testament&ia=web
Adultery
Polyandry as adultery
Ebed : servant, slave, employee, hired hand or worker
Seven Types of marriage in the old testament
1 Marriage between two servants of the same master and could it be done on a Temporary basis Exodus 21:1-6
2 Designating a servant woman to marry you Exodus 21:7-11
3 Designating a servant woman to marry your son Exodus 21:7-11
4 Exodus 22:16-17 father refusing or permitting related to required marriage for premarital relations in Deuteronomy 22:28-29
5 Deuteronomy 21 and marrying a prisoner of war
6 Deuteronomy 24 and marrying a woman divorced by her husband
7 Deuteronomy 25 and marrying your brother's wife if your brother is living with you upon your brother's death if you choose to
Why at least 6 of those 7 except possibly ( list number ) 3 conflict with at least one of the five marriage by faith policies each
Now these are the judgments. Both passages contain the same appointment, viz., that as to the Hebrews slavery must end at the seventh year; for God would have the children of Abraham, although obliged to sell themselves, to differ from heathen and ordinary slaves. Their enfranchisement is, therefore, enjoined, but with an exception, which Moses expresses in the first passage but omits in the latter, i e., that if the slave had married a bond-woman, and had begotten children, they should remain with the master, and that he should alone be free. Whence it appears how hard was the condition of slaves, since it could not be mitigated without an unnatural exception (sine prodigio;) for nothing could be more opposed to nature than that a husband, forsaking his wife and children, should remove himself elsewhere. But the tie of slavery could only be loosed by divorce, that is to say, by this impious violation of marriage. There was then gross barbarity in this severance, whereby a man was disunited from half of himself and his own bowels. Yet there was no remedy for it; for if the wife and children had been set free, it would have been a spoliation of their lawful master to take them with him, not only because the woman was his slave, but because he had incurred expense in the bringing up of the young children. The sanctity of marriage therefore gave way in this case to private right; and this defect is to be reckoned amongst the others which God tolerated on account of the people's hardness of heart, because it could hardly be remedied; yet, if any one were withheld by chaste affection, and unwilling to abandon his wife and offspring, an alternative is presented, viz., that he should give himself up also to perpetual slavery.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140525030850/https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/exodus/21.htm
At least 3 parts of the Bible allowing marriage in the new testament
1 A man who divorced his wife on valid reasons is permitted to marry another woman in Matthew 19
2 A widow is permitted to marry anothet man in Romans 7 and urged to marry if she is under 60 years old in 1 Timothy 5
3 Any and all types of marriages permitted in 1 Corinthians 7
Why those 3 parts of the new testament conflict with at least one of the five marriage by faith policies each
Is polygyny allowed or forbidden in these types in the old and new testament
I personally dissapprove of a man marrying either a specific woman his current wife or wives do not want him to or any additional women or woman his wife or wives do not want him to or multiple women at once if any of those women do not want him to marry any of those other women he is trying to marry at the same time as them
Roman Catholic Catechism on polygyny, Roman Catholic endorsement of Charlemagne as a good king and the many wives of charlemagne
Martin Luther on polygyny being not forbidden in the scripture and on polygyny being better than divorce and Landgrave Hesse
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=landgrave+hesse+martin+luther&ia=about
http://web.archive.org/web/20200903204452/https://speakingofpolygamy.com/2018/10/31/reformation-day/
John Calvin
http://web.archive.org/web/20141024065620/https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_timothy/3.htm
Anglican Polygamy for those who already did it
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anglican+polygamy&ia=web
http://web.archive.org/web/20201128144806/https://anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1988/resolution-26-church-and-polygamy?subject=Marriage
UBF should pay child support and alimony for marriages by faith
If UBF leaders tricked people into marrying they should be paying alimony and child support in the event of a divorce or annulment of the couple they tricked instead of either of the spouses. I am not saying this as legal information or legal advice but as a matter of responsibility. I am also saying this as to mention an opportunity to ask others more knowledgable than me about if this can be sued for.
Marriage by faith policy as rape by a third party or by proxy through deception or fraud
I am not claiming that the husband and wife are raping each other but that the UBF religious leader who tricked them into marrying each other is committing rape by deception or fraud via a third party or by proxy in my opinion.
I do not believe it is morally wrong to marry someone a UBF leader tries to arrange you to marry provided you sufficiently inform them why the marriage by faith teaching is false and ensure they have informed consent free from coercion and voluntarily agree to marry you.
Downloadable legal academic journal article about rape by deception
http://web.archive.org/web/20210708062913/https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/chiesa_produced.web_.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20220324025825/https://ylpr.yale.edu/solving-riddle-rape-deception
"Third-Party Deception: Deception by a third party can compromise consent as well. If a third party (not directly involved in the sexual act) withholds information that is personally important to the consenting person because it matters to whether he or she agrees to have sex, then their compliance is not based on being informed within reason. So, they are not sufficient informed to be in a position to give informed consent to the act."
Quote accessed on 2022 May 2
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201803/why-agreement-sex-is-not-consent
Forced marriages: family rape and rape by proxy
by Nicolai Sennels
http://web.archive.org/web/20220502224607/https://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/08/rape-by-proxy.html?m=1
Bill targets 'rape by proxy' [Commentary]
Brian Frosh and Kathleen Dumais
http://web.archive.org/web/20210622100425/baltimoresun.com/opinion/bs-xpm-2014-02-03-bs-ed-internet-sexual-assaults-20140203-story.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20220502230106/https://lovefraud.com/rape-by-deception/
http://web.archive.org/web/20220502231907/https://www.deceptology.com/deceptive/where-is-rape-by-deception-the-law.html
Warning a 2022 February 16 version of this link I am not posting contains a comicbook picture of nudity
http://web.archive.org/web/20110308133328/https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeByProxy
http://web.archive.org/web/20220322171846/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
http://web.archive.org/web/20220427182542/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_rape
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rape+by+proxy&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q="third+party"+rape&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rape+by+deception&ia=about
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rape+by+fraud&ia=about
No comments:
Post a Comment