The Son of God -- Yes, God has a Son!

In honor of the new "Son of God" movie being released in theaters February 28th, this blog post is meant as a rallying call-- a cry in the streets-- even a voice in the wilderness (not that I'm putting myself on an equal level with John the Baptizer).

This is a message to unite ALL Christians, of ALL denominations, of ALL churches, of ALL groups, of ALL organizations on the most important and essential topic that exists in Christianity: The person, work, and teachings of Jesus the Messiah.

But not only do I intend, with this blog post, to unite ALL Christians, I also want to welcome and include any Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheists who respect and admire Jesus of Nazareth, the Teacher and Prophet who lived 2,000 years ago in the Middle East.

This post focuses ONLY on the things ALL Christians agree on regarding Jesus.

Does God have a Son, and was He revealed in the Old Testament?

Beginning about 3,000 years ago, the Holy Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) spoke of God having a special, unique, one-of-a-kind Son, who would one day be born on earth as a baby and grow up fulfill the promises God made to Abraham and to inherit the eternal Kingdom of the famous Jewish King, David Ben-Jesse.

The majority of Christians (based on the New Testament) believe that God's Son was alive with God in the very beginning. (John 1:1-3; John 17:1-5; John Chapter 6, Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:10) 

The Old Testament appears to support this belief. For example, Psalm 110:1-4 seems to show that God's Son was alive at the time when the Psalm was written. Psalm 2 also speaks of God's Son as though He were alive at the time it was penned. Proverbs 30:4 was a little "sneak preview" and hinted at the fact that God had a Son in heaven.

Perhaps the most famous passage in the Hebrew Bible explicitly speaking of the Son of God is Isaiah 9:6-7:

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

His dominion will be vast and he will bring immeasurable prosperity. He will rule on David's throne and over David's kingdom, establishing it and strengthening it by promoting justice and fairness, from this time forward and forevermore. The LORD's intense devotion to his people will accomplish this."

Many other Scriptures speak about a future permanent "Anointed King" and a "Servant" who would inherit David's Kingdom, without specifically referring to this future Man as the Son of God. The majority of Christians believe that this foretold "Messiah," is the same individual as God's Son.

Many prophecies (God-inspired predictions of the future) were made regarding this future King. Some of the most remarkable predictions were:

* The future King would appear on the scene 490 years after the order was given to rebuild the Jewish Temple, and then the King would be put to death. (Daniel 9:24-26)

* The future King would be born in Bethlehem, the city where David was from. (Micah 5:2)

* The future King would be humble, and would enter Jerusalem riding a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)

* The future King would be caught up to heaven and rule the universe next to God, with all people paying homage to Him. (Daniel 7:13-14)

* The future King would be an eternal High Priest at God's right hand. (Psalm 110:1-4)

* The future Servant would suffer and die for the sins of all people, to save them, and then be resurrected back to life. (Isaiah Chapter 53)

All of the Jewish prophets, from Isaiah to Jeremiah, to Ezekiel, to Daniel, to Zechariah, even to the small books, all predicted that a future Jewish Savior or Deliverer would come to bring salvation and hope one day.

Who is the Son of God?

One of the predictions briefly mentioned above (Daniel 9:24-26) prophesied that the foretold Messiah would appear on the scene 490 years after the order was given to the Jews by Persia to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The prophecy also says the Messiah had to arrive before the rebuilt Temple is destroyed again (which occurred in 70 AD). So this prediction places the Messiah as having to arrive in the 30-33 AD time period.

Did a Messiah figure appear during the time of 30-33 AD? Yes indeed, One did!

The alleged eyewitness account in the Gospel of John, shows that a Man by the name of JESUS, who grew up in Nazareth, claiming to be the long-awaited Messiah, performed many miracles and signs from God, even walking on water and raising people from the dead!

The other Gospels in the New Testament claim that this same Jesus was a descendant of David, born in Bethlehem, and that He entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, finally suffering and dying for our sins. After which, on the third day, He rose from the dead, and after 40 days, ascended into heaven to rule as King at God's right hand.

If you are not convinced by the Gospels and New Testament alone, consider these non-Christian sources of evidence for Jesus: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, the Babylonian Talmud, and Josephus (however, certain parts of Josephus are possibly spurious).

Wikipedia even says: 

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed... and...two events subject to 'almost universal assent' are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. ... Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC, in the closing stages of the reign of King Herod and died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek."

Things All Christians Agree On About The Son of God:

You will find that Christians disagree on many details about Jesus, His identity, His life, His teachings, etc. But here are the things ALL (or the vast, huge majority) believe and accept about Jesus:

* Jesus is the Unique, Only-Begotten Son of God.

* Jesus is the Messiah (also called Christ, which means God's Anointed King)

* Jesus is the Lord.

* Jesus is the Savior.

* Jesus was the Son of Man who was truly human.

* Jesus never committed sin and died for our sins.

* Jesus was raised from the dead.

* Jesus ascended into heaven.

* Jesus sits at God's right hand as King, Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor.

Have You Met God's Son -- Perhaps You Know Him by a Different Name?

If you are a Jew, it's possible that you believe Jesus (Yeshua) was a good teacher. If you are a Muslim, you probably believe Jesus (Isa) was one of Allah's greatest prophets. If you're an atheist, you may respect Jesus for His outstanding moral teachings, especially the Golden Rule.

I commend you for your respect and admiration of this Man, and I  wholeheartedly encourage you to dig deeper, research this Jesus-- decide for yourself -- just who was this Man? How did this lowly poor carpenter's son from a small town, 2,000 years ago, turn the world upside down, so much so that our calendars are based on a calculation of when He was born, and the celebration of His birth is the biggest holiday in the world?

How did this one Man convince and persuade thousands of Jews to give up everything they had, all their traditions and family history, and often, their very lives, for the sake of His teachings?

Go see the "Son of God" movie on February 28th to begin your journey to discover more about this remarkable and wonderful Man, and then read the Gospel of John at http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/john/1/

Genesis 1 -- Fusion Bible Commentary

Below is my Fusion Commentary on Genesis Chapter 1 (My notes are in bold italics):

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

No date is given for the creation of the sky/universe or the earth. The Bible simply and beautifully says, "In the beginning..."

I accept what science says: The universe is 13+ billion years old, and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. This does not in any way conflict with the Bible.

This is one of the main things science still cannot answer, and perhaps, never will be able to answer -- where did our universe come from?

Gen 1:2  Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

The "darkness" here is a very dense, thick fog, which is blocking the sun and moon and stars from being seen clearly in the sky, and made it so dark that shapes of things could not be seen. (The Hebrew word rendered here as "darkness" was often used for fog, and it fits the context)

Gen 1:3  God said, "Let there be light." And there was light!

Now God begins to thin out the fog, so that more light can reach the surface.

Gen 1:4  God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness.

God thinned the fog enough that the difference between day and night could be observed.

Gen 1:5  God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

The word "day" can mean "time period" (Keep in mind that Genesis 2:4 uses "day" to refer to "time period" or "era"). In other places in the Bible, it says God views 1,000 human years as one "day" to Him. In Hebrews chapter 4, it claims that "Day 7" of this creation account was STILL ongoing thousands of years later, which would mean each "Day" could be thousands or millions of years long.

I accept what science says: The earth is 4.54 billion years old, and life on earth is 3.5 billion years old.

Gen 1:6  God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.
Gen 1:7  So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so.
Gen 1:8  God called the expanse "sky." There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

This "expanse" was named "Sky," so there is really no reason to believe that the Bible writer thought this "sky" was a hard, solid dome, as some skeptics, critics, and atheists assume. Even if the writer of Genesis did have the ancient idea of a solid dome sky, this doesn't really cause any theological issues or problems. 

The "waters above" may simply refer to clouds, but it is possible it is referring to a "Cloud Canopy" that existed back then, which God later bursts open to flood the earth with.

Gen 1:9  God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear." It was so.
Gen 1:10  God called the dry ground "land" and the gathered waters he called "seas." God saw that it was good.

Finally, God causes the dry ground to appear. Prior to this, the earth was covered entirely with water.

Gen 1:11  God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." It was so.
Gen 1:12  The land produced vegetation — plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13  There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.

Gen 1:14  God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years,
Gen 1:15  and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." It was so.
Gen 1:16  God made two great lights — the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also.
Gen 1:17  God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth,
Gen 1:18  to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19  There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

God is NOT creating the sun, moon, and stars here. He ALREADY created them back in Genesis 1:1. It very clearly says here that God is placing them in the sky where they can be visible from the earth. What God is doing is thinning out the dense fog even more, to where the sun, moon, and stars are now clearly visible in the sky from the earth.

Gen 1:20  God said, "Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
Gen 1:21  God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22  God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth."
Gen 1:23  There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis agrees with science that sea creatures lived first, prior to any other life on earth.

Gen 1:24  God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind." It was so.
Gen 1:25  God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.

Skeptics have long claimed there is a discrepancy with science here, with birds being created BEFORE reptiles, however I have discovered now that the Hebrew word (tan-neen') used in Genesis 1:21, BEFORE birds are mentioned, can indeed mean "snake/reptile." Thus yet another skeptic/atheist argument is shown to be false.

(As a side-note, I do NOT believe in Biblical inerrancy, where every word must be perfect, or else the entire Bible is false. I don't subscribe to that belief.) 

Many Christians completely interpret Genesis 1 through 4 or 1 through 6 as an allegory or parable, not intended to teach literal historical events. I can understand the reasoning behind doing so, and it is possible that is the correct way of interpreting Genesis. But I find my "Fusion" interpretation more appealing and accurate in line with how the rest of the Bible quotes Genesis.

If you ever do find a true discrepancy between Genesis and current scientific thought, it is possible that Genesis OR science is simply incorrect on a particular point. I'll let you decide on that. (Keep in mind that science is absolutely NOT infallible, especially on historical sciences. Scientists are revising and correcting themselves every single day.)

Gen 1:26  Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth."
Gen 1:27  God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

Right from the very beginning of the Bible, God proclaims the equality of men and women -- they are both equally created in God's image, reflecting God's qualities, emotions, logic, and morality.

Gen 1:28  God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground."
Gen 1:29  Then God said, "I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Gen 1:30  And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." It was so.
Gen 1:31  God saw all that he had made — and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.

I believe that this is referring to a special instantaneous creation that God performed when He was ready to plant His special Perfect Garden (see Genesis Chapter 2). God let the earth, animals, and humans evolve naturally up to a certain point. Then He stepped in and performed a special instantaneous creation of animals to fill this Garden, and of two perfect human beings to live there in the Garden. Meanwhile, outside the Garden, everything (including evolved humans) continued naturally the way it always had.

The people and animals which God instantaneously created for His Garden, were to live as vegetarians, and there was no death of animals or humans at all inside this Garden (until Adam's sin). But outside the Garden natural death was taking place like it always had.

(I am only throwing this out there as an open-minded possibility to ponder: The Hebrew word for "heavens" can mean the "sky" or atmosphere, instead of outer space or God's spiritual realm. If this is the case here, it is *possible* that "Elohim" could be a race of extraterrestrial beings ("aliens") who terraformed earth, seeded life, and initiated evolution, then visited us again thousands of years later.)

(All Scripture references are from the NET Bible)

Have you met the Scienticians?

Scientician is a new word I came up with to describe the people you see on Twitter who have a new faith, a new cult, a new dogma.

Here are their beliefs:

1: You must only accept science as truth, or fact. You are a foolish idiot if you accept any other kind of evidence for the existence of God, souls, etc.

2: Even though science may be wrong on anything at any given time, you must view and treat science as if it is infallible, and never be suspicious or disrespectful toward it.

3: Even though science has made huge blunders in the past, you must accept the "current truth," as though it were absolute, until the consensus of peer-reviewed scientists change their minds. Then you must abandon the "old truth" for the "new current truth."

4: Science may have flaws, but it must be accepted as true, because it is all we have, and the ONLY method to gain truth.

5: Science can never provide truth, because science can change anything at any time. Nothing is set in stone.

6: The laws of nature have ALWAYS remained the same, and they never have changed, and never will.

7: Science is superior to religion because science is based on FACTS, while religion contradicts itself and changes its teachings all the time.

8: Science is superior to religion because science progresses, changes, updates, and corrects itself when it receives new information, while religion never does change, but ALWAYS remains the same.

9: Only physical things exist. There is nothing in all of existence which is not physical.

10: Anything from history must be rejected unless it has contemporary non-religious writings in support of it.

11: The dating methods used by scientists may be incorrect, but if you don't accept them as truth, you are a stupid moron.

12: Philosophy is a joke science. A lower class, which doesn't provide evidence of anything, even though science and logic are actually PART OF philosophy.

13: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- let the "Argument From Personal Incredulity" be damned!

14: You must accept all claims of scientists for what happened in history, but if you accept what historians say about history, you're STUPID!

The Rules About Logical Fallacies are Actually Contradictory

Believe it or not, the rules about committing logical fallacies, actually appear to be contradictory in nature. Below are examples:

It is the "Hasty Generalization" logical fallacy to lump in all religious people together or all atheists together as being part of the same group, and it is the "Guilt By Association" logical fallacy to condemn Martin Luther King Jr as being religious just like Al Qaeda is religious.

But! It is the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy if you are a moderate Muslim or Christian and you object to being lumped in together with Al Qaeda or the KKK!

So according to these rules about logical fallacies, it is logically-flawed to lump in all religious people AND it is logically-flawed to object to being lumped in!

Another example would be: "Appeal to Authority" and "Ad Populum" fallacies contradicting the common, everyday appeal that we make to a consensus or majority of scientists.

Then there is the atheist principle of logic, which demands "extraordinary evidence" for "extraordinary claims." But this is an example of the "Argument From Incredulity," rejecting something because it sounds incredible to you.

Finally, think about logic itself. The only way to prove that we should use logic is by using logic. This is "circular logic," which is a logical fallacy. Therefore, you commit a logical fallacy every time you attempt to prove that we should use logic!

The New Logical Fallacies of 2014

As a deep-thinker, huge fan of logic, and a self-made philosopher, I am officially presenting and submitting the following items which I have labeled as NEW logical fallacies.

I am asking for peer-review (from philosophers, logicians, scientists, atheists, theists, Christian apologists, religious people, and any other deep thinkers). Do you think the following items should be labeled as "logical fallacies" beginning in 2014?

Do any of the following items belong inside of a logical argument?

"The Double-Standard Fallacy:" Accepting one form of evidence for your own claims, while simultaneously rejecting this form of evidence for your opponent's argument.

"The Tree-Falling Fallacy:" This argument goes something like this: 'If a tree falls in the woods and no one recorded it, it never happened,' or 'If no one wrote a book about Alexander the Great, that means he never existed.'

"The Goat-Herder Fallacy:" Attributing automatic falsehood (and rejecting the arguments of) anyone based on their profession or career. Example: 'I reject the Bible because it is written by goat-herders.'

"The Contemporary Fallacy," (also known as "The JFK Fallacy"): This fallacy goes like this: 'Any books written about President Kennedy after his death in 1963 must be rejected as myth, since they were not written about him while he was alive.'

"Telephone-Game Fallacy:" Automatically assuming that adults cannot accurately relay facts to other adults, based on a popular children's game.

"The Uneducated Fallacy:" Attributing a lack of education to your opponent simply for holding views that are different or opposite from your views.

"The Truth Fallacy:" (also known as "The Mislabel Fallacy"): Re-defining the word "truth" or "evidence" to only apply to the position that you support, or to the kind of evidence which supports your argument, but not your opponent's argument. For example: 'Only science can be accepted as truth or evidence,' or 'Only the Bible can be accepted as truth or evidence.'

"The Auto-Myth Fallacy:" Automatically assuming that an ancient book is myth because it is ancient, or automatically assuming a book is myth if it does not agree with your worldview.

"The Bias-Fallacy:" Attributing more bias to anyone who has a different view from yours, than you attribute to the people who hold your view.

"Extraordinary-Fallacy:" Automatically labeling something false because it sounds extraordinary to you.

"The Born-This-Way Fallacy:" Claiming that the best argument is always the one which most closely resembles the knowledge you were born with. For example, 'Atheism is a much better option than theism, because everyone is born without knowledge of God.' This would be fallacious since everyone is also born without knowledge of science, logic, math, etc.

"The Current Science Fallacy:" Declaring that your opponent's argument must be rejected, or the Bible or any book must be rejected because it doesn't agree with today's current science, even though today's current science may change and be outdated tomorrow.

And finally, one more submitted by Twitter user "Ultra Radical" (@allthewayleft):

"The Raised-This-Way Fallacy:" Claiming that the best argument is the one most closely matching the status or knowledge you were raised with.