Two Logical Proofs for God’s Existence

I have heard the claim that Christians rely upon faith to prove God’s existence; that there is no basis for believing, or evidence for accepting, the existence of God beyond the exercise of faith.  Perhaps you have encountered this claim or even made this claim yourself.  I will admit the apparent circularity of reasoning which is operative when trying to prove God’s existence from God’s word.  Therefore, I will purpose in this writing to present two proofs for the existence of God without relying upon the Bible, or religious tradition, teaching, or dogma.  The two proofs I will present will be logical arguments based upon philosophy and science.  I will present arguments for the existence of God from morality and reality.

Morality is the commonly shared and commonly understood system of acceptable behavior within human society.  Reality is the natural, physical universe that we dwell in.  You may not agree with the conclusions I will present, but I will present these conclusions using logic, rationality, and reason, and not using the Bible.  If you disagree, then argue against my facts or my logic.  But don’t let it be said that you have never heard a Christian present a logical, rational, or reasonable argument for the existence of God without appealing to faith.

First I will present the case for God’s existence from morality.

“You know, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed that morality is just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men.”

–Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory, season 5, episode 7, “The Good Guy Fluctuation” (air date: October 27, 2011)

Of course, the above quote comes from a fictional character on a fictional television show, but I think it perfectly illustrates the conclusion modern secular philosophy has reached regarding the subject of morality.  I could not find any direct quote of Nietzsche that states the above conclusion, but that definitely seems to be an accurate summation of his views on morality after reading through the materials on Nietzsche and morality found in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  As an academic in the disciplines of history and philosophy at a major secular university (Arizona State), I would venture to claim that modern secular philosophy makes the following assertions regarding morality:

• morality is constructed of sentiments and feelings
• sentiments and feelings about morality are adaptive (changing/relative)
• claims of fact and claims of morality are different and cannot be logically connected
• any scientific basis for morality is an illusion developed by natural selection to improve social behavior

And from a humanistic, secular, non-theistic perspective, I would have to agree entirely with the above assertions.  Human morality is completely relative and completely subjective.  Morality based upon human authority is an illusion.  The human concept of morality is a mental construct.  Let me provide an example:

Say I steal from you a loaf of bread.  You might consider this act of theft to be an immoral act.  If I am starving, and by stealing the bread I can maintain my life without harming yours, then I might say it is not an immoral act.  I might even claim that if you have extra bread and choose not to share it with me when I am starving then you are committing an immoral act.  Which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong?  By human standards the answer is necessarily a relative one.

Taking this argument farther, one could appeal to the authority of society, or the state.  It could be claimed that if the state defines theft as wrong, then, no matter the circumstances, the act of stealing is immoral.  But the counter argument to this is that different societies/states have different standards of morality.  So, ultimately, two societies or two people could be in disagreement regarding standards of morality.  Yet, every human being has within their individual distinctiveness a standard of morality.  Where did this morality come from?

Some might say it was placed there as a method of cooperative survival through the natural processes of evolution.  But science and the processes of natural selection are morally neutral.  It is not evil for a carnivore to kill its prey, it is merely survival.  Likewise, it would not be evil by the laws of nature for me to steal your bread, or even kill you for your possessions/food/shelter as it might simply be necessary for me to survive when competing for scarce resources.  So any scientific claim for a basis of morality is an illusion.

Perhaps morality was imbedded in human nature by extraterrestrial “seeders” that seeded human DNA on Earth millions of years ago.  If one assumes that possibility then one must explain the origins of these extraterrestrials.  Are they natural beings like us, themselves the product of evolution on a different planet?  If so, then they are faced with the same dilemma of a relativistic morality that we are.  If not, then they are supernatural, but that leads to a conclusion that is not acceptable to the naturalist.

In the end, I am forced to logically conclude that the existence of morality necessitates the existence of a supernatural authority.  The existence of morality proves the existence of God.  Without God there is no good and there is no evil.  If you believe that good and evil exist, then you must believe that God exists.  If you believe that God does not exist, then you must admit that good and evil do not exist.  Even if you appeal to the existence of morality as an intrinsic universal constant, then where did that constant come from?  Where did it originate?  Why does it exist?  Either admit that there is a God or admit that morality is an illusion and good and evil do not exist. One of the notable philosophers of our time states it perfectly,

“God is dead. Morality has no foundation. Long live morality. Thank goodness!”

-Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality”

At this point, one could either easily or with great difficulty still reject the existence of God by asserting that morality is indeed a relativistic, subjective, mental construct.  Morality alone is insufficient to prove God’s existence because the existence of morality, although part of human nature, can be mentally denied or rejected.  This leads me to the second proof for God’s existence: reality.  If one (morality) doesn’t work, the other (reality) will.

            “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”

            -Carl Sagan, Cosmos

The physical universe, the natural world, is tangible, measureable, and can be perceived by the five senses of the human body.  The natural universe is measured by three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time.  That is why the universe we live in is sometimes referred to as the space-time continuum.  But where did the universe come from?

I’m not talking about big bang theories, or bubble theories, or anything like that.  I’m getting to the core issue.  Where did the mass of the universe come from?  Where did the atoms come from?  There are only two choices: they either originated from somewhere at a specific moment, or they have always existed.

Have they always existed?  Science has debated the issue of the cosmological constant since Einstein first proposed it in his theory of general relativity to the time when he abandoned it as his “greatest blunder” around 1929 and beyond.  Are there only four dimensions?  String theory proposes otherwise.  The scientific community does not agree on how many dimensions actually exist within the reality of the natural universe, nor do they agree on whether or not time and space have always existed or if they had a beginning.

“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.  This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”

-Stephen Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”

The most recent developments of science propose that the universe consists of more dimensions than are currently measureable, and the universe had a beginning.  In other words, the space-time continuum (which we can only measure in part) had a beginning.  Time has not always existed, but had a beginning.  Matter has not always existed, but had a beginning.

What had a beginning can also have an ending.  Time had a beginning and will have an ending.  The universe had a beginning and will have an ending.  It is not eternal, it does not go on forever, and it is not infinite.  It is expanding, yes, but it has limits; it has borders.  The universe has finite mass.  The mass of the universe is not increased or depleted.    If you disagree with these assertions, then check them out.  Fact check them with the actual science, not just cultural mythos.

So if the universe had a beginning, then what started it?  What caused the beginning of time?  What caused the finite mass of the universe to exist?  If the universe is expanding, what is beyond its borders?  There had to be a cause.  If it hasn’t always been, then it had to have a beginning.  What caused that beginning?  God.  What is beyond it?  God.  What pre-existed it?  God.

What other logical solution is there?  Don’t just brush this off.  I have presented a logical, rational, reasonable case for the existence of God.  This is not based upon “holy writings” or faith.  It is not enough to just say that you don’t know the answer, but you know it isn’t God.  Present a logical alternative.

Was Jesus a Universalist?

More than once recently I have heard people either infer or directly assert their belief that Jesus was a Universalist.  For those who don’t know, and without getting too technical, Universalism is the concept that all religions ultimately lead to the same destination, all paths lead to God, all people will be saved, and everyone (or nearly) will go to heaven (or paradise).  So what about Jesus?  What were His views?  Was Jesus a Universalist?  That is the question I will seek to answer here.

I think the best way to answer this question is to examine what Jesus had to say about one’s ultimate destination after this life is over.  I was not with Jesus nearly 2000 years ago when He lived and taught in Israel, as it existed under Roman occupation.  I did not see or hear Him.  I did not witness His actions or listen to His teachings.  I did not have direct contact with those who did.  What I know about Jesus, other than through my own experiential relationship, which I will concede is by definition subjective, comes from His words and life as documented in the Bible.  Some people will immediately object to the reliability and accuracy of the Biblical record.  I am honest enough to concede the point that, although I have been convinced from a scholarly perspective in the reliability of the Biblical record, the source material I use to form the basis of my views regarding Jesus is not recognized by all as an infallible record.  Nonetheless, the Jesus I will be presenting is the Biblical Jesus based upon His words as recorded in the Bible.  If anyone takes issue with my presentation of Jesus from this perspective, I would challenge you to offer up other reliable and widely accepted source material from which to form an opposing viewpoint of Jesus.  Otherwise, your view of Jesus is based upon less information at best, misinformation at worst, or a fantasy of your own creation.  I fully recognize that many of my readers can equally propose that my view of Jesus is based upon fantasy, as recorded in the Bible; but if so, at least that fantasy has been consistently presented for nearly 2000 years and thus the Jesus I am presenting is the traditional Jesus of Christianity, and not some other fanciful, modern, trendy concept of Jesus.

Here are a few things Jesus had to say about the afterlife, according to the Bible:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.  (John 3:3-7, King James Version)

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.  (Matthew 7:13-14, New King James Version)

The disciples were amazed at his words.  But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”  The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”  (Mark 10:24-27, New International Version)

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.  All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.”  Then the righteous will answer Him, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?  And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?  When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?”  The King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.”  Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.”  Then they themselves also will answer, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?”  Then He will answer them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.”  These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.  (Matthew 25: 31-46, New American Standard Bible)

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?”  And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”  (Matthew 7:21-23, English Standard Version)

(Note: I used multiple translations since multiple translations are in agreement; and there is no one translation that is reliable to the exclusion of others.)

These words, spoken by Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, do not sound like the words of a Universalist.

• Being “born again” is a uniquely Christian concept, denoting one’s death to the old, sinful self and rebirth as a new creature in the Spirit of God through Christ.  Other religions do not teach that one must be born again.  Universalism is not as exclusionary as this.
• Universalism teaches that many, if not all, paths lead to God.  In other words, broad is the path that leads to God.  But that is not what Jesus said.
• Jesus stated that it is extremely (to put it mildly) difficult for a rich man to enter God’s kingdom.  Indeed, Jesus went so far as to say that it is impossible for mankind to be saved apart from the work of God.  This is not in line with Universalism.
• Separation of the righteous from the unrighteous in the day of final judgment, with eternal life for the one and eternal punishment for the other?  This is not the teaching of Universalism, but it certainly was the teaching of Jesus.
• Not everyone who acknowledges God, or says “Lord, Lord” will be saved, according to Jesus.  Not all people who believe in God, or “the divine,” will enter God’s kingdom.  Not all religions lead to the same destination.  Not all names/views/perspectives of God are the same.  Universalism is in direct contradiction to this claim.

So, was Jesus a Universalist?  I would say, “No.”  I think the Bible says, “No.”  Someone may believe in a Universalist Jesus, but their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Was Jesus a Universalist?  You tell me.

The Book of Revelation: An Introduction

Introduction

I will be honest.  The Book of Revelation is my favorite book in the Bible.  I have always (as long as I can remember) been excited about reading or studying this book.  Much of that excitement has to do with the fact that much of the material in Revelation has to do with eschatology.  Eschatology is the study of the end times; it is prophetic; it is predictive of the future.  Biblical eschatology is the branch of theology that pertains to what the Bible predicts will happen in the end times, which are ultimately yet future to our time but inevitably approaching as time moves forward.  Eschatology has always been my favorite theological subject.  I am very excited about this study and I hope that you will get as much from it as I do!

I want to start this study with an introduction.  First, I will introduce how we will be approaching this study.  Second, I will introduce some background on the Book of Revelation itself.

There are many different ways to study the Bible, obviously resulting in many different interpretations.  I will admit that my approach to study is not the same as everyone else’s.  I have been studying the Bible for a long time.  I have read it twice all the way through from beginning to end, first within one year when I was a teenager, and recently within 90 days.  I have also read many portions of the Bible many times over.  I have heard the Bible taught in church all my life, having grown up in a Christian home.  I have heard the Bible taught in school as I attended Christian school from 4^th-10^th grade, and as I have attended two different Bible colleges and graduated from a school of ministry program.  I have even taught the Bible to both children and adults in church and in Bible college.  That being said, there are many people who have studied the Bible more than me, and longer than me, and who know more about it, and its authors, and its cultures, and its languages, and its history than me, who ultimately have a different approach and a different point of view on Biblical prophecy and the Book of Revelation than I do.  The purpose of this study is not for me to present every different viewpoint out there, or to prove every point I make against all the others.  It is also not to re-translate word for word the original Greek text that the book was originally written in.  I will be presenting the best of my present knowledge of the book, from beginning to end, according to the method of study that I believe is the best.  I will be prayerfully seeking the Lord’s guidance and understanding as I move through this study, and my goal is that God would be glorified and that his Word would be magnified as a result.

That being said, there will be times when I will present alternative viewpoints and times when I will get into the original Greek, when appropriate.  There will also be times when I will not get everything exactly right, as I am not infallible.  I like to have discussion and participation, and I invite questions.  If this study were to be live, my teaching style is such that I invite participation and questions throughout.  I also don’t mind getting a little off topic from time to time to expound on a particular item of interest.  Please feel free to ask any questions or make polite and respectful comments on these posts as this will be a written study, but I still hope for it to be interactive.

Here is the approach I will be taking.  I read and study the Bible seriously.  Some parts are literal, some parts are symbolic.  Some parts read as narrative and some parts as figurative.  I am of the belief that the plain meaning is usually the best meaning.  This means, that unless reason exists by nature of the language or context to do otherwise, I will assume a position of straight-forward, plain, and literal meaning (interpretation).  Some portions will clearly be symbolic, and some portions will be clear references to other parts of the Bible.  I hope that this study will have value for both religious readers and non-religious readers alike.  I recommend that you read portions of the text in advance so that you can get a sense of the big picture and so that when you come to the study, the text will be familiar to you.

Here are some things you should know on the outset as we begin this study.  I believe that the Book of Revelation is part of the inspired Word of God and I will treat it with respect accordingly.  What I mean by this is that even though the words were originally written onto parchment by a human, I believe the human author was being divinely inspired to write the words as God wanted them written.  There is purpose and there is meaning to the words that were originally written.  I approach the prophecies in the book from the futurist position, which means that I believe the majority of the narrative in Revelation is yet to happen in the future.  There are some who believe that it has all happened already.  And there are some who don’t necessarily believe that it will all happen at all, believing it to be symbolic or allegorical.  Enough of that for now, as I’m sure my views will be made plain as we expound upon the text.

The format of this study will be exegetical and expository.  Exegetical means that not only will the text itself be studied, but also the linguistic and literary attributes and the historical context.  Expository means that the meaning of the text will be explained for purpose and understanding.  The entire book of Revelation will be the subject material, verse by verse, from start to finish.  Depending upon the passage being studied, either the entire passage will be provided at the onset, or provided and broken apart one verse at a time, or, in some cases, both.  The translation that will be primarily quoted is the New American Standard Bible.  If a different translation is used, it will be indicated.  Translations can be a subject of debate on their own.  I will say this up front regarding translations; there are many that are good and reliable.  There is no single English translation that is superior in all respects to the others.  Some groups will have their favorites for various reasons.  Some groups will claim that only one particular English translation is appropriate to use or “inspired” or from God.  I respectfully, and quite firmly, disagree.  The original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts were inspired by God.  The English translations are just that; translations.  All translations, by necessity, involve some modicum of interpretation; it is unavoidable.  Likewise, all translators have to make decisions on context and appropriate vocabulary and terminology.  This becomes especially difficult when translating cultural terminology or figures of speech, etc.  Most of the common modern English translations are fine, such as the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version (to name a few).  Use whatever version you are most comfortable with for your own reading and study.  You should probably avoid paraphrased versions for a study like this, but they can be useful for personal edification, understanding, or devotion.  I have selected the New American Standard Bible in this case because it is my understanding that of the modern translations it is the most literal in terms of Greek translation, and the Book of Revelation was originally written in Greek.  Be cautious of any interpretation that is used exclusively by one sect and one sect alone, especially if they claim that it is the only reliable translation.  There is probably an underlying motivation for their claims of exclusivity.

And now for some background on the book itself.  The Book of Revelation is the final book of the New Testament and the final book of the Bible.  That statement in itself is already controversial.  I am presupposing here that the Christian Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are Scripture.  As such, I am asserting that the Book of Revelation is the final book of the Bible, not only in arrangement within the Bible, but also in writing of divinely inspired Scripture.  The Old Testament was completed before Jesus was born.  The New Testament was written after Jesus had departed from this world.  Generally, those of Jewish faith will regard what Christians call the “Old Testament” as Scripture.  Some strict adherents of Jewish faith will go so far as to say that the Torah (Hebrew), or Pentateuch (Greek), which are also known as the Books of Moses, or the first five books of the Old Testament, are the only real Scripture.  Mormons will say that the Book of Mormon, as well as other writings like the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants (all of which were written after the New Testament) are also to be considered Scripture.  Roman Catholics will include additional books as part of the “canon” (or officially recognized list) of Scripture that are not recognized by Protestant or some Orthodox branches of Christendom.  Suffice it to say, this study is presenting Revelation as the last of 27 New Testament (NT from here forward) books and the last of 66 Biblical books to be written both in order of the date of writing and in order of arrangement within the Bible.  That means that all other books of the total 66 books of the Bible were written before the date in history that Revelation was written.  It also means that Revelation is the last book you will read in the Bible if you read it in traditional order of arrangement from start to finish.

The book was written by the Apostle John, who is one of the twelve original disciples of Jesus in the Gospels, and one of the twelve original apostles of the Christian Church.  He is the brother of the Apostle James, who is also one of the twelve original disciples in the Gospels and one of the twelve original apostles (not to be confused with the author of the NT Book of James, who was actually a half-brother of Jesus, as well as a brother of Jude, who wrote the NT Book of Jude, as well as a pastor in the first-century church in Jerusalem).  The Apostle John is also the writer of the Gospel of John (the 4^th Book in the NT), as well as the NT Epistles of 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John.  John wrote the Book of Revelation around the year 95 or 96 AD or CE (whichever you prefer), while exiled by the Roman government to the Isle of Patmos in the Aegean Sea (Mediterranean) off the coast of modern Turkey, between Turkey and Greece.  These points have been debated by some scholars who question both the authorship and the date of the writing, but I am convinced of their validity.

Now, let’s dive into the text and get started on the adventure!

Revelation 1:1-3

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

The word “revelation” used in the opening sentence is translated from the Greek word “apokalypsis” which can also be translated as “unveiling” and is the root for the English word “apocalypse.”  So this book is about a revealing, or unveiling, of something.  But of what?  It's the revelation of Jesus Christ!  So in the opening sentence we learn what the Book of Revelation is all about.  It is about the revealing or unveiling of Jesus Christ!  But we have already seen Jesus, in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts.  Perhaps the view of Jesus we have from those books is only part on the story.  Let’s keep going.

Who was given this revelation?  John?  Not so fast.  We read that this revelation of Jesus Christ was given from God to “Him.”  Who is “Him?”  "Him" is Jesus Christ.  The unveiling of Jesus Christ was given by God, presumably the Father, to Jesus.  Why did Jesus need to have an unveiling of Himself provided?  We will see more as the book goes on, but remember in the Gospels when Jesus stated that He did not know the time of His own return?  Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”  When Jesus spoke those words at the time and place recorded in Matthew’s gospel, even He was not privy to the full disclosure of His second coming.  But here, in the moment spoken of in Revelation 1:1, Jesus is given the revelation of His second coming.  We will see more of the revealing itself as we continue in the study.

Back to the text.  God gave the revelation of Jesus to Jesus to give to his bond-servants.  What is a bond-servant?  Webster’s online dictionary defines bond-servant as “one bound to service without wages.”  So the concept is similar to a slave, but there can be a difference.  A slave has no choice.  A bond-servant can be a term used of one who has chosen to be a slave.  For example, in the Mosaic Law (Old Testament), a Hebrew slave could only be enslaved by another Hebrew for 6 years and then had to be set free in the 7^th year.  If, however, the former slave loved his or her master and/or household and wanted to remain in service, they could voluntarily choose to remain as a bond-servant.  In practice, they would serve without wages and would be taken care of by their master, like a slave, but they would now be doing it by choice.  (See Deuteronomy 15:12-18.)  There is an implication here that slaves of Jesus are slaves by choice.

So the revelation, or unveiling, of Jesus was given by God to Jesus to, in turn, give to His servants (followers/believers/Christians).  And this was a revelation of “the things which must soon take place.”  So we see, from the very first sentence, that this vision is of things to come.  It is prophetic.  It is a revelation of future events from the period of time in which John was living and writing.  Now the text says “soon.”  It has been over nineteen-hundred years since this was written.  What does "soon" mean?  Well, of course, “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8).  But I don’t think that is necessarily all that is meant here.  The Greek word for “soon” here is “en tachei.”  The meaning of this word has less to do with the concept of something happening soon and more to do with quickness or suddenness.  So the meaning here is that once the events of this prophecy begin to transpire, they will happen suddenly and quickly.

Let’s wrap up verse one.  God gave a revelation of Jesus to Jesus to give to his servants.  The revelation was prophetic in nature, meaning it had to do with future events from the perspective of the time period that the author (John) was writing.  Jesus then sent the message/revelation/vision to His servant John using an angel as the messenger.  So verse one tells us that this book is about a future revealing of Jesus that was given to Jesus by God to give to His followers.

Verse two indicates to the reader that the author, John, is testifying that he was an eyewitness to the vision.  This lets us know that this account is credible as it is being provided, first-hand, by an eyewitness.  When a trial is brought to court, witnesses are called to testify.  The court isn’t interested in speculation or gossip, they want eyewitness testimony.  That assurance is being provided here.  And how reliable is the source?  Well, the eyewitness to these events is none other than the Apostle John.  If he is unreliable, then we might as well get rid of the Gospel of John and the Epistles of 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John, since he wrote those too.

Verse three contains a unique blessing.  The blessing is upon the one who reads this book, the one who hears the reading of this book, and the one who heeds the words contained therein.  This is the only book in the Bible that promises such a special blessing to those who read it specifically.  Other places in the Bible talk about blessings for heeding the Word of God, but other books don’t claim such a special blessing like this.  This is unique.  Ironically enough, the Book of Revelation, which is the only book in the Bible to contain a special blessing for its specific reading, is also one book of the Bible that is often ignored by readers and untaught by churches because it is considered confusing, or symbolic, or hard to understand.  Keep in mind that in the 1^st century, written copies of anything were scarce.  Some churches might have had one copy of a particular book of scripture for the entire church to use.  But that’s okay here, because both the reader and the hearer of this book are promised a blessing!  And the one who heeds, or takes seriously, or pays attention to, or believes this book is promised a blessing.  This verse again makes reference to the fact that this book is a prophetic writing when it states, “the words of the prophecy.”  I have one final comment on this verse.  Many have taught that this book cannot be understood.  I would assert that this verse states otherwise.  What good is it to promise a blessing to those who read something that is unintelligible?  If a blessing is given to those who read it, then it is meant to be read.  If it is meant to be read, then it is written with purpose and it is meant to be understood.  Not much blessing can come from something that can’t be understood.

Application

The application here is that the Book of Revelation is meant to be read and understood.  Not only that, but we will be blessed by reading it and studying it.  As we go through this study, ponder the relevance of the text to your life.  Take the time to read and think and reflect.  Let this book challenge your preconceptions.  Take it seriously.  But enjoy it!  A blessing is something that should bring you joy!  I am looking forward to this adventure, and I hope you are too.

What is My Religion?

Religion is a divisive subject these days, but it doesn’t need to be.  Everybody has a religious view, even atheists; their view is just that they don’t believe in religion for themselves.  For those of you that know me, hopefully you know that I accept you as you are.  You are my friends, and it doesn’t matter to me what your religious view is; our friendship is not determined by that.  So why am I writing this?  Because I want to set the record straight, especially for those of you who might be confused by the things I say from time to time.

I am a religious person, and most of you probably know this about me to some extent.  But what is my religion?  I will tell you, and I will be very forward about my beliefs, but first a few caveats.  It is not my intention to list references or sources for the things I am going to say.  I am going to make statements that represent my knowledge on religion.  If you have doubts or disagree with my assertions, feel free to look things up for yourselves.  If any of my assertions about a particular religion are wrong, feel free to point out my errors using references.  That being said, it is not my intent to discuss all religions here.  My focus will be on what I believe; but to explain that, some clarification will be included about some other beliefs.  So what do I believe?

I am a Christian, but that term is too vague to accurately describe my religious beliefs.  The term Christian means different things to different people.  Lots of people say they are Christians, but they believe very different things.  In its simplest form, a Christian is a follower of Christ (Jesus).  Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Mormonism, and many other faiths will classify themselves as Christians.  I am a Christian, but I am not a Catholic, or a Mormon.  So what am I, what’s the difference, and why does it matter?  Well, I will tell you; and it doesn’t really matter, unless these things are important to you and you want to know.

I believe in God, which makes me a theist.  I believe in one God, which makes me a monotheist.  I believe in the God of the Bible (Old and New Testaments).  I believe that He created us (humans).  I believe that God is perfect, holy, righteous, and just; I also believe that He is loving, merciful, gracious, and patient.  I believe that I am a sinner.  What is this word “sin” and why does it matter?  When I say that I am a sinner, that means that I do things that are wrong according to the moral standards set by God.  I am a sinner.  God is perfect, and just, and must judge sin.  Why?  Let me explain.  Our society has established courts of justice to judge those who are guilty of crimes against society and individuals.  Why?  Well, isn't the answer to that self-evident?  To right the wrongs, to hold people accountable for their actions, to punish the wicked, to maintain order in society, to deter others from similar behavior, etc.  Our society sets rules, and if those rules are broken, then the courts judge people.  Would it be fair for tax evaders to not be held accountable to pay taxes like everyone else?  Would it be fair for thieves to steal what others have worked hard to obtain and not be held accountable?  Would it be fair for someone to assault or kill someone else for any reason they want and not be held accountable?  No, it would not.  The truth is, we want our courts to hold criminals accountable for their actions; it satisfies us when we feel that justice has been served.  God is just, and holy, and righteous, and perfect.  God has established a code of conduct for His creation.  What would we say about a judge who doesn’t hold criminals accountable?  Why would we expect God to be different?  I have broken God’s code of conduct; in fact, I continue to do so on a daily basis.  I am worthy of judgment.

But, God is loving, and merciful, and gracious, and patient.  How can He be both merciful and just?  To understand, one must become familiar with the concept of redemption.  Another way to explain this is restitution.  Oftentimes, our courts will consider justice to be served if the guilty party pays a fine, or accepts a term of punishment, like community service or jail time.  I am guilty of breaking God’s law, and responsible to pay the price for my violations.  But God, in His mercy, has provided a way for payment to be made on my behalf.  Just as if a generous benefactor were to pay my fine with the court, Jesus has paid my fine to God.  Let’s talk for a moment about my beliefs regarding the Man named Jesus.

I say I am a Christian because I believe in Christ.  "Christ" is the English translation of the Greek word "Christos," which is a translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah," which means many things, one of which is savior.  Christ is not the last name of Jesus, but rather, it is His title.  He is my Savior.  What is He saving me from?  He saves me from the punishment I deserve because of my moral violation of God’s laws.  How?  Because He took my punishment upon Himself; He paid the price for my sin to the court of God!  How?  By dying on a Roman cross almost two-thousand years ago.  How could He do this?  Here is what I believe.

I believe that Jesus is a man, a human man, who literally lived in Israel around two thousand years ago.  Most people will agree with this.  But here’s where I go off the deep end (watch for it, because this is the part where I tell you my religion):

I believe Jesus is the Son of God.  Most Christians will agree.  But what does this mean?  I believe Jesus was born to Mary, as a human male child.  He is fully human.  In fact, He must be in order to be my human substitute, or pay the price required of me in God’s court.  I believe He was born to Mary while she was yet a virgin.  Catholicism will agree on this point.  How could Mary conceive a child while being a virgin?  I believe the conception was a miracle of God.  Just to be clear—I do not believe that God had any kind of physical relations with Mary, as some religions have taught in the past; I believe the conception was a miracle.

I believe Jesus is God in human flesh.  I cannot explain how Jesus can be both God and man.  I cannot explain how God caused a miraculous conception of a human child in Mary’s womb which contained the fullness of His being (essence).  But I believe it, nonetheless.  In fact, I believe Jesus had to be God, or else His death on the cross would only pay the price for one man.  One man can take the punishment for one man.  God in human form can take the punishment for all humans.  This concept of Jesus being fully God and fully man is what is known theologically as the deity of Christ.  It is also part of the theological concept of the Trinity.  Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and most Protestant denominations agree with this.  Mormonism does not.

I believe Jesus lived a perfect life, free from any act of sin.  As God, He could not sin.  As a man, He could; and I believe He endured temptation as all men do.  I cannot explain this, but I believe it.  But He did not sin.  As such, He did not fall under the judgment of God’s law.  This means that He was not guilty of death.  What do I mean by this?  I will explain.  When God created mankind, He created us not to die.  In fact, we all have a desire to live forever, although this desire can be quenched by infirmity and suffering (which were not part of His original creation for us either).  But humanity broke God’s law, and incurred His judgment, which included physical death and spiritual separation from a holy, perfect, righteous, and just God.  But Jesus didn’t sin, and didn’t deserve death.  But God, in His love, grace, and mercy, chose to provide a way for the righteous requirement of His law to be satisfied in order that sinful humanity could escape His judgment through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, who is both God in human flesh and the Son of God.  In essence, God took the punishment I deserve upon Himself.  He paid the price to redeem me from His court of justice.  But it doesn’t end there.

I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead after His crucifixion.  I believe His body physically died on the cross, and was buried in a tomb, and that He came back to life!  I believe His physical body was revived from death on the third day after His crucifixion.  He defeated death, and His victory over death paved the way for those saved by Him to be resurrected again one day as well.  Let me say this again, because it is the core of what I believe: Jesus physically died on the cross, was buried and was physically dead for a period of about three days, and was physically revived from death.  Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe this.  This act makes possible my salvation from the judgment of God.

I believe in salvation by God’s grace through faith alone, and not as a result of any work or effort on my part.  This means that the salvation made possible through Jesus’ work is appropriated (received) by me and others through believing in Him (Jesus) and what He did.  I cannot earn or add to my salvation through any work of my own.  In fact, attempting to do so would demonstrate a lack of understanding about God’s work of salvation.  Catholicism and Mormonism do not agree, and both require some sort of effort or work on the part of mankind in order to be saved.  Even the belief, or faith, that I have is given to me by God and not a result of my own effort to believe.

What is salvation for me?  Salvation for me is the ability to have a spiritual relationship with God, eventual physical resurrection from death, and an eternity spent in God’s presence after this life that I am currently living.  For me, to die means my spirit (or soul, or consciousness), the real essence of who I am, will separate from my body and go to be with God.  Then, I will eventually be reunited with a resurrected and transformed physical body, one which is perfect (free from infirmity) and eternal (free from future death), and I will live with God and others who have accepted His salvation for all eternity in the new heavens and new earth, which will be remade by God at some future point.  This new heaven and new earth, as well as the concept of eternity, as well as this new body and its abilities, are incomprehensible to me fully at this point, given my limited knowledge at present.  But this lack of complete knowledge does not prohibit me from believing.  After all, I believe in a great many things without having a complete understanding of them.  Salvation, to my understanding, for Catholicism involves going to purgatory after death, and requires human work to eventually be freed from purgatory and go to heaven.  Salvation, to my understanding, for Mormonism involves three distinct levels of heaven: the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial Kingdoms; the highest level of which (the Celestial) contains multiple levels within itself.  My understanding, again, is that within the Celestial Kingdom, it is possible for mankind to become like God, since Mormon doctrine teaches that God was once like we are presently.  I do not believe God was ever like we are, nor do I believe we can ever become like Him.  He is the creator and we are His creation.  I believe we will be glorified, but we will not become divine.  Salvation, for some Protestants, no longer even involves a literal heaven and hell, or judgment for sin, therefore there really is nothing to be saved from.

As one can see, the term Christian can be confusing because people who call themselves Christians believe so many different things.  I call myself a Christian, but I believe in a different God, a different Jesus, a different path to salvation, and a different afterlife than what is officially taught to varying degrees by Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, and even some denominations of Protestantism.  But I have now stated what I believe.  These beliefs are my religion, just for the record; in case you are ever curious.