According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.” (¶2280, p.467) Notice the phrase “for … the salvation of our souls.” It is, therefore, a mortal sin at the end of one’s life: thus, seriously jeopardizing one’s salvation.
The Catechism doubles down on euthanasia stating, “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.” (¶2277, p.466)
I’d like to make it clear, right from the start, that I don’t disagree with the Church’s teaching, in general (I am pro-life) but I also think that to every rule there are exceptions. Indeed, at the end of the section on ‘Suicide,’ the Catechism graciously adds, “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.” (¶2283, p.467) The rest of this article, though, presents some food for thought.
The New Testament
In ‘The Gospel according to John,’ Jesus is portrayed saying, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13, KJV)
For example, Maximilian Kolbe (1894–1941) was a Polish Franciscan priest and missionary who volunteered to die in place of a stranger at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. He is recognized as a martyr and saint in the Catholic Church. Very altruistic, one might say; but my question is: If one’s life belongs to God alone, what gives one the right to give it up for someone else? However, apparently, Jesus thinks it is commendable. I suppose love, altruistic love rather, conquers all.” Again, I’m not disagreeing, don’t get me wrong—just an observation.
Altruistic Considerations
Lately I came across a situation that made me think. A terminally ill husband opted for assisted suicide in order not to leave his wife destitute by spending the little money they had accumulated in doctors and hospitals. Is that right or wrong? Isn’t that the kind of altruistic love Jesus was talking about? Then why does the Catholic Catechism state, “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.” (¶2283, p.467) Notice the phrase: “Whatever its motives.”
Another example: is a soldier not justified committing suicide, if captured, to preclude the possibility of revealing information about his colleagues in case he or she is tortured?
I used to write, expressing my opinion against euthanasia, to my member of parliament through the Archdiocese of Toronto—I don’t any more. I think that in certain circumstances, it is the right thing to do!
Pain and Chloroform
Now I’d like to address the Catholic Catechism’s statement, “An act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder.” Notice particularly the clause “to eliminate suffering.” This is reminiscent of the fact, that when chloroform was discovered—totally eliminating pain during operations—some Protestant Churches originally objected to it (particularly during childbirth), stating that God designed pain for a reason and that we should not tamper with the way the Creator designed things. In the case of childbirth, it was, supposedly, the so called ‘curse of Eve’ (Genesis 3:16) following her inducing Adam to eat of the ‘forbidden fruit.’ Nowadays, these Churches admit they were wrong. Could this be another case where the Catholic Church is wrong?
God designed suffering to effectively coerce us to protect our bodies from physical and pathological damage. But in the case of a terminal illness, what’s the use of pain? God isn’t a sadist who likes to see us suffer. The fact that we suffer during a terminal illness is the nature of the beast, just as we suffer pain after surgery—despite the problem’s having been removed. That’s the way the body is designed: whenever there’s internal damage, the body alerts the individual—severely. God doesn’t go around changing his original design in every situation; it’s up to us humans to best deal with the situation if we happen to know how.
I know there could be abuses by selfish family members who would like to inherit the unfortunate moribund immediately. But that’s a different cattle of fish; we’re talking about the morality of thwarting terminal pain: the way pain is thwarted during surgery. Is it right or not?
The Old Testament
Western morality is mainly based on what the Bible says, but the Old and the New Testament do not always jibe. In ‘The Book of Judges,’ we read that strongman Samson’s lover, Delilah, wears him down to reveal his secret, that his strength comes from his uncut hair and betrays him. While sleeping, the Philistines shave his head, blind him, and imprison him. Neglected, his hair grows back. During a celebration to the god Dagon, he is brought out in its temple to be ridiculed. He prays to his God for strength, pushes down the temple pillars, and dies while killing many Philistines. (Judges 16:4–30). The story ends with, “So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.” (Judges 16:30, KJV) Bravo!? This action is usually ‘condoned’ by the Christian Churches as fighting idolatry.
The Quran
Needless to point out, perhaps, this Bible story is equivalent to the terrorist act of September 11, 2001, in the USA, quoting primarily the ‘Sword Verse’ of the Quran as justification: “Once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ‘who violated their treaties’ wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way.” (9:5) The authors of both these so called ‘holy’ books are misguided: well-meaning people, perhaps, trying to find God, who believe they must ‘fight’ for their God using violence rather than conviction. Indeed, the Quran also says, elsewhere, “Do not … kill yourselves,” (4:29) showing, moreover, a total misinterpretation of the text by its believers.
I’m not implying, here, that Christians never committed violent crimes against people of other religions: e.g., the Crusades between 1095 and 1291—that’s almost three centuries of religious violence. The core problem is that both books are regarded by believers as ‘divine’—coming directly from God—while they are, in actual fact, simply books written by ordinary humans. Funny, both religious sects are trying to ‘protect’ the same God—the God of Abraham—as if the Maker of the universe cannot take care of his own interests!
Gospel Teaching
In ‘The Gospel according to Matthew,’ Jesus is portrayed saying, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.’ That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:43–45, KJV)
God loves everyone unconditionally; so hurting any one of his children is far removed from his delight. Notice also Jesus’s hinting at ‘inaccuracies’ in the Old Testament. May I remind the reader that idolatry was rampant in Jesus’s time? Both Rome (the governing body) and Greece (the intellectual hegemony) adored multiple gods; yet Jesus never told his followers to harm them, let alone kill them.
Conclusion
The Bible, therefore, is not really God’s word; it’s Jesus who is God’s Word: he showed us, by example, what God’s character is really like. However, Jesus never wrote anything himself. So, what does one do if one cannot always trust the Bible, and Jesus never wrote a word?
Although the Bible doesn’t always get things right, in my opinion, it has the correct answer to this question. In ‘The Book of Deuteronomy,’ we read, “This commandment which I [God] command thee … is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” (Deuteronomy 30:11–14, KJV)
The Spirit of God’s truth (the Holy Spirit) is inside every one of us, in the very core of our being, constantly telling us what is right and what is wrong. Deep down in our core being, practically everyone (including atheists) agrees that we should treat others, whether of different color or creed, as we would like to be treated ourselves. This is probably why Jesus never wrote anything.
References
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Concacan Inc. Ottawa, ON: Publications Services, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (ISBN 0889972818)
Quran.com website.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. (KJV) Oxford, UK, 1769.
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
Christians believe God created the universe, is almighty, controls everything, and knows the future. They believe he is everywhere, too. Is he, therefore, humongous? To create the universe, he had to be independent of it: that is, outside space since, according to modern science, space started at the ‘Big Bang.’ Where is he located, then? This is far from easy to fathom. They also believe God is eternal. We might possibly understand that he will exist for ever; but we cannot really comprehend how he could have always existed because all beings have a beginning. And where does our existence fit in this infinite ocean of time? How did he, ‘one day,’ in his infinite past decide to create the universe and us? Again, according to modern science, also time, as we know it, started at the ‘Big Bang.’ Our mind simply cannot grasp the concept that God is, therefore, also beyond time—the same way he is beyond space. Christians also believe that God is a ‘person,’ as well, and that everyone may have a personal relationship with him. How is this possible? Does he have a body? Does he have a face, at least? Is it possible for us to see him ‘face to face’ and talk to him? Finally, they believe we humans are all made in God’s ‘image’ (Genesis 1:26-27). That’s probably in our powers of reason, not in our bodies. Is he ‘present,’ somehow, in our mind? This article tries to answer some of these questions.
(Note:There are many nuances in Christian doctrines that the various denominations vigorously argue on. However, in the interest of brevity in this article, I shall confine my arguments and quotes to those of the Catholic Church, which happens to be the most numerous of the Christian denominations.)
Is God Everywhere?
Quoting the fourth Lateran Council (held in 1215), the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “God [is] eternal, infinite (immensus), and unchangeable.” (¶202, p.54) The Latin word immensus means ‘immeasurable,’ ‘boundless,’ ‘endless,’ ‘vast,’ or ‘immense.’ It essentially describes something so large that it cannot be measured or has no limits.
In Question 15, the Baltimore Catechism has, “Q. Where is God? A. God is everywhere.” Question 16 continues, “Q. If God is everywhere, why do we not see Him? A. We do not see God, because He is a pure spirit and cannot be seen with bodily eyes.” However, there are many other modern instruments that can detect the presence of many things we cannot see. Admittedly, this is an old Catechism (published in 1885), but the Catholic Church never retracted any of it—you see, Catholic teaching is ‘dogmatic’: it never admits to have made a mistake, claiming that the Holy Spirit constantly guides the Church not to err—ever.
According to this Catechism, therefore, God seems to occupy all of space—all the universe. Yet, in order to ‘create’ something, one cannot be inside that same creation to start with: one must be outside and independent of it. Philosophically, therefore, God must have been outside space initially, at least. So for God to be everywhere in space now, God must have entered space (the universe) after he created it, and subsequently occupied all of it. Of course, this begs the question of why we cannot see him, and the Catechism answers that he is a spirit and that a spirit cannot be seen with human eyes. Yet, angels are spirits too, and the Bible claims that they were occasionally seen by humans (e.g., Luke 1:12,28)—contradicting the above. We’ll talk about spirits later; I’d like to develop God’s immensity further before moving on from this subject.
On the other hand, as we shall see below, the Catholic Catechism (published in 1994) seems to subtly modify this concept by stating that God is outside space.
God Is a Person:
According to the Catholic Catechism, “The Father [God] is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity.” (¶198, p.53, emphasis mine) Moreover, it adds that God invites us to have a personal relationship with him: “God reveals himself to his people Israel by making his name known to them. [Exodus 3:13-15] … To disclose one’s name is to make oneself known to others; in a way it is to hand oneself over by becoming more accessible, capable of being known more intimately and addressed personally.” (¶203, p.54)
In Question 6 of the Baltimore Catechism, we read, “Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” God invites us to have a personal relationship with him, yes, but he does not force us to love him and much less to serve him. Rightly, the modern Catholic Catechism tacitly omits these last two concepts. If we decide not to get to know God, we simply miss out in life, and he will not hold it against us.
Quoting (Saint) Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (13:12) and the First Letter of John (3:2) respectively, the Catholic Catechism goes on to say that when we go to heaven, we shall enjoy the ‘beatific vision’: that is, “we shall see God ‘face to face,’ ‘as he is.’” (¶163, p.48) Does God have a body? Most probably, no. Does God have a face, maybe? Probably not, either. Shall we be able to ‘see’ him? Observe that, in the last quote, the phrase “face to face” is inside quotation marks. We shall probably ‘experience’ him, somehow. He is an Intelligence—far higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). He seems to have written his name, in big letters, all over the universe, in the largest things to the smallest: the stars, our planet Earth, animals, vegetation, DNA, atoms—everything: like saying, “I am the God almighty.” His language is not Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English; his language is intelligence. In my opinion, God is Intelligence itself (like he is Being itself, as we shall see in the next section).
What proof do we have of our face-to-face communication with God happening in the afterlife? We have the following experience from Paul—if we are to believe him. In one of his authentic letters, ‘Second Corinthians,’ he claims to have been transported, in ecstasy, to heaven in God’s presence; he writes, “I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows), was caught up [“in ecstasy” (NAB 12:1–4n)] to the third heaven [where “God himself dwelt,” NAB 12:1–4n]. And I know that this person (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable things, which no one may utter.” (2 Corinthians 12:2–4, NAB) Moreover, in another of his authentic letters, ‘First Corinthians,’ according to the Berean Literal Bible, he has, “Presently we see through a glass in obscurity [indistinctly (NAB), dimly (KJV)]; but then, face to face. Presently, I know in part; but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (First Corinthians 13:12, BLB, my emphasis)
Notice especially the phrase “face to face.” So, it does look like we shall be able to communicate directly, somehow, with this Infinite Intelligence and Pure Knowledge—God! Personally, I do believe Paul, who was initially a skeptic of Christianity but apparently converted through a special ‘divine’ revelation (Galatians 1:13–16).
God Is Being Itself:
Technically, we cannot call God a ‘being’ because every being is created, while God was not. God is the source of all that exists—Existence itself: he is capable of turning ‘nothingness’ into something. In the Bible, during the theophany of the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-15), God declares to Moses, “‘I Am He who Is’ [or] ‘I Am Who Am.’” (Exodus 3:14 as quoted in the Catholic Catechism, ¶206, p.55)—by necessity.
God’s Name:
During the revelation of the divine name to Moses, again in the theophany of the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-15), God tells Moses that his name in Hebrew was “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh”; that is, “I Am Who I Am.” Since the Hebrew Bible was written only in consonants—no vowels—God’s name in the Hebrew Bible appears as “YHWH” from which we get the word ‘Yahweh’ and from which Jehovah’s Witnesses misread the current biblical text as ‘Jehovah’ rather than ‘Yahweh.’ According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Jehovah [is the] artificial Latinized rendering of the name of the God of Israel. The name arose among Christians in the Middle Ages through the combination of the consonants YHWH (JHVH) with the [first] vowels of Adonai (‘My Lord’) [and Elohim (‘Gods’)]. Jews reading the Scriptures aloud [out of respect for God’s name] substituted Adonai for the sacred name commonly called the tetragrammaton.”
Moreover, according to the New American Bible, “The word ‘Jehovah’ arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text.” (Exodus 3:14n)
(Note:The Latin alphabet has no ‘Y’ or ‘W’; it uses ‘J’ and ‘V,’ respectively, instead. The plural ‘Gods’ for God is intended to convey that God is not just an ordinary person—somewhat like the royal ‘We’ used nowadays. In Greek, the word tetra means ‘four’ and the word gramma means ‘letter’; hence tetragrammaton.)
Now, in her book The Case for God, religion commentator Karen Armstrong writes, “God may have been saying … ‘Never mind who I am!’” (p.39) I tend to disagree with this interpretation because when Moses asked God “If I go to the Israelites and say to them ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ What do I tell them?” (Exodus 3:13) God replied, “This is what you will tell the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14) Or “HE IS has sent me to you.” (Catholic Catechism ¶211, p.56) So, I think the best translation of the Hebrew “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh” would be “I am the one who is.”
The New American Bible adds (in 3:14n) that the Hebrew word eyeh, besides meaning ‘I am,’ could also mean ‘I will be(come).’ This might suggest translating this verse as “I am who I will become.” Is God referring to the end of time? The original meaning of a text is often lost in a translation. It has often been said that any translation of the Bible is like a lion in a cage: it’s still a lion, but it’s a far cry from a lion in the wild.
To give an example of what I mean here, consider John the Baptist’s statement in Matthew’s Gospel: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” (Matthew 3:9, NAB) In his book Whose Bible Is It?, scholar of the history of Christianity, Christian theology, and medieval intellectual history Jaroslav Jan Pelikan Jr. writes, “Retranslating this saying from Greek back into Aramaic (or Hebrew) …: ben … means ‘son’ or ‘child,’ with the plural banim; and eben … means ‘stone’ with the plural ebanim; so what John the Baptist was saying was that God was able to make banim (children) out of ebanim, (stones) a play of words that is lost … in the translation from Aramaic to Greek to English.” (p.10) (Note: Although Matthew’s original gospel (in Aramaic) is totally lost, studies such as the above show it, most probably, existed.)
God Is Beyond Space and Time:
The Catholic Catechism states, “He is the God who [is] beyond space and time.” (¶205, p.55) Now, as I already mentioned, according to modern science, both space and time started at the ‘Big Bang.’ And as I already pointed out, God had to be outside and independent of both of these in order to be able to create them.
In my opinion, therefore, God is (resides) in a fourth (or higher) dimension. What does that mean? Imagine a flat piece of paper; it has only two dimensions: (1) left or right and (2) back or forth—no height. Anything confined to this two-dimensional space cannot exit from it and cannot be aware of what’s outside of it. On the other hand, we live in a three-dimensional space: we can move (1) left or right, (2) back or forth, and (3) up or down. We, who live in a three-dimensional space, can see what is happening anywhere on the flat paper (a two-dimensional space) but they cannot be aware of us. So, theoretically, we can ‘enter’ this two-dimensional space, but anything that is confined to a two-dimensional space has no ‘thickness’ or ‘height,’ and so can never jump out of it and reach out to a three-dimensional space.
Now, a four-dimensional space includes time as well. Just as we can move anywhere in a three-dimensional space, God (or a spirit) can also move back or forth in time. Therefore, if a spirit (an angel, say) decides to confine itself to our three-dimensional space, we would probably be able to see it. Consequently, I think that God is not exactly everywhere in the universe, as the Baltimore Catechism (Q.15) contends, but he can access everywhere in space, possibly simultaneously (as we shall see in the next section), since he is not confined to time.
Prayers
If God is outside space, how can our prayers reach him in time to be relevant? According to modern science, any communication (like our thoughts, say) can only travel toward God at the speed of light. What if God happens to be far away or outside space at that moment? It would take about fourteen billion years, in the latter case, for our prayers to reach him. By then our needs would be long gone; so, one might ask, what’s the use of prayers?
There’s a physical phenomenon termed entanglement. According to Wikipedia, “Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon where the quantum state of each particle in a group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance.”
Whatever happens to any particle in one group is replicated (mirror-imaged, rather) in the other group instantaneously: the information doesn’t need to travel from one place to the other. Conceivably, if, during one’s conception, God ‘entangles’ a duplicate set of atoms (a ‘brain cell’ say) he can have a replica of our ‘mind’ right beside him all the time. This way, our prayers can be ‘heard’ in ‘real’ time—besides his knowing all our actions.
Is God Light?
Quoting ‘First John’ (1:5) the Catholic Catechism states, “God is light and in him there is no darkness.” (¶214, p.57) This letter of ‘John’ was written around 110 CE when Gnosticism was a formidable competitor and opponent of Christianity. Gnostics believed that light was a divine substance. However, undoubtedly, light is a strictly physical quantity, not a supernatural one. The New American Bible is right in commenting that “light is to be understood here as truth and goodness; darkness here is error and depravity.” (First John 1:5n) In other words, it should be understood metaphorically.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church never bothered to revise its fourth-century text of the ‘Nicene Creed’ that states, “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial of one Being with the Father”:
https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=495 (emphasis mine). Notice especially the phrase “Light from Light”; meaning that both God and Jesus are made of light. Again and again, we encounter false teachings in Catholicism because of the Church’s dogmatic policy.
What is God’s Essence?
According to the Catholic Catechism, “God [is] three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.” (¶202, p.54) I cannot see how this could possibly be the case since the Catholic Church also claims that Jesus alone has two natures: human and divine. So how can God be “simple”? But then there’s the cop-out, of course—it’s a mystery! The reader may want to refer to my article on ‘The Trinity’ to see why this illogical concept of three ‘Gods’ in one God came about and stuck through the centuries; here’s a hint: it was mainly politically driven by the Roman emperors.
Moreover, if God is indeed the source of all intelligent information, I don’t see how he could possibly be “simple,” like a diamond lattice, say, which consists of a crystal made exclusively of carbon atoms: there’s no intelligence in such a thing.
Is God Unchanging?
Quoting the Letter of James (1:17) the Catholic Catechism states, “In God ‘there is no variation or shadow due to change.’” (¶212, p.56) However, if we were to include Jesus in ‘God,’ God changed significantly when Jesus was born as well as when he died; not to mention his growing up. But that’s another mystery, right? The Catholic Church wants to have it both ways despite its own contradictions.
Moreover, I think when one of us humans establishes a personal relationship with God, there is a slight change in God. The way I’d express it is, somewhat like the oceans and seas: the changes God experiences are insignificant.
God Is Almighty:
Atheists try to taunt us, believers, in this respect, asking, “Can God make two and two equal five?” Of course not: God cannot make ‘absurdities.’ Likewise, they ask, “Can God make a stone he cannot lift?” By his ‘word,’ or rather by simply ‘thinking’ about it, he can move any-sized stone: he started the universe moving, anyway. He can even ‘lift’ any stone against any gravitational field. “So,” they continue, “He cannot make a stone he cannot lift.” Again, God cannot make absurdities; a stone he cannot lift cannot exist: it’s an absurdity, like saying north of the North Pole, say.
God Is a Spirit:
The Penny Catechism (written in the nineteenth century) question 17 reads, “Q. What is God? A. God is the supreme Spirit, who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.” A ‘spirit’ is a totally immaterial being, while a ‘soul’ is the principle of life in a living creature. (Note: The Latin word anima means ‘soul’; from which we derive the English word ‘animal.’) In the ‘Nicene Creed,’ we pray, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” I think this is correct. I do believe that it’s only God who, not only creates things, but also gives life to all life forms: the Holy Spirit is the ‘interface’ between the supernatural and the natural—for all life forms, in a special manner. The ‘soul’ is the software program for the body, and the ‘mind’ is the software program for the brain. The brain acts both as a receiver and filter of outside information (including spiritual information—like what is good and what is evil) as well as a transmitter to the rest of the body.
Indeed, referring to the Trinity, in her book, The Case for God, Armstrong writes, “The [Holy] Spirit is simply the atman [self] of the Father. … The [Holy] Spirit is the ultimate innerness of every being, ourselves included.” (p.118) God seems to have made his dwelling place, in a special manner, in the mind of every one of us humans. In fact, both atheists and non-atheists alike believe we should treat others the same way we would like to be treated; not to mention that most of us know, deep down, what’s reasonable and what’s not.
Armstrong starts her analysis of the ‘evolution’ of our concept of God by, “Being rather than a being was revered as the ultimate sacred power. … [Everything] shared the divine life that sustained the entire cosmos. …Everything was a manifestation of this all-pervading ‘Spirit.’” (pp.11-12) Somewhat like what scientists nowadays call the ‘Laws of Nature.’ Of course, such a concept short-changes the intelligence shown in the universe and life—big time. So people came up with the concept of many gods, every one with a special area of expertise. The Hebrews, as well as Christians and Muslims much later, shrunk polytheism to monotheism. That’s when it became really difficult to define God.
Does God Control the Universe?
Monotheism, however, could never explain the ‘problem of evil’ adequately: why there’s so much evil, pain, and suffering in this world that was supposedly created by a good God. This being the case, it’s also difficult to believe that a benevolent God controls the universe. The Catholic Catechism heads ¶¶272-74 (p.67) with “The Mystery of God’s apparent powerlessness,” but I don’t think the arguments presented there are very convincing—except, perhaps, Jesus’s resurrection from the dead: there God really showed how powerful he is (¶272), that is, assuming one believes in it.
In his poem ‘In Memoriam A.H.H.’ Lord Tennyson writes, “Nature [is] red in tooth and claw.” Thus, God seems to be a violent and cruel God. But then, in his Book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin observes that without predators, prey species may experience a rapid increase in numbers, potentially leading to overpopulation that can strain an ecosystem’s resources, leading to competition for food, water, and other necessities. This can result in resource depletion and even population crashes. So, it might be kinder to die a swift death than a slow death for lack of resources.
On the other hand, it’s extremely hard to understand why God allows evil people to take advantage of and even hurt good people. The best explanation I have is that evil people were once innocent children and babies, and although God hates sin, he loves everyone—including evil people: so God tries to patiently convert people through conviction, not coercion. Just like parents hate the disease debilitating their child, but they still love the child.
In my opinion, God could control the universe if he wanted to; but then we wouldn’t have ‘free will.’ I think he relinquished his control to us humans: again, like good parents try to let their children sort things out among themselves, rather than interfere. Instead, God made us ingenuous and intelligent enough to handle most situations. At the same time, I do not rule out God’s ability to control the Universe and Earth, in the long run, despite our obstructive interference.
God Sustains Creation:
According to the Catholic Catechism, God must continually sustain all of his creations, every second; otherwise they will revert to nothingness again: “He [God] not only gives them [his creations] being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being.” (¶301, p.73) This is also probably true: if God were to ‘retract’ the ‘laws’ governing the universe for a single moment, the whole universe would probably collapse to ‘nothingness’ again.
During the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ on October 13, 1917, at Fatima, Portugal, God showed his awesome power to suspend the laws of physics to about 70,000 witnesses consisting of a crowd of believers, skeptics, and even anti-Catholic individuals gathered in fields. The event was also reported (and even insisted upon later) in atheist newspapers by atheist reporters that were there only to discredit the three little children who had predicted it. During the event, the sun reportedly dimmed, changed colors, spun on its axis, and appeared to fall toward the earth radiating considerable heat without hurting anyone. The event was also marked by a clearing of the sky, dispersal of clouds, and the drying-up (in seconds) of the crowd’s wet clothes and muddy ground following an all-morning rain.
In his book, The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins writes, “On the face of it mass visions, such as the report that seventy thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun ‘tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude’, are harder to write off. It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the world, outside Fatima, seeing it too—and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space.” (p.116)
Dawkins is right, of course—but under ‘normal’ circumstances. These phenomena were only seen up to eighteen kilometers (11 miles) away; however, hallucinations are not ‘contagious’: they cannot be ‘shared’ with others. So, the empirical evidence is there: God can indeed suspend the laws of physics.
Is God Our Father?
Despite both our creeds as well as Jesus’s calling God “Father” in the gospels (Matthew 6:9 & Luke 11:2), God obviously has no gender. The Catholic Catechism confirms this: “He [God] is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfections of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.” (¶370, p.85) (Likewise, angels have no gender.)
So why did Jesus call God “Father”? Of course, Jesus recognized that God is ultimately our creator, and in a way, parents ‘create’ their children; not to mention the unconditional love good parents have toward their children—the same way God loves everyone. The fact that Jesus chose to call God ‘Father’ (rather than ‘Mother’) is more a result of the times in which Jesus lived, albeit he gave much more importance to women in his Church than they were given at the time. In those days, the male sperm was thought to be the ‘seed’ of a human being, while the woman, sort of, provided the ‘soil.’ So the male was thought to be the actual source of a child; this is probably why most societies are ‘paternal’ societies: the child inherits the last name of the father, not the mother, despite the fact that it’s much easier to trace the mother than the father. I think ‘Creator,’ would have been a better choice than ‘Father’ (more scientific too), but then the important concept of his unconditional love for us would be lost.
Does God Know the Future?
One problem I had when I still believed (as most Christians still do) in the eternity of hell was: if God knows the future, then he would know beforehand whether one will end up in heaven or in hell. Then, in the latter case, why does he allow one to be born?
According to the Catholic Catechism, “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.” (¶1037, p.222) Be that as it may, God still knows a particular individual is going to persist in mortal sin: so, the ‘decent’ thing for God to do, since he is omnipotent, is not to allow that individual to be born. Of course, one might argue, as I did for decades, that God doesn’t make a person sin and that the latter has free will. However, in the depth of my being, I still felt that the decent thing for God to do is to prevent that person from being born. Presently, I don’t believe in the eternity of or the fire in hell and that, consequently, one is punished accordingly. (The reader might want to read my articles on “Hell” & “Free Will and Predestination,” to see what I currently believe.)
Now, what does science say regarding the ability of God’s foretelling the future? In his book The Universe in a Nutshell, arguably the greatest theoretical physicist and cosmologist of our time, Stephen Hawking, goes so far as to write the following regarding Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle—a direct result of quantum physics uncertainty. “We cannot even suppose that [a] particle has a position and velocity that are known to God [simultaneously] but are hidden to us. … Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know [both] the position and velocity [simultaneously]; He can only know the wave function [probability].” (p.107)
So God limited himself not to know ‘exactly’ the state of a single particle, let alone a whole human being. It is this uncertainty principle which is the basis of our free will: otherwise everything would be predetermined according to Newton’s ‘classical physics.’ God constructed our world in such a manner that we can have free will. So I contend that God does not really know the future, especially where we are concerned. One cannot have it both ways, either we are completely free to do what we like or God knows everyone’s future (implying predestination): I opt for the former.
In my opinion, God might know the future as far as the universe and possibly our solar system are concerned, but he doesn’t really know what we’re going to do next. I don’t think he even knows whether we’ll eventually blow up this beautiful, life-filled planet, Earth, or not: it only depends on us, I guess!
Conclusion:
The Catholic Church (along with all of Christianity) has not kept up with science in reviewing its concepts about God. It’s difficult enough to believe in God, whom we never see; it’s even harder to believe any of the Church’s logic-splitting arguments for the concept of three ‘Gods’ in one God. In general, our Christian values are still praiseworthy, but our doctrines are hopelessly outdated. Although doctrines are probably less important than values in life, our pews are already half-empty on Sundays; at this rate, soon enough, they will be totally empty because of our doctrines’ being interpreted as old wives tales.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London, UK, John Murray, 1859.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion; New York, NY: Mariner Books, 2008. (ISBN: 9780618918249)
De Concilio, Januarius. Baltimore Catechism Number 2. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore: Baltimore, MD, April 1885.
Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 2001. (ISBN: 055380202X)
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Concacan Inc. Ottawa, ON: Publications Services, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (ISBN: 0889972818)
New American Bible: Revised Edition (NAB). Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (ISBN: 9780899429519)
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
The ‘Higgs boson’ and ‘Higgs field’ concepts are not easy to grasp. The Higgs field permeates all of space and behaves somewhat like the earth’s gravitational field.
When an object is raised, in the earth’s gravitational field, it gains what is termed ‘potential’ energy, a ‘hidden’ or ‘stored’ energy that can do mechanical damage if dropped. Likewise, when certain ‘elementary particles’ of the ‘Standard Model of Particle Physics’ traverse the Higgs field, it ‘interacts’ with (affects) them and they gain ‘mass,’ which is also a form of stored energy—E=mc2 (where ‘E’ stands for energy, ‘m’ stands for mass, and ‘c’ stands for the velocity of light in a vacuum). One may think of mass as ‘weight’ on earth.
According to the CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire—the European Council for Nuclear Research) website, https://home.web.cern.ch/science/physics/higgs-boson, “When the universe began, no particles had mass; they all sped around at the speed of light.” Wikipedia confirms this: “All fundamental particles … should be massless at very high energies [temperatures]”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson. So, in the early universe (i.e., at extremely high temperatures—during the first picosecond [10-12 of a second] of the Big Bang), before any interaction with the Higgs field, all fundamental particles are thought to have been massless and moving at the speed of light. As CERN explains further, “In our current description of Nature, every particle is a wave in a field. The most familiar example of this is light: light is simultaneously a wave in the electromagnetic field and a stream of particles called photons.”
[Note: In our universe, every physical entity exhibits itself ‘dually,’ that is, both as a ‘particle’ and as a ‘wave’—or oscillation. For example, light normally consists of waves, but it also behaves as a ‘quantum’ or a ‘packet’ of indivisible energy termed a photon. That’s why in photography dark rooms, red light, no matter how bright or for how long it is left on, does not develop a black-and-white (as well as the less-sensitive color) photographic film: it’s energy (E=hf, where ‘h’ is Planck’s constant and ‘f’ is the frequency) is insufficient to exceed a certain threshold because the red light frequency is too low. The physical phenomenon involved, in this particular case, is termed the photoelectric effect. In my article “Free Will and Predestination,” under “Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics),” I explain, in more detail, this duality of light.]
As the universe expanded and cooled down, several of these fundamental particles started interacting, to different extents, with the Higgs field: specifically, it interacts with particles that end up with a non-zero mass, including: ‘quarks’ (which form protons & neutrons), ‘leptons’ (particles like the electron & neutrino), and ‘W & Z bosons’ (which mediate the ‘weak nuclear force’ inside atoms). Indeed, the Higgs particle does not interact at all with massless particles, such as photons (like light) or gluons (which mediate the ‘strong nuclear force’ inside atoms).
Now, the Higgs boson is the ‘excitation’ of the Higgs field: somewhat like a drop of water forming inside steam. The Higgs boson is very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately upon generation—in about 1.6×10-22 of a second. The Higgs field uses the Higgs boson intermediately to interact with ‘non-zero-mass’ elementary particles giving them mass.
In https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/higgs_boson.html, the Fermilab website, explains, “The Higgs boson is a particle. It gets its mass like all other particles: by interacting with (‘swimming in’) the Higgs field. But as you can imagine, the Higgs particle differs from all the other particles we know. It can be thought of a dense spot in the Higgs field, which can travel like any other particle: like a drop of water in water vapor. … The Higgs particle, like many other elementary particles, is not a stable particle. Since it interacts with all kinds of other massive particles it can be created in collisions. Once the Higgs particle has been created, it will eventually decay.” And according to CERN, “The Higgs boson can’t be ‘discovered’ by finding it somewhere but has to be created in a particle collision. Once created, it transforms—or ‘decays’ into other particles that can be detected in particle detectors.”
Technical Information:
The discovery of the Higgs boson on July 4, 2012, through the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland (on the Franco-Swiss border) provided strong evidence for the existence of the Higgs field and the mechanism it provides for ‘creating’ particle mass. As mentioned, the Higgs field interacts with and gives mass to many elementary sub-atomic particles. The ‘Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism’ explains how these particles acquire their mass through this interaction. The Higgs boson, when very rarely formed in the Large Hadron Collider (about once in a billion collisions, according to CERN), disintegrates into other ‘elementary particles’ in a small fraction (1.6×10-22) of a second. The formation of Higgs bosons is only evidence that a Higgs field really exists.
How certain are physicists that they discovered the Higgs boson since it only lasts for a fleeting moment before it decays and they can’t possibly examine it at their leisure? They’re not 100% sure, but they are better than 99.9999% sure. In the case of the Higgs boson, physicists passed the so-called threshold of ‘five-sigma.’ A 5-sigma result (or finding) signifies a very high level of statistical certainty: there’s a very small chance that the observed data is due to random fluctuations rather than a real phenomenon: specifically, a 5-sigma result indicates about a one-in-a-million chance that the findings are merely a statistical fluke. A 5-sigma certainty corresponds to a confidence level of approximately 99.99994%.
Despite Fermilab’s equating mass to drag: “The Higgs field … just causes a ‘drag’ = mass,” I must agree with Wikipedia’s stating, “Analogies based on the resistance of macroscopic objects moving through media (such as … objects moving through syrup or molasses) are commonly used but misleading, since the Higgs field does not actually resist particles, and the effect of mass is not caused by resistance.”
Consequently, I think we can best compare the Higgs field with the earth’s gravitational field (if we neglect air friction). All the initial ‘kinetic’ (motion) energy of a ball thrown upward is converted to ‘potential’ (stored) energy at its highest point. The ‘mass’ (otherwise known as ‘matter’) gained in a Higgs field is roughly comparable to the potential energy gained in the earth’s gravitational field when an object is raised. Wikipedia confirms this: “In Higgs-based theories, the property of ‘mass’ is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact (‘couple’) with the Higgs field.” There’s no question that, though massless, light photons do carry energy (E=hf=pc, where ‘p’ is the momentum, and ‘c’ is the velocity of light) from the sun to the earth.
Like the earth’s gravitational field, the Higgs field is a ‘scalar’ field. Unlike an electrical or magnetic field, the earth’s gravitational field is independent of direction: its ‘potential’ is only dependent on position above earth. The Higgs field, however, has a potential shaped like a ‘sombrero’ or ‘Mexican hat: it has a characteristic shape resembling a wide-brimmed hat. The ‘brim’ (valley) of the hat represents the stable, lowest energy state of the Higgs field, while the ‘top’ of the hat (around the center) is a higher energy state. When an elementary particle interacts with the Higgs field, it ‘overshoots’ the top and settles inside the brim.
Creation from Nothingness:
CERN asks, “Does [the Higgs boson] help to explain how the universe was formed?” The fact that the Higgs field (through the Higgs boson) gives mass to several subatomic particles (thus seemingly ‘creating’ matter) prompted popular media to nickname the Higgs boson as the ‘God Particle.’ Is the Higgs field or the Higgs boson the answer to creation ex nihilo (from ‘nothingness’)? Not really, for it begs the question: how did the Higgs field come about in the first place? Not to mention the prior existence of the massless elementary particles. These elementary particles, although massless (like photons that reach us from the sun) are not devoid of energy; and energy cannot be created or destroyed in our universe: it can only change form.
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
Abortion is one of the most controversial subjects. However, in this article, I shall show that the pro-choice argument is rather shallow and somewhat irresponsible.
Justification:
In my opinion, abortion is never justified, except when the mother’s life is seriously threatened: a choice of a life for a life. In that case, I believe, God is giving the individual a choice, and I’d choose the mother’s life for the sake of the entire family, not to mention love.
As a parallel scenario, if two of your children are drowning, and you figure you can only save one of them, there’s no time to think: you just save the one that’s easier to save and hope for the best for the other. You don’t just sit there and wait for nature to cause the death of one of them: you have to take responsibility and act quickly.
Choice:
Most pro-abortionists argue it’s the woman’s body that’s involved, and therefore only she has the right to continue with her pregnancy or not. Normally, this is the case: for example, in the case of an operation or cancer treatment, she has the right to choose to go ahead or not. However, notice that in such cases, only the woman is involved.
In the case of abortion, it’s different because it involves another ‘person.’ There is no such thing as ‘choice’ when it involves killing or even hurting another person, except in the case of self-defence.
In his book Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity, columnist, author, and former radio and television talk-show host Michael Coren explains, “The choice to kill, rape, hurt and harm, steal, and libel are not considered choices but crimes. … So the choice to kill an unborn baby simply because you have the power to do so, for whatever reason, is not really a choice in any meaningful sense, but an action currently supported by law and custom, not in any way connected with what we would otherwise define as choice.” (p.195)
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” (¶ 2270, p. 464) I must say I totally agree with the Catholic Church, here.
Aquinas & Augustine:
However, the Catholic Catechism continues, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” (¶ 2271, p. 465) In the interest of fairness to pro-abortionists, I must say this sounds more like a blatant lie.
As I paraphrase Catholic Church historian Garry Wills in my book, Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines (pp. 420–21), “Thirteenth century Christian doctor of the Church, theologian, and philosopher Thomas Aquinas opposed the baptism of fetuses and things have not changed since (Wills, Papal Sin, pp. 222, 227). Aquinas, following Aristotle, opined that the human goes through three stages: (1) the nutritive soul, which plants have, (2) the sentient soul, characteristic of animals, and (3) the rational soul, possessed by humans (Wills, Papal Sin, p. 225). Also fourth-fifth-century Christian doctor of the Church, theologian, and philosopher Augustine of Hippo was uncertain at what stage God infuses the soul into the human fetus and when the soul contracts original sin (Wills, Papal Sin, pp. 226, 227, 229).”
So why don’t I agree that disposing of an embryo in the nutrient stage (as we might do away with a plant) is not murder as well as in the sentient stage (as we might take the life of an animal)? If one were to go by this hypothesis, a newborn baby hasn’t reached the age of reason, yet, and may take a year, or so. By the same argument, then, newborn babies may be done away with, without committing murder, up to a year, say, after birth.
Contraception:
This brings us to the question of whether using contraceptive devices is morally acceptable or not. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “‘Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil.” (¶ 2370, p. 483)
Here, I must disagree with the Catholic Church: as long as the methods used are ‘non-abortive,’ the discarding of semen is not evil; indeed, if a man abstains from intercourse and masturbation for a while, he will have a nocturnal emission in which semen is discarded profusely. Consequently, the use of a condom during intercourse or the use of a non-abortive pill, such as the one that prevents ovulation, are not evil. No person is conceived in such cases. There are millions of sperms in a single ejaculate, and only one fertilizes the ovum; the rest are discarded: that doesn’t mean one is killing millions of human lives.
I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but anything we do we must carry out ethically: the end does not justify the means. For example, if you want people to convert to your religion because you honestly believe it’s the true religion, you cannot force them to do so; you can only try to convince them. It’s not easy to always conform to this principle: even Augustine made such a mistake when he proposed forced conversions lest non-Christians perish in hell eternally.
The Bible:
Since it believes the Bible is God’s word, the Church is supposed to follow the Bible in declaring moral conduct; but there’s nothing in the Bible that condemns contraception. There is, however, one story, Onan’s, that the Church has repeatedly used to condemn contraception.
Onan’s account goes as follows: “Judah [the 4th son of Jacob] took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan [his 2nd son], ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed [children] to thy brother.’ And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it [the ejaculate] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.” (Genesis 38:6–10, KJV)
The above ‘marriage’ is termed a ‘levirate marriage’; the Latin word levir means ‘husband’s brother’ or brother-in-law. According to the Old Testament, a man was forbidden from having intercourse with his sister-in-law; we read, “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of [have intercourse with (NAB)] thy brother’s wife.” (Leviticus 18:16, KJV) However, since in the old days women practically had no rights, in the case of the premature death of the male of the family, who still had no sons, his brother’s duty was to give male children to the widow: so that her inheritance is not lost (Deuteronomy 25:5–10).
Admittedly, interrupted intercourse or, in Latin, coitus interruptus (in which the man exits the woman’s vagina just prior to ejaculation) is a form of non-abortive contraception.
However, according to Wikipedia, “The biblical story of Onan (Genesis 38) is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation [& contraception] and condemnation thereof. A number of scholars have pointed out that the sexual act described by this story is coitus interruptus, not masturbation. Some go further and argue that Onan’s death was solely due to his refusal to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage, rather than any sexual sin. … The story was written by a ‘prescientific mind’ that considered the child to be contained in the sperm the same way a plant is contained in its seed. Onan’s offense was therefore [seemingly] the deliberate destruction of human life.”
In other words, the woman’s role was thought to be only as the ground where seed is planted. This might explain why men, in the old days, were somewhat reluctant to spill their semen outside a woman’s vagina. And this is also probably why we have a paternal, rather than a maternal, society; despite the obvious fact that it’s much easier to track the mother of a child than the father.
Moreover, in his book Catholic Q & A: Answers to the Most Common Questions about Catholicism (p.263), foremost Catholic question-and-answer columnist John J. Dietzen writes, “The [Onan] passage has often been wrongly interpreted as an explicit condemnation of contraception, and even more of masturbation. It is commonly acknowledged, however, that not the ‘wasting of the seed,’ but the refusal to observe a most serious family and tribal law was primarily responsible for Onan’s condemnation and punishment.” (emphasis mine)
Furthermore, Wills agrees with Dietzen that this passage is majorly problematic regarding contraception; he writes, “Modern scholars universally agree that what is condemned in the Onan passage is not contraception considered in itself (there is no direct condemnation of that in all the detailed provisions of Jewish law), but the deprivation of a brother’s line of its proper heir.” (Wills, Papal Sin, p. 78, emphasis mine)
In other words, this passage is cited erroneously—out of context with regard to contraception. In fact, the citing of this passage in documents concerning contraception was dropped in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (Latin for “Of Human Life”) and later papal documents.
As Wills points out above, it’s quite clear that the Bible does not really condemn the spilling of male semen, as such, because in Leviticus, which contains detailed instructions on moral behavior, we only read, “If any man’s seed of copulation go out from him [through nocturnal emission], then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even [evening (NAB)]. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation [have intercourse], they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.” (Leviticus 15:16–18, KJV)
So, according to Leviticus, the spilling of semen only causes ritual uncleanness for a day. This is the worst case scenario; that is, if one believes that the Bible is God’s word. If, like me, one believes the Bible is a sage but human book, then one has to resort to one’s own reason, which even Bible inerrantists believe is given us in God’s ‘image’ (Genesis 1:26–27).
Rape:
A difficult case arises when a woman is raped and therefore might conceive involuntarily. Does she have a right to abort the unborn at any time? Unfortunately, again my answer is no. There are many situations in life that are far from ideal, but we still have to deal with them by doing the right thing under the circumstances. The unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus is totally innocent, and one cannot possibly reproduce that same ‘person’ again. This, practically, amounts to killing that person.
Naturally, the rape victim should be given all the support and financial help of one’s family (especially in the case of a minor) and of the government; and she should also be given the right to give up the child, when born, for adoption.
Person?
Pro-abortionists argue that an unborn fetus is not a ‘person’; it’s like a tumor, they say, which one has a right to have removed, or an arm, which one has a right to amputate.
Indeed, according to The Lancet, in Canada, “A fetus does not have the independent legal rights of a human being until it has completely emerged from the womb, a provincial court judge re-asserted … in dismissing an attempted murder charge against a woman who shot her near-term fetus in the brain with a pellet gun. … [Brenda] Drummond inserted a pellet gun in her vagina and shot the fetus in the brain 2 days before she gave birth.”
So, hypothetically, if someone shoots and kills an eight-month-old fetus of a pregnant woman, one cannot be charged for murdering her unborn child; one can only be charged for aggravated assault on the woman, say. I wonder what the mother-to-be would think about that.
We have laws against age discrimination: likewise, we should have no age-discrimination for the unborn. All this confusion stems from the false concept that the yet-unborn is not a person. Nonsense! A zygote is the same person as a one-month-old embryo, an eight-month-old fetus, and a newborn baby.
Conclusion:
I’m a man, and naturally, I don’t really know how a woman feels. Indeed, I must confess most women I know disagree with me on this matter. On the other hand, I think it’s best not to be emotionally involved in a problem to make the right decision.
Postscript:
As always on my website, discussion on this very controversial subject is most welcome. I promise I shall respond to all. I would also appreciate your voting “Like” if you do like this article.
References:
Attard, Carmel Paul. Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines. Bloomington, IN, iUniverse, 2020. (ISBN: 9781663210937)
Coren, Michael. Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity. Toronto, Ontario, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., Toronto, ON. (ISBN: 9780771023156)
Dietzen, John J. Catholic Q & A: Answers to the Most Common Questions About Catholicism. New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2005. (ISBN: 0824523091)
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Concacan Inc. Ottawa, ON: Publications Services, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (ISBN: 0889972818)
New American Bible: Revised Edition (NAB). Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (ISBN: 9780899429519)
The Holy Bible: King James Version (KJV). Oxford, UK, 1769.
Wills, Garry. Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. New York, NY, Image (Doubleday a division of Random House Inc.), 2000. (ISBN: 0385494114)
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
Does God have a master plan for the whole world? Are we just disposable pawns in this master plan? Must we always do God’s will to be happy? This article tries to answer these questions.
The Gospels
In Matthew’s gospel (written in the 80s CE), we read, “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:9–10, KJV, emphasis mine) Interestingly, according to the ‘New American Bible,’ in Luke’s gospel (written in the 90s CE), we don’t read the same thing: “Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.” (Luke 11:2, NAB) Notice that according to the ‘New American Bible’ (NAB), the clause “thy will be done” is missing in Luke’s gospel. We do find the clause in the ‘King James Version’ (KJV), but it seems to be a copyist’s addition (a gloss). We find this clause in only 9 out of 32 English translations: https://biblehub.com/luke/11-2.htm.
[Note: According to ‘Wikipedia,’ the ‘New American Bible’ (NAB) translation “was carried out in stages by members of the ‘Catholic Biblical Association of America’ (CBA).” (Wikipedia: “New American Bible,” accessed April 9, 2024) “[CBA] Membership now numbers more than 1,200. Those who hold an advanced degree in biblical studies are eligible to be elected to membership, irrespective of any religious affiliation.” (Wikipedia: “Catholic Biblical Association,” accessed April 9, 2024) I’d like to point out, therefore, that the ‘New American Bible’ isn’t just the opinion of a single or a handful of biblical scholars: indeed, “over 50 [biblical] scholars” were assigned to its translation: https://www.amazon.ca/Catholic-Student-Bible-NABRE-World-Press/dp/0529064847.]
Moreover, surprisingly, we don’t even find the Lord’s Prayer in Mark’s gospel (written in the 70s CE), which both Matthew and Luke used as a skeleton for their gospels—thus constituting the three ‘synoptic gospels.’ The point I’m trying to make, here, is that the clause “thy will be done” does not seem to be an original petition of Jesus: it seems to be an addition by the evangelist Matthew; and later added to Luke’s gospel by Christian copyists.
Doctrine
In the original Baltimore Catechism of 1885, we read, “Why did God make you? God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” (Q. 6, emphasis mine) Notice the concept of servitude toward God. However, good parents don’t give birth to children so they themselves may be served: they give birth to children so the latter may have a life of their own. It’s the devil who is a user, not God.
Somewhat surprisingly, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1994, the concept of servitude toward God is aptly deleted; we read, “God calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength.” (p. 11, ¶ 1)
God’s Invitation
In his fantastic book The Misunderstood God, former pastor, homeless outreach director, and relationships speaker, Darin Hufford, opines that religion often portrays God with the personality of the devil: the subtitle of this book is The Lies Religion Tells about God. He writes several times, “We have been lied to about God.” (e.g., pp. 7, 10)
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with serving God, but only if one so wishes. We may live our life entirely without him, and he wouldn’t hold a grudge; he’s more of a ‘gentleman’ than that. He doesn’t really need our friendship, but he wishes every one of us to have a personal relationship with him. So, one shouldn’t be too obsessed with serving God all the time: there’s nothing wrong with solely serving loved ones and leaving some space for oneself to have some fun in life, as well. God gave us life as a gift, with no strings attached: to enjoy it any way we want, and not for his own sake, nor for the sake of others.
At the other end of the spectrum, however, life becomes somewhat empty without a meaningful relationship with someone: that is, catering only for oneself. Thus, in the depth of our being, God planted a seed encouraging us to live our life responsibly and even altruistically. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” (Matthew 7:12, KJV; see also Luke 6:31) When we love others, we automatically love God because “God is love. … If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:16, 20 KJV)
Master Plan
Many Christians believe that “everything happens for a reason”: that God is continually using us to achieve his master plan for the future of the whole world, and no matter what we do, we cannot derail his plan. This is ludicrous since many awful things happen because of our evil inclinations, and many things happen by chance—like the lottery, or the throw of a dice.
Christianity teaches that God always has his way: that he apparently has this super plan not only for every individual but also for the whole world that will not be thwarted by any means or by anyone. The Church teaches us that we are basically God’s mindless slaves; that it’s better for us to do his will voluntarily, or else he would break our spirit. Moreover, the Church teaches us that we should worship and praise God constantly, lest he forgets his greatness, I surmise. If worship is not heartfelt, it’s fake: we would be better off not doing it at all; God can see through us. Hufford compares it to the wife who has sex reluctantly with her husband (p.72).
Occasionally, one might be moved by God’s unconditional love for us, the beauty and balance of nature, or his design abilities in his creations; but not all the time. Also, trying to sell to others God’s greatness, without really feeling it deep inside our being, is false advertising—that’s not loving him. God is not after our fearful or servient admiration: he is after our heart (p. 76).
Whenever we seek God with all our heart, he will listen to us, he will let us ‘find’ him, and he might even change our lot, but only if he foresees that it would make us better versions of ourselves: “When you call me [God], and come and pray to me, I will listen to you. When you look for me, you will find me. Yes, when you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me… and I will change your lot.” (Jeremiah 29:12–14, NAB)
Our Choice
Hufford then gives us one of the most beautiful portraits of God. He contends that if you were to ask God what he wants from you, he will probably answer that he doesn’t really know; he will simply ask you back what you would like to do (p. 102). I must admit I never thought of it that way before I read Hufford’s book: I always thought God knew everything beforehand. Maybe, God doesn’t really know our future after all! If he did, where does our free will fit in? (See my article on “Free Will & Predestination.”)
In fact, we don’t have any tangible evidence of God’s ever being able to foretell the future—not even from biblical accounts, as I show in my two articles on “Bible Prophecies” (Textual & Claimed). While he possibly knows what will make us better individuals, he lets us find our own way; he would not dictate nor suggest which way we should take: he lets us make our own decisions. However, if we have an intimate personal relationship with him, we will probably see things in a new light.
Jesus
Some might object, here, pointing out that Jesus always did his Father’s will, and that, as Christians, we should imitate him. It’s worthwhile looking into this objection. However, Jesus is an exceptional case. We must keep in mind that Jesus had a mission; he knew it because, in all probability, his mother, Mary, must have told him of his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit (see my article on “Mary’s Virginity”). He accepted this mission willingly; it wasn’t imposed on him by God, he researched it in Scriptures, as I show in the following paragraph.
In Luke’s gospel, we read, “He [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias [Isaiah]. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’ And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, ‘This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.’” (Luke 4:16–21, KJV) Then, in Matthew’s gospel, we read, “Jesus answered and said unto them [John the Baptist’s disciples], ‘Go and shew John [the Baptist] again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in [shocked by] me.’” (Matthew 11:4–6, KJV)
I don’t want the reader to get me wrong, here; there’s nothing wrong in following, voluntarily, what one feels is a ‘divine’ calling—like the priesthood or a missionary calling—the same way one follows a medical, legal, or teaching profession. My point is that one doesn’t have to become unduly concerned or obsessed in trying to find what God’s will is for one’s life: fearing that otherwise one would experience a miserable life.
In Jesus’s case, God conceived Jesus to show us his love in human terms: a love that’s ready to die for others—provided Jesus agreed to go along, of course. During Jesus’s agony in the garden, we read, “He [Jesus] was withdrawn from them [his disciples] about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, ‘Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.’” (Luke 22:41–42, KJV; see also Matthew 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:36 & John 12:27, 28) Naturally, Jesus was scared of his impending crucifixion, but God wanted to endorse Jesus in a special manner: in other words, in order to leave no doubt regarding his eventual resurrection, Jesus had to die a public death. This is probably what the consoling angel told Jesus: “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” (Luke 22:43, KJV)
Christ’s Teaching
“I [Jesus] am come that they [we] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10, KJV) Jesus condemns his contemporary Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ numerous rules and regulations (much like modern Church hierarchy): “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye lade [load] men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers” (Luke 11:46, KJV) So he tells us, “Come unto me [Jesus], all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28–30, KJV) Jesus simply asks us to take on the everyday challenges of life calmly and gladly: “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil [trouble] thereof.” (Matthew 6:34, KJV) So don’t fret too much about the future: remember, we get life one breath at a time!
Conclusion
Relax and enjoy life responsibly and altruistically; and if you feel you want a personal, fearless relationship with God, so much the better.
De Concilio, Januarius. Baltimore Catechism: A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Council of Baltimore. Baltimore, MD, 1885.
Hufford, Darin. The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells about God. Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2009. (ISBN: 9781935170051)
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Concacan Inc. Ottawa, ON: Publications Services, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (ISBN: 0889972818)
New American Bible: Revised Edition. Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (ISBN: 9780899429519)
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769.
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
Christians and Jews have two commandments that start with the subject clause: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Is it sinful to desire what your neighbor can afford but you can’t? Is it a sin to be attracted to your neighbor’s spouse? This article tries to answer these two questions: doubts, I found, haunting many a Christian.
Desiring versus Coveting
Let us first look at the exact meaning of the verb ‘covet.’ According to the ‘Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary’ (eleventh edition), to ‘covet’ is to “wish for earnestly … desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably … feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another.” So the verb ‘covet’ is much stronger than the verb ‘desire.’ To covet is not only to desire but also to do something about it: notice the word “culpably” which might even imply criminal activity.
Temptation versus Sin
We must also distinguish between ‘temptation’ and ‘sin.’ Temptation is an occasion or situation enticing us to sin; sin occurs when we give in to it. Even Jesus was tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1–12), but he didn’t succumb to it. Keep in mind, therefore, that temptation is not a sin. In fact, whenever we overcome temptation, that’s a bonus: it strengthens our character.
Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Goods
Let me first deal with this commandment since it’s easier. If you see that your neighbor has a high-end car while you only have a rundown car that takes you from A to B, you might say to yourself, “I wish I had his/her car.” If you do nothing harmful about it, especially if you don’t feel envious, you’ve done nothing wrong. Even if you do feel envious; envy is a perfectly natural feeling encouraging us to better ourselves—but through honest means.
Even legal means might be unacceptable in God’s eyes. For example, if someone has a property and you try to misappropriate him/her of it legally, whether you’re successful or not, you’re guilty of breaking this commandment: you’re hurting your neighbor.
Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife
This commandment is a little bit trickier than the previous one, but by drawing some parallels we shall see where the dividing line between sin and no sin is. It’s natural to be sexually attracted to your neighbor’s wife especially if she is extremely beautiful: you might even desire her, but you don’t do anything about it. Is that a sin? No! As long as you don’t try anything to seduce her, you’re not guilty of any sin; indeed, you are commendable in God’s eyes because you’ve overcome temptation. (Would you like it if your neighbor didn’t find your wife beautiful and attractive?) However, if you try anything to seduce your neighbor’s wife (whether you’re successful or not) you’re guilty of breaking this commandment. Needless to mention, of course, the same rules apply for a woman trying to seduce her neighbor’s husband.
Scriptures
But what if one fantasizes about a person of the opposite sex? Matthew’s gospel portrays Jesus saying, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28, KJV) Despite what the evangelist Matthew (or Jesus) says, in my opinion, if you fantasize about driving your neighbor’s high-end car, you haven’t done anything wrong; likewise, fantasizing about your next-door-neighbor’s wife. However, it’s not a good idea to do so because sin starts with desire: so you’re setting yourself up for an eventual fall. As I argue in my article on ‘Masturbation’ (https://faith-or-reason.com/2023/02/07/masturbation/) under “Ogling,” one must interpret this verse in its proper context. In the very next couple of verses, Matthew also portrays Jesus saying, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell [Gehenna (NAB)]. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell [Gehenna (NAB)].” (Matthew 5:29–30, JKV) Nobody takes these verses literally. Why not? Jesus thought that the ‘kingdom of God’ would be in full bloom on this earth within his generation (see Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 & Luke 21:32). He believed the coming of God’s kingdom would entail a new world order where everything would be perfect, and God would reign supreme in our heart.
Indeed, in his book ‘Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit,’ author, journalist, political philosopher, and Catholic Church historian Garry Wills explains, “These passages belong to that body of sayings that proclaims a transvaluation of all values at the arrival of the reign (basileia) of God [the ‘kingdom of God’]. Thus we hear of a disciple having to hate his father and mother (Luke 14:26). … We hear you must give a bandit the things he forgot to ask for (Luke 6:29). … Unless Jesus was talking here about a clean break with the past order in provocative symbols, he was talking nonsense.” (Papal Sin, p. 127)
Conclusion
As long as we don’t try to misappropriate or hurt our neighbor in any way, treating our neighbor as we would like to be treated, there’s nothing to worry about.
New American Bible: Revised Edition. (NAB) Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (ISBN: 9780899429519)
The Holy Bible: King James Version. (KJV) Oxford, UK, 1769.
Wills, Garry. Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. New York, NY. Image Books, 2001. (ISBN: 0385494114)
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
Christmas is a yearly Christian celebration commemorating Jesus’s birth. Reading the various New Testament accounts, one notices not only textual contradictions (see ‘Flight into Egypt’ in my article ‘Bible Contradictions (New Testament)’) but also scientific and historical anomalies that I’d like to share with the reader of this article.
The ‘star,’ claimed by the evangelist Matthew to have led the Magi to Jesus, seems to be no more than a contemporaneous folklore myth, and the ‘census,’ claimed by the evangelist Luke to have triggering Joseph’s and Mary’s journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, doesn’t seem to have ever happened historically. So, in this article I show that, unfortunately, there’s not much truth left to our Christmas stories!
I shall not cheat: I shall only quote the New Testament itself and biblical scholars to show this—biblical anomalies/discrepancies/details most believers fail to notice. I’m not trying to undermine Christmas: I actually love Christmas; I’m simply looking for the truth because I truly believe that God is always on truth’s side—no matter what.
Matthew’s Gospel
In Matthew’s gospel, we read of a ‘star’ that led the ‘wise men’ to new-born baby Jesus:
“When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea [Judah] in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.’ … When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. … And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him” (Matthew 2:1–2, 9, 11, KJV, emphasis mine)
The New American Bible comments on the phrase “his star” as follows: “It was a common ancient belief that a new star appeared at the time of a ruler’s birth.” (NAB, Matthew 2:2n)
[Note: According to ‘Wikipedia,’ the ‘New American Bible’ (NAB) translation “was carried out in stages by members of the ‘Catholic Biblical Association of America’ (CBA)” (Wikipedia s.v. “New American Bible,” accessed December 19, 2023) “Membership now numbers more than 1,200. Those who hold an advanced degree in biblical studies are eligible to be elected to membership, irrespective of any religious affiliation.” (Wikipedia s.v. “Catholic Biblical Association,” accessed December 19, 2023) I’d like to point out, therefore, that the ‘New American Bible’ isn’t just the opinion of a single or a handful of biblical scholars. It also advertises the book, “This modern translation was prepared by over 50 scholars.”]
Incidentally notice that the star allegedly indicated a “house,” not a cave or an animal barn, as portrayed in Christmas cards. My guess, their home was in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
Besides, a star is light-years away (1 light-year ~ 10 trillion km ~ 6 trillion mi), how could it possibly “stay over” or indicate a particular house? How could it “go before them” and lead them in their journey? Unless it was a ‘comet’ (or ‘shooting star’) leaving a trail behind it that one could somehow follow. In fact, journalist and television host Bill O’Reilly and coauthor Martin Dugard, in their book Killing Jesus, have the following footnote regarding the ‘star’ the wise men supposedly followed to Jerusalem and subsequently to Bethlehem:
“In 1991, The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society noted that Chinese astronomers had observed a long-tailed slow-moving comet in their skies during March of 5 B.C.
This sui-hsing, or ‘star,’ hung in the Capricorn region for more than seventy days. This same comet would have been visible in the skies over Persia, home of the Magi [astrologers/wise men], in the hours just before dawn. Due to the earth’s orbital motion, the comet’s light would have been directly in front of the Magi during their journey—hence, they would have truly followed the star.” (O’Reilly & Dugard, p. 15 n. 2)
5 BCE. is most probably the year Jesus was born (see below). Although I find this very interesting, I still think that the concept of an important person’s birth being announced by means of a star is a myth: stars take millions of years to form.
Now, granting that it was a comet, rather than a star, and even assuming the wise men could follow its luminous tail, a comet could not possibly indicate the house where the child Jesus was: it’s too high up—if the reader knows anything about ‘parallax.’ Presumably, it did not fall on the house otherwise it would have burnt it. And when was it that anyone saw a comet stop in midair: “stand over,” the house as the gospel says? One needs a lot of imagination to believe all the details described in this account.
Luke’s Gospel
In Luke’s gospel, we read about a universal Roman census at the time of Jesus’s birth:
“It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the [Roman] world should be taxed. (And this taxing [enrolling (NAB)] was [the (NAB)] first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius (NAB)] was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea [Judah], unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David). (Luke 2:1–4, KJV, emphasis mine)
Notice the phrase “all the world” in this passage, which, in those days, was synonymous to the Roman Empire. The problem with this passage is that there’s no record of such a universal decree by Caesar Augustus.
The New American Bible comments here: “Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of Syria in A.D. 6–7 when Judea [Judaea or Iudaea, rather—see below] was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea [Judaea] was taken up.” (NAB, Luke 2:1–2n, emphasis mine)
Please notice the distinction between ‘universal’ and ‘provincial’ censuses in the above note: according to the New American Bible, contrary to what Luke’s gospel says, a provincial census of Judaea/Iudaea (see below) was taken—rather than a universal one.” Historians only know of three universal censuses of Roman citizens: that is, in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE; none under the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus, or in 6 CE—that is, if we exclude the New Testament writings. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed legate/governor of the province of Syria in 6 CE, at which time the Roman Syria’s ‘satellite’ province, Iudaea (consisting of Judea/Judah, Samaria just north of it & Idumea just south of it) was annexed to the Roman province of Syria.
Please distinguish between ‘Judea’ and ‘Judaea.’ Judaea was a Roman ‘province’; Judea was a main region or territory in that province, which gave the province its name.
According to Wikipedia: “Judaea (Latin: Iudaea …) was a Roman province from 6 to 132 CE, which incorporated the … regions of Judea [Judah], Samaria, and Idumea ….” (Wikipedia: “Judaea (Roman Province),” accessed December 19, 2023)
Notice the slight spelling difference between ‘Judaea’ (or Iudaea) and ‘Judea’ (or Judah/Juda). (The Romans had no ‘J’ in their alphabet; they used ‘I’ instead.)
“In 6 AD, Emperor Augustus deposed the ethnarch Herod Archelaus and united Judea [Judah], Samaria and Idumea into the Roman province of Judea [Judaea, rather]; such province was placed under the direct authority of the Legate of Syria Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.” (Wikipedia: “Roman Syria,” accessed December 19, 2023”)
Now, Nazareth (where Jesus’s parents lived), was in Galilee. Galilee was in the north of Israel while Judea (or Judah) was in the south; so, Galilee was not part of the Roman province of Judaea/Iudaea. (Wikipedia: “Galilee,” accessed December 19, 2023) In other words, the fact that there was a census of Judaea does not imply, indeed excludes, that there was also a census of Galilee.
Common Era
To put things in the right perspective in what follows (for the benefit of the reader who might not be aware of it), the Common Era (CE/AD) was originally thought of in the sixth century CE and intended to start at the birth of Jesus.
According to Wikipedia, “The idea of numbering years beginning from the date he believed to be the date of birth of Jesus, was conceived around the year 525 [CE] by the Christian monk [and biblical scholar] Dionysius Exiguus.” (Wikipedia: “Common Era,” accessed December 19, 2023”)
Unfortunately, however, he made a slight mistake: so Jesus not born in 1 CE, as intended. It so happened that this small error in calculation persisted over the centuries—it was never corrected.
Jesus’s Birth Year
According to Wikipedia, “The date of birth of Jesus is not stated in the gospels or in any historical sources, but most biblical scholars generally accept a date of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC, the year in which King Herod died.” (Wikipedia: “Date of Birth of Jesus,” accessed December 19, 2023”)
In other words, Jesus’s birth date is most probably around 5 BCE (as mentioned above). This makes Quirinius’s census, which happened in 6 CE, too late—out by at least ten-odd years since it supposedly happened just before Jesus was born (from 5 BCE to 6 CE is 5+6 = 11 years).
Quirinius’s Census
The New American Bible, commenting further on the above passage in Luke 2:1–4, states,
“If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of [King] Herod), are known, and such a dating of an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of [King] Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1)” (NAB, Luke 2:1–2n)
Let me explain this note gradually. Here, the New American Bible points out that if we postulate Quirinius was governor of Syria before Jesus was born (i.e., besides his 6–12 CE known legateship), it would have had to be prior to 10 BCE because we happen to know all the governors of Syria from 10 BCE to the death of King Herod the Great, estimated by historians in 4 BCE. However, as we shall see presently, dating the census prior to 10 BCE would not jibe with Luke’s gospel itself not to mention Matthew’s gospel as well. How does this follow? Let’s first look at a few politico-geographical and historical facts around the turn of the first century CE before we delve into it.
Political Geography
In Jesus’s time, west of the River Jordan, Israel was divided in three regions: Galilee (which included Nazareth) in the north, Samaria in the middle, and Judea/Judah (which included Jerusalem and Bethlehem) in the south; east of the River Jordan, it was divided in four regions: Iturea, Trachonitis, and the Decapolis (Greek for ‘ten cities’) in the north, and Perea in the middle (i.e., beside Samaria). (NAB, p. 12a)
History
The Romans made Herod the Great king of all Israel in 37 BCE. When he died in 4 BCE, his kingdom was divided among his four children, who were subsequently called ‘tetrarchs,’ from the Latin ‘ruler of a fourth part’ of a country or province. He is not to be confused with his son, Herod Antipas, who became “tetrarch of Galilee and Perea” after his father’s death. (Wikipedia: “Herod Antipas,” accessed December 19, 2023)
Main Theme
Now, as I was saying, if one were to postulate that Quirinius was governor of Syria at some other time (i.e., besides the known 6–12 CE), the New American Bible contends that it would have had to be prior to 10 BCE because all the governors of Syria between 10 BCE and the death of King Herod in 4 BCE are known. However, 10 BCE would have been too early for the time of Jesus’s birth as it is given in Luke’s gospel. To see this, let’s follow the citations given by the New American Bible’s note above.
Luke introduces John the Baptist’s and Jesus’s ministries as follows: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod [Antipas] being tetrarch of Galilee [& Perea], and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene [in Syria], Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. … And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli ….” (Luke 3:1–2, 23, KJV, emphasis mine)
From these two verses, one can deduce the year of Jesus’s birth according to Luke’s gospel. We know that Emperor Tiberius “reigned from AD 14 until [AD] 37”. (Wikipedia: “Tiberius,” accessed December 19, 2023). Since John the Baptist started his ministry after fifteen years of Tiberius’s reign, John must have started baptizing around 29 CE (14 CE + 15 years = 29 CE). Now, since Jesus started his ministry shortly after this, and Luke’s gospel says that he was then about 30 years old, this places Jesus’s birth date at, or shortly before 1 BCE (29 CE –30 years = –1 or 1 BCE). Consequently, the New American Bible argues that, assuming these two gospel statements are accurate, Quirinius couldn’t have conducted a census at the time of Jesus’s birth: Luke’s gospel would have a historical error of ten-odd years: from say 11 BCE (i.e., just prior to 10 BCE) to 1 BCE (11–1 = 10).
Summary
Summarizing, therefore, the alleged universal census in Luke’s gospel, if it ever happened, had to be either prior to 10 BCE because Quirinius was definitely not governor of Syria between 10 BCE and 4 BCE (the estimated year of King Herod’s death) or else after 6 CE when, we know, Quirinius became governor of Syria. But these dates are either too early or too late for the year of Jesus’s birth.
(1) If we follow the biblical scholars’ estimate for Jesus’s birth (i.e., 5 BCE), after 6 CE is ten-odd (5 BCE + 6 CE = 11) years too late for Jesus’s birth; while prior to 10 BCE (say, 11 BCE) is five-odd (11 BCE – 5 BCE = 6) years too early.
(2) If, on the other hand, we follow the estimate for Jesus’s birth from Luke’s gospel (i.e., 1 BCE), prior to 10 BCE is ten-odd (11 BCE – 1 BCE = 10) years too early; while after 6 CE is five-odd (1 BCE + 6 CE = 7) years too late.
Finally, the New American Bible points out, that postulating Quirinius was governor of Syria at some time in between 4 BCE and 6 CE would not have worked out either because it would contradict the statements by both Luke’s (1:5) and Matthew’s (2:1) gospels, that Jesus was born while King Herod the Great was still alive; but after 4 BCE King Herod was dead.
Let’s see exactly why. The New American Bible cites following two verses.
In Luke’s gospel, we read, “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course [priestly division (NAB)] of Abia [Abijah (NAB)]: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” (Luke 1:5, KJV, emphasis mine)
And in Matthew’s gospel, we read, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.’” (Matthew 2:1–2, KJV, emphasis mine)
Notice the word “king,” not ‘tetrarch,’ in both the above quotes: so they are referring to King Herod the Great, not to Herod Antipas who was only a tetrarch not a king. From the first verse of this last quote, especially, we may safely conclude that King Herod was still alive when Jesus was born (at least according to the Gospels) because King Herod entertained these wise men.
So, a census between 4 BCE and 6 CE is out of the question because King Herod the Great would have been dead after 4 BCE: consequently, Jesus would have already been born, but the alleged census conducted by Quirinius took place before Jesus was born. In other words, it would contradict the above statements by two evangelists.
Therefore, the New American Bible concludes, “Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius.” (NAB, Luke 2:1–2n)
Luke, writing his gospel around 85 CE (NAB, p. 96), was only going by some hazy memory of the provincial census Quirinius had conducted eighty-odd years earlier (i.e., in 6 CE).
Acts of the Apostles
As if this were not bad enough, in Acts, the same author of Luke’s gospel, writes there, “And [Pharisee Gamaliel] said unto them, ‘Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men [Jesus’s apostles]. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing [census], and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.” (Acts 5:35–37, KJV, emphasis mine)
The New American Bible comments here that, “The movement initiated by Theudas actually occurred when C. Cupsius Fadus was governor, A.D. 44–46.” (NAB, Acts 5:36–37n) Wikipedia confirms this: “At some point between 44 and 46 AD, Theudas led his followers in a short-lived revolt.” (Wikipedia: “Theudas,” accessed December 19, 2023”)
The New American Bible continues, “Luke’s placing of Judas the Galilean after Theudas and at the time of the census (see note on Luke 2:1–2) is an indication of the vagueness of his knowledge of these events.” (NAB, Acts 5:36–37n)
According to Wikipedia, “Judas of Galilee … was a Jewish leader who led resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in the Judaea Province in 6 CE.” (Wikipedia: “Judas of Galilee,” accessed December 19, 2023”)
Yet, Luke places Judas and the census after Theudas. In Acts, Luke is, therefore, some fifty-odd years (45 CE + 5 BCE = 50) off regarding the census that allegedly happened just prior to Jesus’s birth around 5 BCE: showing his very poor knowledge of historical facts. These are biblical contradictions that the ordinary believer easily misses unless he reads the Bible cover to cover very carefully.
Luke probably made some assumptions from his own recollections, or he confused the dates and the names, or (at worst) made everything up: any of which cases does not say much for the historical accuracy of the New Testament or the Bible.
So, in conclusion, why did Luke fabricate such a universal census? He had an agenda. He needed to conform to the birthplace of Jesus as was supposedly foretold by Old Testament scriptures. He wanted to show how Jesus was born in David’s city of Bethlehem, as the prophet Micah had declared:
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands [clans (NAB)] of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [origins (NAB)] have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2, KJV)
Moreover, in any kind of Roman census (provincial or universal), Jesus’s family could have registered their names in their own village, Nazareth, or perhaps a nearby town in Galilee. According to Wikipedia, “A census was sometimes taken in the provinces …. The emperor sent into the provinces special officers called censitores to take the census.” (Wikipedia: “Roman Censor,” accessed December 19, 2023)
But Luke, somehow, needed to explain why Jesus’s family lived in the north of Israel (Nazareth) and yet Jesus was born in the far-away south (a journey of about a week in those days), in Bethlehem of Judah/Judea, as was supposedly foretold by the prophet Micah. According to the Catholic Ireland website, “It is about 120 Km from Narareth to Jerusalem and another 10 Km from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. (About 80 miles in all) If Mary had not been feeling very well it could have taken nearly a week to do the journey.” (Catholic Ireland: “Nazareth to Bethlehem,” accessed December 19, 2023) This corresponds roughly to 2 miles per hour for six hours a day.
Furthermore, only the ‘paterfamilias’ (Latin for ‘father of the family’ or head of the family) was obliged to appear personally and register all the members of his family. According to Wikipedia, “Every pater familias [Latin for ‘father of the family’] had to appear in person before the censors.” (Wikipedia: “Roman Censor,” accessed December 19, 2023)
In other words, heavily pregnant Mary did not have to do the seven day journey on a donkey (as she is often portrayed in Christmas cards). Would you have let Mary travel in her condition unnecessarily?
So, was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Maybe! The fact is we don’t really know, but it is unlikely. What we do know for sure is that Luke fabricated the circumstances that might have led up to its happening on vague recollections: but, unfortunately, it does not hold water—he never anticipated his writings would be scrutinized centuries later.
Jesus’s Birthday
There’s nothing wrong in celebrating the birth of a great man, Jesus, whom I believe to be truly the ‘Son of God’: in other words, that the Holy Spirit donated a special sperm to his mother, Mary. But we don’t even know the month he was born in. Let’s face it; he probably wasn’t born in December if shepherds were truly sleeping outside with their sheep, as the Luke’s gospel says in 2:8–14.
The Wikibooks website states, “The weather in Israel during December can be quite cold so flocks are usually brought into shelter no later than the middle of October.” (“The Date Jesus was Born,” accessed December 19, 2023)
The average December temperature in Bethlehem, Israel drops down to about 8°C at night. The article actually shows that Jesus was probably born in the middle of September. However (besides its inaccuracy) the author’s argument does not hold much water when he states, “John’s father, Zechariah, served as a priest in the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5). His priestly duty entailed one week of temple service every year plus three more weeks during the three yearly festivals [inaccurate]. His division was the eighth so his period of temple service began in the eighth week of the year, (1 Chronicles 24:10). The Hebrew year, being lunar, began in the spring around late March early April. The eighth week would then generally fall around the first of June the way we show the months of the year on our calendar.”
This is not always necessarily the case: although Abijah was truly the eighth priestly division, in actual fact, its service could fall on any month of the year in a six-year cycle. According to the author-editors of The Dead Sea Scrolls, “Twenty-four priestly divisions, or courses, took terms servicing in the Temple. Each division would serve for a week, then rotate out as a new division arrived.” (Wise et al. p. 384)
As one can easily see, since the year has 52 weeks, it’s not an exact multiple of 24; the roster will restart after 24 and 48 weeks of that year—not at the beginning of the next year. In other words, it doesn’t necessarily fall in June every year, as the author of the Wikibooks article contends: it depends on which of the six-year cycle John the Baptist was conceived.
Pagan Feasts
Another possibility is that early Christians often adopted pagan (Roman & Greek) feasts: this way, it was easier for them to celebrate them along with others in the Roman Empire without being too conspicuous.
According to the History website, “Members of the [Roman] upper classes often celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25.” (“History of Christmas,” accessed December 19, 2023)
Although the winter solstice technically occurs on December 21st, in the first few centuries CE, the ‘approach’ of the sun toward the earth could only be detected or ascertained later, that is, on December 25th. Notice, therefore, that Jesus is hereby replacing the sun god (‘Sol Invictus,’ Latin for ‘Unconquerable Sun’) for Christians.
[Note: In accordance with John the Baptist’s words to his disciples in the gospel: “He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30), John’s feast day was placed on June 24th, the summer solstice, that’s when the sun starts ‘receding’ from the earth; as opposed to Jesus’s feast day, Christmas, the winter solstice, that is, when the sun starts ‘approaching’ the earth.]
Probable?
On the other hand, in Luke’s gospel we read that, at Jesus’s conception, the angel Gabriel informed Mary that Elizabeth was six months’ pregnant: “Behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36, KJV).
Assuming this is accurate, it’s reasonable to assume that Mary didn’t know about Elizabeth’s pregnancy for about six months. We’re also told that Joseph and Mary followed strictly the Mosaic Law, “Now his [Jesus’s] parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.” (Luke 2:41, KJV)
“Now, according to the Mosaic Law, three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem were required during three feasts: the first was at Passover (15-22 Nisan, first month [March-April] of the luni-solar calendar), the second was at Pentecost (50 days after Passover) [6 Sivan, i.e., May-June] and the third was at the Tabernacles (15-22 Tishri, seventh month [September-October]).” (Scholarly article “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ on Hanukah” by De Caro et al.)
I guess we may also assume that Mary and Joseph went to all these three pilgrimages annually; in the meantime, presumably, they visited her cousin Elizabeth and Zechariah in Jerusalem, exchanging news. So if Mary didn’t know of a six-month pregnancy, the angel must have visited her just prior to a Passover since September to March (or October to April) of the following year is six months, while September to April is seven months; the other two uneventful periods in between are too short. So Jesus was probably conceived in March-April (the end of March?). Nine months down the road brings us to the end of December—corresponding to our celebration of Christmas.
Unfortunately, this article does not mention anything about the shepherds tending their sheep at night: but it could have been an invention of Luke’s.
Indeed, in his scholarly article “When Was Jesus Born?” William Abruzzi states, “Luke’s story of the shepherds in the field is considered by several scholars to be a later insertion into Luke’s infancy narrative. Not only does it interrupt the flow of the narrative (verse 2:7 is followed more naturally by verse 2:21 than by a disconnected story about an angelic visitation to shepherds. Indeed, as Freed (2001:138) notes, ‘As a unit, Luke 2:8-20 could be removed from Luke’s narrative without disrupting the story.’) Even the style of the writing of that particular story reads differently enough from the surrounding text to suggest it was a distinct pericope [extracted passage] inserted later.” (Scholarly article “When was Jesus Born?” by Abruzzi)
Christmas Tree
In its article ‘The History of the Christmas Tree,’ the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website has, “Pagans in Europe used branches of evergreen fir trees to decorate their homes and brighten their spirits during the winter solstice. Early Romans used evergreens to decorate their temples at the festival of Saturnalia, while ancient Egyptians used green palm rushes as part of their worship of the god Ra.” (Accessed December 19, 2023)
Believe it or not, this was the origin of our Christmas trees: the decorations came much later—in the late nineteenth century. Its origin is strictly pagan: there’s nothing Christ-based about it.
Conclusion
It seems, therefore, that, unfortunately, our gospel account of ‘Christmas’ never really happened. I hate to undermine the Christians’ most treasured celebration but facts are facts. Please note that I am mostly using information given in our gospels and what biblical scholars have to say about them. To me, it looks like the whole thing was made up—a ‘myth.’
However, we shouldn’t knock down myths altogether. In his book Sapiens, historian and anthropologist, Yuval Noah Harari, makes an excellent observation concerning the importance of myths. He believes that it’s myths that keep society-as-a-whole (as opposed to small family groups or packs) under control. He writes,
“If you tried to bunch together thousands of chimpanzees into Tiananmen Square, Wall Street, the Vatican or the headquarters of the United Nations, the result would be pandemonium [chaos]. By contrast, Sapiens [humans] regularly gather by the thousands in such places. Together, they create orderly patterns—such as trade networks, mass celebrations and political institutions—that they could never have created in isolation. The real difference between us and chimpanzees is the mythical glue that binds together large numbers of individuals, families and groups.” (Harari, p. 38)
Yes, that’s fine, but to insist that the Bible (or the gospels) is God’s truth is ludicrous, to say the least—so much, then, for the expression ‘gospel truth.’
New American Bible: Revised Edition. Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (NAB) (ISBN: 9780899429519)
O’Reilly, Bill and Martin Dugard. Killing Jesus: A History; New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2013 (ISBN: 9780805098549)
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769. (KJV)
The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society vol. 32 (1991): pp. 389-407.
Wikibooks: “The Pagan Beliefs Surrounding Christmas—The Date Jesus was Born,”
Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2005. (ISBN: 9780060766627)
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
I would say it’s natural to assume that if ancient humans encountered giants or flying humanoids, more so if they also possessed vastly superior technology, they could easily mistake them for heavenly beings, like angels or even ‘gods.’ I shall let the Bible speak for itself, and I shall let you, the reader, be the judge of whether the various biblical authors were inadvertently referring to aliens (extraterrestrials).
(1) Book of Genesis
(a) Nephilim
We come across a mysterious biblical passage in the first book of the Bible; we read,
“It came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God [heavenly beings (NAB, 6:2n)] saw the daughters of men [women] that they were fair [beautiful (NAB)]; and they took them [as their] wives of all which [whoever] they chose. … There were giants [Nephilim (NAB)] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto [had intercourse with (NAB)] the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1–2, 4, KJV, emphasis mine)
The original Hebrew word used in Genesis 6:4 is Nephilim, meaning ‘those who had come (or fallen) down.’ Could these “heavenly beings” have been extraterrestrials? Keep in mind that angels are spiritual beings: they do not have a physical body; so they couldn’t possibly have had intercourse with the “daughters of men.” In confirmation, according to the evangelist Matthew, angels do not marry: he portrays Jesus telling the Sadducees, “In the resurrection [afterlife] they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30, KJV)
(b) Enoch
Here’s what we read about the disappearance of the seventh generation human, Enoch:
“Enoch walked with God: and he was not [no longer here (NAB)]; for God took him.” (Genesis 5:24)
Doesn’t this sound like an alien ‘abduction’?
(c) Abraham
Three “men” visit Abraham and he feeds them a meal:
“He [Abraham] lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, ‘My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant.’ And they said, ‘So do, as thou hast said.’ … He took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. And they said unto him, ‘Where is Sarah thy wife?’ And he said, ‘Behold, in the tent.’ And he said, ‘I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.’ And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women [fertility]. … And the Lord said, ‘Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.’ And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.” (Genesis 18:2–5, 8–11, 20–22, KJV, emphasis mine)
Admittedly, the leader is identified as God in 18:22, and the other two “men” are identified as angels in 19:1. However, as mentioned above, angels are spirits: they don’t have a body; it begs the question, therefore, how they could possibly eat a meal. So it seems the three “men” weren’t spiritual/divine beings. Note also that they also knew that Sarah was pregnant with a male zygote/embryo, despite her having passed the age of fertility. Apparently, these beings had superior knowledge/vision and consequently mistaken for divine beings.
(d) Jacob
(i) Jacob once had a strange “dream”; but was it really a dream, or was it just that he couldn’t believe what he was seeing?
“He [Jacob] lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder [stairway (NAB)] set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the Lord stood above it.” (Genesis 28:11–13, KJV, emphasis mine)
Could this have been a hovering UFO with aliens going up and down a ladder/stairway?
(ii) Jacob wrestles with a ‘divine being’ that looked like “a man.”
“That night … Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched [struck (NAB)] the hollow [socket (NAB)] of his thigh [hip (NAB)]; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint [dislocated (NAB)], as he wrestled with him. And he said, ‘Let me go, for the day breaketh.’ And he said, ‘I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.’ And he said unto him, ‘What is thy name?’ And he said, ‘Jacob.’ And he said, ‘Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.’ And Jacob asked him, and said, ‘Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.’ And he said, ‘Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?’ And he blessed him there.” (Genesis 32:23, 25–29, KJV, emphasis mine)
I pose this question: can a ‘spirit’ wrestle without a body? Moreover, was the light of day too much glare for this strange being? Possibly, then, he had large eyes (as modern alien pictures show) capable of annoyingly allowing a myriad light rays to enter them.
(2) Book of Numbers
We meet with the ‘Nephilim’ again in the fourth book of the Bible; we read:
“They [Israelite scouts] returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And they told him, and said, ‘We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.’ And Caleb [their leader] stilled the people before Moses, and said, ‘Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.’ But the men that went up with him said, ‘We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.’ And they brought up an evil [discouraging (NAB)] report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants [Nephilim (NAB)], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim (NAB)]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.’” (Numbers 13:25–33, KJV, emphasis mine)
Apparently, therefore, these beings survived the global flood in Noah’s time, despite God’s causing the flood mainly because of them. Right after the Genesis passage above, we read, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth …. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth …. And the Lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth.’” (Genesis 6:5–7, KJV).
So why didn’t God also destroy the Nephilim as well; was it that he couldn’t because they lived on another planet (planet X?), or on the far side of the moon, or under the oceans/seas in USOs (unidentified submerged objects) so that a global flood could not affect them.
[Note: ‘Planet X,’ or Nibiru (if it really exists), supposedly has a very elliptical orbit around our sun with about a 3,600-year period. Although currently absent from our solar system, it could possibly have been present at the time of the writing of the Old Testament books mentioned in this article; and it will come back temporarily somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. If aliens visited earth they probably came from a nearby planet. Any mortal beings outside a 100-light-year radius away from us will probably be unable to reach us in their lifetime. That is, anything outside the Milky Way, which is about 100,000 light years in diameter, can most probably be ruled out.]
Strangely enough, in its article ‘Do Aliens and Extraterrestrials Exist?,’ https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/46660 (accessed October 15, 2023), the ‘Third Millennium Ministries’ website denies that the Bible talks about extraterrestrials here in Numbers on the basis that Jesus only redeemed human beings—not extraterrestrials; it has, “no mention is made in the Bible of a—the—Redeemer for aliens.”
In my article entitled ‘Adam and Eve—Original Sin’ I show clearly that Adam and Eve’s story is based on a prior myth etched on clay tablets about a millennium before Genesis was written—the ‘Epic Poem of Gilgamesh.’ The talking serpent should be a clear giveaway that it belongs in the realm of fables; and so, it never actually happened: that is, there was no ‘original sin’ or ‘fall’ of humanity, and therefore Jesus had no reason to redeem us from. (Incidentally, the global—Noah’s—flood is also templated in this poem: see my article on ‘The Flood.’)
Moreover, the website’s annexed article ‘Nephi-What?’ https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40004 (accessed October 15, 2023), tortuously tries to deny what the Bible says in order to conform with the above agenda. It contends that “the ‘sons of God’ were unusual men. Specifically they were kings.” Meanwhile, in its footnote to Genesis 6:2, the New American Bible states clearly that the “sons of God” were “heavenly beings.”
The website also contends that “perhaps the best explanation is that the Nephilim is a term for ‘fierce warriors.’” Again the New American Bible in its footnote to Genesis 6:1–4, equates the Nephilim with “prehistoric giants.” Not to mention that, according to Numbers 13:33, we read, the Israelites seemed small, “as grasshoppers” compared to the Nephilim.
[Note: According to ‘Wikipedia,’ the ‘New American Bible’ (NAB) translation “was carried out in stages by members of the ‘Catholic Biblical Association of America’ (CBA).” (Wikipedia: “New American Bible,” accessed November 20, 2023) “[CBA] Membership now numbers more than 1,200. Those who hold an advanced degree in biblical studies are eligible to be elected to membership, irrespective of any religious affiliation.” (Wikipedia: “Catholic Biblical Association,” accessed November 20, 2023) I’d like to point out, therefore, that the ‘New American Bible’ isn’t just the opinion of a single or a handful of biblical scholars.]
I don’t have enough space to properly counter the Third Millennium Ministries’ two articles here: I’ll let the reader read them carefully and see for oneself to what extent Christians go, denying even what’s in black and white in their own allegedly infallible Bible.
(3) Second Book of Kings
In the ‘Second Book of Kings,’ we read of the disappearance of the prophet Elijah:
“It came to pass, as they [prophets Elijah and Elisha] still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (Second Kings 2:11, KJV, emphasis mine)
Doesn’t this look like Elijah was abducted as well—like Enoch above? Notice also the words “whirlwind” and “fire,” which are the same words used in the Ezekiel passage (1:4) below.
(4) Book of Ezekiel
In the ‘Book of Ezekiel,’ we not only read of possible aliens but apparently also of UFOs. It’s understandable that the biblical author has difficulty expressing himself; so, please, note my emphases in this passage.
“Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I [Ezekiel] was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, the word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him. And I [Ezekiel] looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness [glow (NAB)] was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man [humanoid]. And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings. And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot: and they sparkled [gleamed (NAB)] like the colour of burnished brass. And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings [their faces and their wings looked out on all their four sides (NAB)]. Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies. And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit [locomotion/propulsion] was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went. As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps [torches (NAB)]: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth [ground (NAB)] by the living creatures, with his four faces [one {wheel on the ground} alongside each of the four living creatures (NAB)]. The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl [topaz (NAB)]: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance [construction (NAB)] and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. As for their rings [rims (NAB)], they were so high that they were dreadful [fearsome (NAB)]; and their ringswere full of eyes round about them four. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spiritof the living creature was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible [awesome (NAB)] crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host [army (NAB)]: when they stood, they let down their wings. And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man [humanoid] above upon it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.” (Ezekiel 1:1–28, KJV, emphasis mine)
This passage begs the question: why would spirits, angels or God, need “wheels” to move around? Notice especially the clause: “the spirit [locomotion/propulsion] of the living creature was in the wheels”: the creatures drove the transporting mechanism around. It seems, therefore, that the four creatures had a tangible body—they were not ‘spirits’—like angels or demons. And, although humanoids, their body didn’t look much like that of a human being, either: they had four wings, four faces, joint-less legs with a calf’s sole, and reflected light like polished brass. Doesn’t it sound like a fearsome alien? Moreover, notice especially the clauses describing the transporting mechanism: “a brightness [glow] was about it,” “a wheel in the middle of a wheel,” “their rings [wheels’ rims] were full of eyes round about them,” and “the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.” Doesn’t this mechanism sound much like modern descriptions of an ‘unidentified flying object,’ (UFO)? Such superior technology, like sudden acceleration/deceleration, could easily have made the biblical author conclude they were ‘divine’ beings.
In particular, focus again on the phrase “a wheel in the middle of a wheel.” According to Dr. Brian O’Leary, former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor, “They use co-rotating magnetic discs for their propulsion, that seems to be a common denominator to the UFO phenomenon.” (Morcan, loc. 230/1198)
Ezekiel chapter 10, to all intents and purposes, reiterates chapter 1, so, in the interest of simplicity, I shall not quote it here; I’ll let the interested reader satisfy his/her curiosity.
(5) Book of Revelation
The author of the ‘Book of Revelation,’ John of Patmos, also describes a ‘vision’ somewhat similar to Ezekiel’s:
“Before the throne [of God] there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.’ And … those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever.” (Revelation 4:6–9, KJV, emphasis mine)
Notice the description of the “four beasts” is somewhat similar to the description given in Ezekiel passage above, except that they had multiple eyes, six wings instead of four, and a single face rather than four faces. Notice also that the biblical author calls them “beasts,” not angels (cherubim) as in Ezekiel (10:1–2, 20). It begs the question, therefore, were they in fact aliens?
Conclusion
Please note, that in this article, I am not trying to prove the existence of extraterrestrial aliens and their associated UFOs: I don’t know! All I’m saying is that, despite what Bible-inerrancy believers categorially deny because of Jesus’s supposed redemption of humankind, the Bible does seem to confirm their existence in the above accounts. I don’t believe in the Bible’s infallibility, as most Christians do (see my articles on ‘Bible Contradictions (Old/New Testament),’ ‘Bible Prophecies (Textual/Claimed),’ and ‘Science in/NOT-in the Bible’); nor do I believe in macroevolution, as most scientists do (see my article on ‘Evolution’). So I must leave the question of aliens’ existence open.
If extraterrestrials do, in fact, exist in our universe, then possibly, life on earth might have been initiated by these same aliens (termed ‘panspermia’), as both molecular biologist Francis Crick and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins contend. In my opinion, however, this only pushes the mystery of life’s origin one step backward since the odds against life’s originating abiotically by chance alone (termed ‘abiogenesis’) are astronomically prohibitive (1041000 or 10^41000, i.e., 1 followed by 41,000 zeros—see my article on ‘God of the Gaps?’). I believe that God created life on earth and us; and if this be the case, he could just as well have created other intelligent beings on some other habitable planets.
References
Holy Bible, The: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769. (KJV)
New American Bible: Revised Edition. Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (NAB: ISBN 9780899429519)
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
This article deals with modern scientific concepts found in ancient Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic texts written in the intertestamental period (i.e., between the Old and the New Testament writings) from around 300 BCE to around 500 CE (Barnstone, p. xx) but not found in the canonical (official) books of the Bible. My contention is: if the Bible is truly ‘God-driven’ or ‘God-inspired,’ these modern scientific concepts should also be found in Holy Scriptures. It begs the question, therefore: is the Bible truly God’s revelation, or man’s semi-blind search? Following are some examples.
Note: It goes without saying that we must not expect these ancient texts to be crystal clear using modern scientific terms, and some might be somewhat cryptic. For example, they are not going to use a term like ‘electromagnetic radiation’ because it didn’t even exist at the time of their writing: they will use a word like ‘light,’ which is a form of electromagnetic radiation, instead. Refer to my article entitled ‘Science in the Bible’ to see what to expect.
(1) Creation from Nothingness
The (first-century-CE) ‘Second Book of Enoch’ has, “First, I [God] created things from nonexistence into existence, and from invisible into visible. … I created everything from the highest to the lowest.” (Barnstone, p. 4)
Most Christians don’t realize that this is not what the Bible says in the book of Genesis: it says primordial waters existed as raw material; we read, “The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2, KJV, emphasis mine) This was prior to God’s creation of the earth and the universe: even before God created the first thing, light: “God said, ‘Let there be light’: and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3, KJV). The first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, KJV), is only a preamble or title to Genesis chapter 1.
Creation from nothingness was out-of-the-box thinking for the author of Genesis and his contemporaries. Confirming this, in her book, ‘A History of God’ (p. 7), religious affairs author and commentator, Karen Armstrong, states, “In Babylonian myth—as later in the Bible—there was no creation out of nothing, an idea that was alien to the ancient world. Before either the gods or human beings existed, this sacred raw material had existed from all eternity. When the Babylonians tried to imagine this primordial divine stuff, they thought that it must have been similar to the wasteland of Mesopotamia, where floods constantly threatened to wipe out the frail works of men.”
(2) Creation of Space
Not only matter, but apparently also space was created by God according to the Gnostics. The (second-century-CE) ‘Gospel of Truth’ has, “Each space which, on its part, is in the Father comes from the existent one, who, on his part, has established it from the inexistent.” (Barnstone, p. 293)
(3) Expanding Space
The (fourth-century-CE) ‘Haggadah’ (i.e., Jewish legend) has, “The heavens and the earth stretched themselves out in length and breadth as though they aspired to infinitude, and it required the word of God to call a halt to their encroachments.” (Barnstone, p. 18)
This sound like the expansion of space in our universe (discovered in 1929)—but excluding nearby galaxies.
In the Bible, we only find the concept of the ‘firmament’ being ‘beaten-out’ like a metallic canopy: the ‘stretching-out’ is in area not in volume (See Job 26:7, 37:18; Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 42:22, 44:24, 45:12, 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15; Psalms 104:2; Zechariah 12:1).
(4) Big Bang Theory
Introducing (second-century-CE) Basilides’s Gnostic system, Barnstone writes, “The Basilides system as given by Hippolytus begins with a cosmogony where there is nothing, neither spirit nor matter. But there is a nonexistent God who ‘wished’ … to make a universe. This was the first universe. But a second universe came about because the nonexistent universe contained a seed out of which our universe came.” (p. 627) Hippolytus, who was a second/third century Bishop of Rome, the first antipope, and Christian martyr, writes, “The seed of the universe had everything within it, just as the grain of a mustard seed, collecting everything in the smallest space, contains it all together.” (Barnstone, p. 630)
This sounds like our universe originating from a ‘singularity’ as proposed by the ‘big bang theory.’ However, in the interest of fairness, I fail to see how an inexistent God could possibly wish anything.
(5) Software
A software program is practically ‘an inexistent universe’: every kind of seed is programmed to produce a particular organism; but its program is intangible—one might even say ‘inexistent.’
(6) Light’s Timelessness
The (second-century-CE) ‘Secret Book of John,’ also known as the ‘Apocryphon of John,’ has, “It is the immeasurable Light, the holy and pure purity, the indescribable, perfect and imperishable. … Time does not belong to it. … Time is not allotted to it.” (Barnstone, pp. 53-54, emphasis mine)
This agrees with Einstein’s ‘Relativity Theory’: no time elapses over anything travelling at light’s speed.
(7) Light’s Duality
Again, in the ‘Secret Book of John,’ its author wonders: “Behold, a child appeared to me; but I saw the form of an old man in whom was light. When I looked upon him I did not comprehend this wonder. If it is a unity with many forms because of the light? Then its forms appear. If it is a unity, how would it have [these] aspects?” (Barnstone, p. 53)
This sounds like the duality of light in ‘Quantum Mechanics’: that light behaves both as a wave and as a particle (i.e., a photon).
(8) Blood Flow
In the ‘Damascus Document,’ written early in the first century BCE by the Qumran sect and discovered among the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ in 1947, we read about blood flow through veins and arteries: “the artery is full of blood,” it says. The authors-editors comment on this paragraph, “It displays a rudimentary knowledge of the circulation of the blood through arteries, a phenomenon not fully described until the seventeenth century by William Harvey.” (Wise, p. 64)
Conclusion
These ancient texts give us a glimpse of the tortuous path taken creating ‘Holy Scriptures.’ Some of the steps we’ve taken were good, others not. We would have regarded the above Gnostic concepts ‘revelations’ from God in the field of science had they been present. It makes one wonder, therefore, what criteria were used by Christianity (and God) in selecting the Bible’s canonical books.
Aptly, Barnstone comments, “In the second century [CE], Valentinus, a major Gnostic thinker, sought election as Pope of Rome. Surely the fixation of the New Testament in Carthage in 397 [CE] would have been drastically different had Valentinus succeeded; and what would have been the views of that former Gnostic, Saint Augustine, whose words so affected the conciliar decisions at Carthage? … As [essayist] Jorge Luis Borges notes in his essay on the Gnostics, ‘Had Alexandria triumphed rather than Rome, these esoteric writings would today seem perfectly ordinary.’” (pp. xviii, xxv)
References
Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1994. (ISBN: 9780345384560)
Barnstone, Willis, Ed. The Other Bible: Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Christian Apocrypha, Gnostic Scriptures, Kabbalah, and Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005. (ISBN: 9780060815981)
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769. (KJV)
Wise, Michael, Michael Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, Eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005. (ISBN: 9780060766627)
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
Passover is a Jewish yearly celebration commemorating the Israelites’ liberation from slavery in Egypt: their migration from Egypt is commonly termed the ‘Exodus.’ While I was reading the Bible cover to cover the first time decades ago, I noticed a huge numerical discrepancy, which I’d like to share with the reader here. According to the ‘Book of Numbers,’ roughly a year after the Israelites’ liberation, a census was taken of the men over 20 years of age and fit for war: implying an entire nation migrated from Egypt to Israel. In this article I show that this so-called ‘nation’ couldn’t have been more than a sizable band. I shall not cheat: I shall only quote other parts of the Bible itself to show this—biblical contradictions most believers fail to notice.
Book of Numbers
According to the ‘Book of Numbers,’ thirteen months after leaving Egypt, God asked Moses to take a census of the Israelite male population who were more than twenty years of age and fit for war:
“The Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, ‘Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.’” (Numbers 1:1–3, KJV, emphasis mine)
Luckily, Numbers also gives, explicitly, the final figure:
“So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; Even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty [603,550].” (Numbers 1:45–46, KJV, emphasis mine)
Now, keep in mind that this number excludes those males under age twenty and those too old or handicapped to fight.
Background
Jacob (whom God renamed ‘Israel’ in Genesis 35:10) together with eleven of his sons, joined Joseph after the latter was sold by his brethren and became famous in Egypt. Levi, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, was Moses’s progenitor.
Book of Exodus
As one can see in the biblical quote just below, according to the ‘Book of Exodus,’ from Jacob (i.e., Israel) to Moses there are only four generations:
“These be the heads of their fathers’ houses: The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi: these be the families of Reuben. And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman: these are the families of Simeon. And these are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari: and the years of the life of Levi were an hundred thirty and seven years. The sons of Gershon; Libni, and Shimi, according to their families. And the sons of Kohath; Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel: and the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred thirty and three years. And the sons of Merari; Mahali and Mushi: these are the families of Levi according to their generations. And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister [aunt] to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.” (Exodus 6:14–20, KJV, emphasis mine)
So, summarizing the italicized names: (1) Jacob (Israel) had Levi, (2) Levi had Kohath, (3) Kohath had Amram, and (4) Amram had Moses. Period!
Note also that Levi himself and Levi’s brothers, Reuben and Simeon, had no more than six male children each. But even if we assume that every male in every generation bore twelve children (i.e., six male and six female), after four generations the Israelite male population (young and old) would only reach about 3,100: 1×12+12×6+12x6x6+12x6x6x6 = 12+72+432+2,592 = 3,108, assuming no males die in the four generations. So now, compare a maximum of 3,108 men with well over 603,550 men. Is my calculation far out or is Numbers exaggerating the Israelites’ population?
Scientific Evidence
In fact, according to the Rational Wiki website, in its article entitled “Evidence for the Exodus,” states that there is no archeological evidence that a great nation spent forty years migrating from Egypt to Israel, such as, a significant number (concentration) of broken pottery or buried corpses, say, strewn along the way there. It has,
“Despite attempts by a number of biblical archeologists—and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts—over the years, credible direct archeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found. … So if there were archeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical ‘600,000 men on foot, besides children’ plus ‘a mixed crowd … and live stock in great numbers’ (Exodus 12:37–38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.” (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus, accessed August 13, 2023)
Moreover, there’s absolutely no record (Egyptian or otherwise) of any of the ten plagues that devastated Egypt according Exodus. I suggest reading the whole of the attached article.
Conclusion
If I am right, the Israelite ‘nation’ that was freed from the slavery of Egypt was not a nation at all; but just a sizable band of people—perhaps. I hate to undermine the Jews’ most treasured ‘history,’ but numbers don’t lie. Please note that I am only using information given in their own Bible: to me, it looks like the event was ‘mythologized’ (exaggerated) over time. However, we should not knock down myths altogether. In his book Sapiens, historian and anthropologist, Yuval Noah Harari, makes an excellent observation concerning the importance of myths. He believes that it is myths that keep society-as-a-whole (as opposed to small family groups or packs) under control. He writes,
“If you tried to bunch together thousands of chimpanzees into Tiananmen Square, Wall Street, the Vatican or the headquarters of the United Nations, the result would be pandemonium [chaos]. By contrast, Sapiens [humans] regularly gather by the thousands in such places. Together, they create orderly patterns—such as trade networks, mass celebrations and political institutions—that they could never have created in isolation. The real difference between us and chimpanzees is the mythical glue that binds together large numbers of individuals, families and groups.” (Harari, p. 38)
Yes, but to insist that the Bible is God’s truth ….
References
Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Toronto, ON: McClelland and Stewart, 2014. (ISBN: 9780771038525)
KJV: The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769.
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
