Imago Dei

I have to make a confession. I am a sinner.

Yeah. That is the harsh truth for me. I'm a terrible Christian, so far as it goes. I do things I shouldn't and I don't do things that I should. I am confused on some points. I'm selfish. That's been a pattern in my life. I fail. A lot.

I've spent quite a bit of time writing posts here at As Bereans Did. I write because it helps me process what I've been through and because I hope you find some chunk in it that helps you, too. One thing I keep trying to process is what we call "the Christian walk". Discipleship. Holiness. Sanctification. Repentance. Forgiveness. These words are all part of the life a Christian should lead but usually fails to. At least I fail to. Maybe I shouldn't speak for anyone but myself. I am just assuming you go through the same struggles I do.

But what is the Christian walk anyway? Repentance to what, exactly? The expectations of how a Christian should live are very different in a Sabbatarian group like Armstrongism versus a mainstream Christian group.

For an Armstrongist, the Old Covenant law plays a central role. I oversimplify here, but if you Ten Commandments - and especially Sabbath - hard enough, and tithe and observe holy days just so, then you've done your part. Probably. One can never know for sure. If you mess up, you can repent back into law-keeping. (I will briefly mention the part where, back when Armstrong was still alive, we were told our entire duty was to pay tithes and pray for the work. "Pay, pray, stay" we called it.) In a nutshell, repentance is to Old Covenant law-keeping, and the Christian walk is Old Covenant law-keeping.
You could say much the same for a Catholic (and you might as well throw Orthodox in here as well). The Ten Commandments are still central, with Sunday replacing the Sabbath, of course, and there are a bunch of other rules and regulations besides. Similar to Armstrongism, in Catholicism, following the written rules is critical. What you do and when you do it are all part of the walk. There is confession and penance to readjust a person when they've strayed. In a nutshell, repentance and the Christian walk are both in rule-keeping.
For most Protestants, on the other hand, laws play a much less central role. Their focus is more on faith and love. You'll hear me go on and on about those two words quite a lot. In this way, the walk is less about what you do and more about who you are. This concept is entirely foreign to Armstrongism, and  a difficult one to grasp. You are a Christian because of what Jesus did/does, which is credited to you by your faith and oneness with Him. But even with all this talk about solas and grace, there are still actions you must do or not do. Each denomination has their own list. Repentance and the Christian walk are, well, going back to doing those things.

Believe it or not, this isn't a post on which of these systems is the right way. If you've read this blog, you've probably noticed that I think everyone has right and wrong parts. Rather, what I want to do is share something that helps me and might possibly help you. I share this in hopes it will spark an idea in your mind to make you a better ... whichever you are.

Imago Dei is Latin for "Image of God". It refers to us. It is a lot like the saying, "spirit and image." Like, when someone says, "That boy is the spirit and image of his father." We are in the image of God. Rather, we should be.
When Jesus walked this earth, He said these words:

(JON. 14: 7-9) 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 

Jesus is the Word of God. He was the mirror image of the Father in human flesh. Such a perfect reflection that He was able to say, without any falsehood, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." It's amazing!
THAT is what we are called to do, too. That is the very reason we were created to begin with.

(GEN. 1: 26a) 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...

The term Imago Dei refers to us. You might think it refers mainly to God, and yes God is there obviously, but the main focus of the phrase is us. How we image God. If Jesus is like the Father, and we are like Jesus, then we are like the Father. If A=B and B=C then A=C. Get it?

It's not your physical appearance that makes you an image of God. Herbert Armstrong would say things like, we know God looks like because He made us in His image and likeness. Perhaps. But perhaps not. What I believe this verse is referring to is what Jesus said. When Jesus said, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him,” He wasn't referring to physical appearance, or He would have said, "You've always known Him, because you look like Him. Go get a mirror." No, He was referring to the core of His being. He was referring to the nature of God. His love and mercy and patience and charity and sacrifice, etc. When we see how Jesus is, we see how the Father is.

Was He referring to Sabbathing hard enough? Doubtful. The Jews kept the Sabbath and holy days. The Pharisees kept them and Jesus called them "whitewashed tombs" (MAT. 23: 27).
         Some days I feel like a whitewashed tomb.
Jesus did not say, "He who has seen the Torah law has seen the Father."

The Catholic system has tried to map out the Christian walk in detail. Just follow the Catechism and you'll be fine. Have you ever seen a Catechism? It's huge! I get the motivation. Two thousand years of dealing with sinners will make you want to write it all down. I am not against a catechism per se. But I want to offer some constructive criticism. If I were to write down all the people who were bad to me in my life, most of the top ten very worst people on that list would be Catholics. I love the beauty of the Mass. It is beautiful! However, I find it difficult going because of some of the people. I am not the only one with this issue. I know because I have been told in confidence more than once. All those rules in the Catechism and the heart is still not changed. (I am not making a blanket statement about all Catholics.) Back in 2009, I wrote about a friend of mine who left the seminary after years of being on track to becoming a priest. He left, and I summarize, because it was so mechanical and prescribed. It had lost touch with core fundamentals. He remains Catholic but had to leave seminary to regain his humanity. That speaks volumes to me. (I am not making a blanket statement about all priests.)

I think the Protestant system affords too many people to get lost in grace. Or rather, the license they mistake for grace. "Jesus died for our sins and I can have confidence in salvation because I accept His gift." Great!! Don't stop! But, also, be the image of God on earth. There is an old saying, "so heavenly-minded you're no earthly good." There are Protestants out there who feel everything will get sorted out in Heaven. It will! But if that were God's focus, He wouldn't have planted us here on this earth. There are Protestants out there who feel they are saved and now they can do whatever they want. Jesus did not die for us so we can be Hedonists. The Old Covenant law may be gone but righteousness remains - a righteousness apart form the law. There is also an inherent contradiction in certain Protestant systems. Some Protestants say we cannot add anything to grace, meaning works. Works defiles grace, I suppose? Yet every one of them will be happy to let you know what they think sin is and who is going to Hell for their sins. Works enhance grace, I suppose? It can't be both.

Do you track with what I'm trying to get at here? Probably not, because I'm not being clear. Please, let me explain.

Which is the right way? Frankly, I feel they all have good points and bad. This isn't about systems, though, it's about individuals. Be the image of God, in your own life, as you are able. That is the right way. Be His hands and feet in this world. Repent to what? To being the image-bearer of God. Like-minded.

Why am I writing this? Is it because you have so much to learn from me? Pffft! No. Is it because I am such a good example? HA! Hardly! My hope is to point people to Jesus, not to me. If you want to use me as an example, may I suggest labeling it, "What not to do." I write this as a reminder to myself and as an accusation against myself. My own sins accuse me and they confess that God is holy and just. I have failed to be the image of God plenty of times. But there is hope for me yet. The first step is to admit your faults. If faults were money, I'd be filthy rich.

But let this world-weary sinner offer you some hard-earned advice. In whatever system you find yourself, be the image of God.

The Catholics have a prayer called the Confiteor, which means Confessor. I appreciate this prayer, even though I know one line in this will cause my readers to balk at it. (If that line bothers you so much, leave it out.) Do me this one kindness -- try to see the spirit and intent in these words:

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Is this not what James said? (JAS. 5: 16) "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much."

The Orthodox have a prayer called "The Jesus Prayer", which goes like this:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

That's it. Short and sweet. Sometimes less is more.

Do you understand why I would share those prayers? It is not to get you to repeat them over and over.

Confess your sins, pray for each other, repent and go back to being the image of God on earth. Don't follow me, a sinner; follow Jesus, the very mirror image of God. I'll do the same. This is our Christian walk. In whatever system you are currently in, in whatever way you are able, be ....

Imago Dei

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Confusion the Great

(MIC. 7: 4) The best of them is like a thorn; their godly are like a thorn bush. Woe to your watchmen; your appointed punishment is on the way. The time of their confusion is now.

Oh man! Here we go. Politics and current events on As Bereans Did. Brace yourself. Run away while you can!

I usually avoid these things here, but every once in a while I find it too compelling to pass up. I did it once back in 2009 with my article "Cultism Abounds". I was reading that again recently and I still agree with it. If anything, it's even more applicable now. As Yoda said, "Now, matters are worse."

Today, I have something for everyone to dislike. I'm pretty good at that. Nobody loves a moderate. I feel the need to talk about a big problem I see in the world. I want to relate it to every sphere I can think of, because it applies to every sphere I can think of. My inspiration is the recent murder of a high-profile conservative in the U.S. and the ongoing battling that has come out of it. (Today's post isn't directly about this. The spectacle is what got me on the soap box.)
More specifically, I am referring to Confusion.

I pray about it almost daily, I've said it many times in other places, and it has been said here before - the main issue in the world today is confusion. I don't care if it's Left or Right, secular or religious, Armstrong or Mainstream, political or scientific or financial or or medical or otherwise, the prevailing condition infecting the world today is confusion. A blinding, debilitating confusion.

And what is another word for confusion? Babylon.

In the Bible and in the Ancient Near East, chaos was personified in the form of terrifying beasts, one of which was Leviathan. Chaos, like these multi-headed, slithering beasts, manifests itself in many ways. I want to highlight two ways: lack of standards and lack of self-awareness.

What do you expect to happen when you throw truth out the window, with some even denying it exists? Strict materialists deny we even have a mind in the traditional sense. Free will is an illusion, generated by colocation of atoms working by order of physics. Were we not warned, and by none other than Nietzsche of all people? "But xHWA!", one will plead, "You mean that 'God is dead' guy??" Yes! The "God is dead" guy. Have you ever actually read what he wrote and tried to understand it? Here read it: Nietzsche, Parable of the Madman.
But you won't, I suppose. Did you? Did you understand it? Did you not see how Nietzsche is desperately trying to find meaning and purpose and something of value in the void?

"What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?"

Nietzsche didn't believe in God, but even he could see that without the idea of God, of something bigger than us, there is no anchor to stay us and no star by which to guide the ship. It drove him mad, you know.

Everyone doing everything that crosses their mind. All truth is subjective. All ethics situational. All morality relative. Do you know what happens when morality is relative? Tyranny! Yes. Without an objective standard of morality, and the only thing we have are our own opinions, there are two ways to enforce a standard - convincing people to agree with you, and forcing them to agree with you. Rational argumentation might work with some but not all, and should the movement grow it tends to degenerate into force. This is the tyranny of relativism - without objective moral truth, whoever has the most power to enforce their will upon others gets to define what is right and wrong. Instead of one God, we have eight billion gods, and growing. Try being a collectivist and then going against the collective? Why won't you? See my previous statement.

That is what we see today. Mob rule. Power. Tyranny. Chaos. Confusion.

In my observation, people are behaving like they have no standards. Oh, people talk a lot about standards, like justice and freedom and democracy and safety and equality and rights, but for the most part they don't genuinely mean any of it. People who cry loudest LOVE the things they cry about. They love it! They love injustice and tyranny and hate and fascism and danger and inequality and rights denied ... but only when it comes from their side. When others do these things - greatest evil ever seen in the history of evil!! But when their side does it - wunderbar!!
If you love it when it comes from your side and hate it when it comes from the other side, that has a definition: hypocrisy. "Do what I say, not what I do." Have you considered actually hating these things, no matter who does them?

I have written (to a resounding thud) many times about this. I've said if Armstrongists want to set a standard, then they need to stick to it.
Want to claim, "We only regard what's in the Bible"? Fine and well. Then put away all claims about Nimrod's influence, lost centuries, church eras, Constantine, Nicea, Rome's Challenge, the modern Jewish calendar, Hislop's nonsense, 19-year time cycles, British-Israelism, etc etc etc. None of those things are actually in the Bible. For anyone out there saying, "But the Bible does talk about some of these things," but not to anywhere near the degree they've been taken. Nimrod is in the Bible, but Nimrod starting Catholicism and then Alexander the Great taking it from the Babylonians and handing it to the Greeks is not in the Bible. It's not even in the history books. Yet, that has never stopped a single Hislop fan from repeating his non-Biblical claims as God's own truth.

Want to claim "we need to keep the Ten Commandments"? Fine and well. Then keep the one about Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (EXO. 20: 16; 23: 1). Stop promoting lies that have long since been proven lies. Stop quoting only the parts of a story that you prefer while leaving out the rest. Stop purposefully misrepresenting the beliefs of others. Stop falsely accusing your fellow Christians. Stop accusing faithful Christians of being pagan based on false information.
Those are just two examples of many!

And so it is in so many other arenas these days.

I was asked what I think about the entertainer Jimmy Kimmel being indefinitely removed from his television show. I responded, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If there is a standard, then have a standard. He should be treated the same as others should be. (This seemed to please some people.) Then I continued, if people should be cancelled then cancel him, but cancel everyone by the same measure. But if we complain when people we like are canceled, then he should not be. It shouldn't be one way for one group (Roseanne Barr and Dave Chappell) and another way for another group (Jimmy Kimmel and The View). Make the choice. (This seemed to displease those same people.)
If Donald Trump should order the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses for bias, then good and well. Revoke the license for Fox, too. Else, don't revoke at all. Find some other means to fix the issue. An equitable and fair means. Bias needs to be addressed when it gets out of hand, but don't address bias with another bias. Or worse, claim to be addressing bias but by halves. (Hypocrisy.)

And what is the other side always waiting for (regardless of whom 'the other side' is)? Vengeance. "You just wait until we are back in power!" See? Loves the things they say they hate. I jokingly describe it as, "I hate people who hate!" See the irony there? If you hate people who hate, then you are a person that hates.
Cue the excuses and self-justifications.

People are beyond my comprehension. I can't believe we survive as a species. There has to be a God or we'd have died out long ago. Problem is, I am a people.

This is why I try very hard never to pray for justice. All I am doing is praying for my own condemnation. I deserve justice. I do! And that means I deserve to be condemned by a righteous God. Because I have sinned and I have earned it. No, I pray for mercy, forgiveness, and for the Lord to remember His covenant with His people. One of the hardest things I have ever done in my entire life was to pray this for my enemies. A person close to me did me very, very wrong. Affected every facet of my life, including this blog, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life here. Though inside I screamed and cried and plotted for revenge, and I am still angry, I had to deny myself and give vengeance to the Lord. I set a standard as one of living by faith and now I had to live by it, or else by getting my way I would condemn myself. Jesus never said following Him would be easy.

Along with no standards comes no self-awareness.
People seem utterly incapable of understanding what they are doing anymore. They are blind to their double-standards. I might poke fun with commentary like, "I hate people who hate!", but is that not so? And are people not repaying hate with more hate? And are they not patting themselves on the back for how good they are? Do they not excuse themselves when someone points this out?

I read that U.S. Congressman Jerry Nadler just complained that demonizing people puts people in danger. His real point was that since people demonize him that he is in danger. Typical politician. Self-serving to the last. What is he really saying? "I can't defend my positions logically, so I hope painting your position as dangerous and myself as a victim will get me out of the need to be held accountable." That is what he's really saying. It's called DARVO. But is a Congressman who barely goes out of doors without a security detail close by really in much danger? Congress just gave themselves $10k per month for personal security. Tell me that story again about how Nadler is unsafe.
Demonizing people does put people in danger. It's true! Always has and always will. So, don't do it.

Are you inwardly complaining that I haven't also blamed "the other side" as well? Don't go to that "so's your old man" bit. I blame everyone! I started out this post as much. I don't see the point in going over every example in some attempt to be fair. People don't want fair, they want affirmation. So, the example of Nadler will suffice for today. Thinking of reasons "the other side" is unfair serves my point - because it's probably right, they probably are. But pointing out how dirty the plate is doesn't make the cup any cleaner.
Personally, I don't accept "they did it too!" as any kind of excuse. I don't accept it from my kids or myself, and the teachers I had didn't accept it from me when I did it.

No standards. No self-awareness. No accountability at all. No truth. No roots. No foundational, guiding philosophy. No mercy. Mob rule. Tyranny. Chaos. Confusion. That is Babylon the Great today. And we're all soaking in it.

That's why I still believe in end-times. Not because of nuclear proliferation or European Unions or lost tribes or time cycles or eras or any of that doomsday cultery. Because of Babylon. Because of Confusion. Because of Chaos, symbolized by beasts. Even the church is carried away by it. Spirits generally war in the realm of ideas and principles. If Satan has been released and is overcoming the faithful (REV. 20: 7-8), then this might just be it. (Yes, I fully realize Armstrongists will reject my reference to Rev. 20 right there. But that is for another post.)
Satan is overcoming. By and large, what good has Christianity been lately? Some good, sure! Here and there. The light yet shines. But I mean in general. Too caught up in money and politics and scandal and infighting and ancient rivalries and winning a proselyte only to make them twice the child of Hell as themselves. (God forgive me for using such strong language against my fellow Christians.)

It's this modern world, I say. It's Babylon.

(REV. 18: 4-6) 4 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, so you will not take part in her sins and so you will not receive her plagues, 5 because her sins have piled up all the way to heaven and God has remembered her crimes. 6 Repay her the same way she repaid others; pay her back double corresponding to her deeds. In the cup she mixed, mix double the amount for her..."

Nietzsche was right. And so was Paul (II TIM. 3: 1-5).

Want to come out of her? Realize you're in her. Take accountability for your own part in all this. Have a standard and stick to it. Apply the same standards to yourself and "us" as you do "them". But first, learn the lesson of Nietzsche and put God back at the center - and accept the Gospel. It's the best way I can think of to start. "Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.", (John 18: 37b). Become a disciple and mirror the Teacher. No point in morality if it's just more of the same self-righteous situational ethics that we forget when it's convenient and which gets us nowhere.

(ISA. 27: 1) At that time the Lord will punish with his destructive, great, and powerful sword Leviathan the fast-moving serpent, Leviathan the squirming serpent; he will kill the sea monster.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Layers of Deception

As I said in my last post, "Some Background On Hislop", I have been reading Ronald Hutton's "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of Druids in Britain". The book devotes several chapters to deeply investigating the development of Druidism in the United Kingdom starting in the 1600s. Something occurred to me while reading it. It has to do with legitimizing something false by layering on. I think this applies to Armstrongism in many areas.

What do I mean? Let's say I write an essay about a topic and I use some truths but I embellish heavily with my own imagination. Then, let's say someone else reads my essay and uses it as a reference in their own essay where they also embellish with their own imagination. That happens a few times more until it gets to you. By that point, I look like a serious and reliable source.
But am I?

That's what happened in the book. One author writes something ridiculous based on half truths. Another reads that and gets inspired to take things a step farther. That goes on and on until two centuries later people are building societies and traditions based on old sources whose claims were mostly imaginary. There was even a person in the 1800s who came along and wrote critically about the whole thing. That person was dismissed.

This is all very similar to how so-called "intelligence" agencies use misinformation to bring about certain desired results. Just for example, the FBI might want a result, so they take a partial truth embellished with plenty of imagination and "leak" that to a media outlet. The media outlet publishes the misinformation as fact, citing an anonymous source. The FBI then turns around and uses the media outlet as their evidence in courts and elsewhere. The media published it, and they are a trustworthy source, so it must be true. Even though the information is fake, the information appears legitimate because it was layered.
It's like money laundering, but with information. False information.

This is the same kind of thing we see in Armstrongism and elsewhere. Alexander Hislop, or J. H. Allen, or C. T. Russel, or Ellen G. White, or G. G. Rupert, or A. N. Dugger and C. O. Dodd, or Steven M. Collins, or whomever you've got, will get some ball rolling. Any ball. Doesn't matter which, except to say it's not accurate. That gets picked up by someone inside the Armstrong-o-sphere, maybe someone like Herman Hoeh, or maybe even Herbert Armstrong himself, and published. That legitimizes things. Then, going forward, all you really need to do is quote that prior church literature. BAM! Doctrinal truth.

Now, you can't be a member and go against it. Do you hate God's church? Do you hate God's prophet? Do you hate God's truth? You seem like you have a spirit of pride. (Anyone viewed as a troublemaker in church has a 'spirit of' something). Perhaps you should stay home from church for the next few weeks and pray about this.
Do continue to tithe during this time, though. Thanks.

So, most people will not go against it. Ralph Woodrow read Alexander Hislop and decided to write his own book supporting and enhancing Hislop's claims. He was challenged about it. He decided to do something very different: he fact checked himself. He found out he was way off. He wrote an entirely new book destroying his earlier book. Guess what. People won't read it! Some people still cite Woodrow's first book even though the very author says it was all garbage. They don't care.

Let me ask you - at what point is a falsehood "God's truth"? Was it when it was first written? Or when it was borrowed (usually without credit)? Or when it was copied as a reliable reference later on? Or was it when it was repeated often enough? How many of these steps must we go through before something that starts out as not true becomes "God's truth"?
I don't think it ever becomes God's truth. And they say I am the problem.

How would a church member know what they're being fed is untrue? Certainly, the church isn't going to admit that. It comes from blogs like this one and others. The formers. The haters. The wounders. (Read the post "The Stab of Pain and Grief" over at the God Cannot Be Contained blog.) The troublemakers whom the church accuses of just being here to fight against God's work and His prophet. Again, not true! What is the conscientious member to do? It's not like they can admit they read formers' material. They can't share it. They can't just do nothing with it, either.

Do you see how this works, the layers?

I can't really speak for any of the other former's blogs or websites, etc, but so far as As Bereans Did goes, we have never tried to just cause trouble. All we've ever done is investigate what we've been told and report back on what we've found. We even admit when Armstrong was right. Sometimes he was. And we've tried our best to provide sources so you can retrace our steps on your own. We gave ourselves permission to ask questions. That's what we did. I recommend you do the same. Won't be easy! But it'll be worth it.

I have one last thing I want to say.

While reading Hutton's book, it became clear to me that the reason so many people created or consumed fantastical claims from the 1600s forward is because people simply did not know any better. If you read this post and think, "Well, duhh. This is so simplistic and obvious. Why bother writing this pablum?", then go in peace. If you have already learned why good sources and verifying claims is important to finding truth, then this post is beneath you. Not everyone knows this, though. It isn't instinctual in our species. I see examples all around the internet (not just in religious contexts) where people have no idea what a good source is, or what a well-formed argument is, or what a logical fallacy is, and etc. The other day, I saw a guy say, "False," and he really thought that was a solid argument. That was literally all he wrote. He refused to provide any support for his claim. When he finally did, he posted a video that contradicted him. That right there is a person who needs to learn how to research. This post is for people who don't recognize the layers. I am not trying to be condescending in this post, but I do hope something here is helpful.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Some Background On Hislop

I do apologize that today's post will be academic and boring. I never enjoy boring, but sometimes I find it useful.

Last year, I purchased a couple books by historian Ronald Hutton. I wanted to learn more about Halloween and Christmas, mistletoe and druids, and other such homely things long condemned in the extreme by Armstrongism. Turns out, as usual, we have been lied to by those busybody purveyors of paganism in the Church of God splinters (for example, read the posts "Samhain Was Not On October 31" and "Misinformed on Mistletoe").
Lately, I have been reading Hutton's "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of Druids in Britain". It is a difficult book, with long, tedious tracts of background information about authors since the 1600s who contributed to our [mis]understanding of Druids. It is packed with information. It was intentionally thorough, but its thorough nature makes it dry and laborious. By sheer force of will and natural stubbornness I am determined to finish it. I am only halfway through. Pray for me.
But it is not a bad book so far as it goes. Actually, it has some fantastic insights.

A curious thing occurred to me as I read it - this material applies to Alexander Hislop.

You might remember Alexander Hislop from such things as "The Two Babylons: Papal Worship Proved To Be the Worship of Nimrod And His Wife" - one of the most ridiculous pieces of anti-historical nonsense ever to waste paper and ink. A good amount of the garbage that came from Herbert Armstrong and "the most accurately informed historian in the world" Herman Hoeh was predicated on the toxic sludge left for us by Hislop.

Hislop was a Presbyterian minister who joined the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. Presbyterians and all Protestants are considered "daughters of the harlot church" (re. REV. 17: 5) by Armstrongism, and condemned. This one man gets a pass for purely utilitarian reasons. Notice that date there - 1843. What else was happening then? Why William Miller's Great Disappointment, of course. The 1800s were bad years for Christendom.
Hislop did consider the Catholic Church a harlot, but did not associate himself with being a daughter of it. His entire book was a condemnation of the Roman Catholic system. This was par for the course in the early 1800s. Hislop was not by any means alone. He was a product of his time. That is what Ronald Hutton's book makes clear.

In Hutton's book, he reviews several historians beginning in the 1600s who were instrumental in the study of the Druids of the British Isles. Hutton walks us through who these authors were, what their lives were like, who they knew, who inspired them, and other such details so that we can understand why they wrote what they did. Patterns emerge.

The authors of the 1600s were like babes in the woods. They had nothing to go on but ancient writers like Pliny and Julius Caesar, a scant few stone henges sticking out of the ground, some folklore, and the Bible. Every missing detail was filled in by pure imagination. But that wasn't abnormal in those days. That's how most everyone did most everything. It's not like the science of archeology was there to guide them.
The authors of the 1700s had the exact same resources, now colored by the fancies of earlier writers. Their main take was that the Druids were isolated and therefore kept a more pure form of the one true ancient religion of Noah's day. They lacked the divine revelation given to the Hebrews, but otherwise kept Noah's religion better than anyone else had. There was a sense of national pride here. That Britannia could be the home of such noble savages was uplifting to the national spirit. It was a tool to unify the United Kingdom yet provide a way to remain attached to old customs of Saxony, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales before they disappeared. It was also a poke in the eye of the Catholics. After Queen Elizabeth I solidified England as Protestant, and after the civil war "of three nations", the divide between Protestants and Catholics was growing. Anything and everything was fair game to use against Catholicism.
The authors of the 1800s yet had the same resources, yet again colored by earlier writers, but the Industrial Revolution and contact with the Far East afforded by the British Empire was changing their view of the Druids. In Wales and Ireland, the Druids maintained their positive perception, but in England, rather than a pure and proud people, the Druids were seen as murderous and thoroughly corrupt. The Druids were no better than the easterners who practiced head hunting, human sacrifice, and other various cruelties of rank paganism. These points were all used against Catholicism, but they had now begun to be used against Protestantism as well. Any organized and influential ministry was becoming fair game.

Bear in mind, none of these people knew what the Druids actually did outside of the details left by the Romans. Few of them actually trusted the Romans. Roman renditions were more likely propaganda than they were honest telling of wrote fact. We still today know barely more than they did and we still use mostly the same resources. We might know the stone henges predated the Druids by quite some time, but we don't know what the Druids did with them, if anything. We still have people who fill in the blanks with wild imagination. And we still use what we find in games of religious one-upmanship.
The more things change....

But here is what I've been driving at --
You might see in here the seeds of Alexander Hislop's approach. For example, Catholic bashing, an ancient single religion, beliefs and practices from the Middle East coming to Britain, precise details conjured from imagination built upon scant facts, and etc. You might also see in here the seeds of ideas such as we find in "The United States and Britain In Propehcy" - a book Herbert Armstrong plagiarized from J. H. Allen's "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright". (We have articles on this. Go to the Categories page and look for British-Israelism.)

The notion that Alexander Hislop knew what he was talking is laughable. Babylon wasn't even unearthed yet and the language barely translated by the time he finished his book. Serious scholars were calling him out from the very beginning. He had very little facts to rely on and none of his claims line up with what we have learned since. Why would he do this? Why would he make things up whole cloth like this? Why would he fill entire books with little other than fanciful imaginations?
Because that's what most people did back then! They filled in details with imagination and attacked the Catholics with it. Hislop is a product of his time.

And why would Armstrongism give him a pass to this day; to this very minute ignoring everything that has been proven over and over and over again to be false? Because it's convenient.
God's truth? Not even close.

Let this be a lesson to use only the most reliable sources and to employ older material only with utmost caution.

I don't condemn Hislop. If we were born then and there, we'd probably be doing much the same things. I don't like this silly notion of moral superiority based on what time we live in. He wasn't evil. He did what he thought was right given what resources he had. It's just that the result of his works are entirely destructive. It's the works, not the man, that I criticize here. He is almost as much a victim of this as we are. His works should have been forgotten but they were abused by charlatans and false prophets.
Herbert Armstrong, on the other hand, knew good and well what he was doing and was a liar and a thief on purpose. Knowingly. Willfully. I will not extend him this same courtesy. To him, or to the present-day leadership in the COGs who have every resource at their fingertips to right past wrongs but refuse because it's too convenient to their bank accounts.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Shroud Of Turin Is A Beautiful Fake

Since I can write about anything I want, I would like to weigh in on why I believe the Shroud of Turin is not the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. I keep seeing things lately on social media and in the news about the Shroud. So many people believe it is genuine. They've run tests and some of those tests came back with reasons to think the Shroud has merit. I remain unconvinced.

I probably should pause here and say - if someone believes this is Jesus' shroud, that's fine with me. It's not a sin to believe this is the genuine article and it's not a sin to disbelieve it. This is not a salvational issue in either direction. Let's agree to disagree in peace, and God's blessings be on you.

Please give me the chance to state my case.

THIRD DIMENSION

When I was younger, I used to do quite a bit of video game level design. Part of that was 3D modeling to make the characters. At first, I would make what I thought were great images to go on the 3D models, yet they looked horrible once applied. Everything was distorted, like a Picasso. It took me a while to grasp the idea that you cannot wrap a 2D skin around a 3D model without distorting it grotesquely. 2D and 3D are very different. To change between them requires alterations. If it looks great in 3D, it will look terrible flattened into 2D. And if it looks great in 2D, it will look terrible expanded into 3D. To wrap an image and have it come out right, you must distort it first.

Go ahead. Try it for yourself. Draw a picture on some paper of a face. Simple or beautiful, it doesn't matter. Now, take that paper and try to wrap it around a mannequin head or even a real head. It won't work. The eyes will not be far enough apart nor wide enough. The nose bridge will get in your way. The mouth and cheeks will be slightly off. The ears will be very far off. The farther you get from the center line, the worse it distorts. Almost nothing will look right.

The problem is, you drew it so that it looks proportional on paper, but to get that to look proportional on an actual head it must be stretched out. This isn't an option. It must be stretched out.

Or, try it the other way around. Put a blank sheet of paper around someone's head and mark where the ears, jawline, mouth, and eyes are. Now flatten it out. See how wide apart everything is? Go and buy a latex Halloween mask of a face. Now, cut it and try to flatten it out so that it's flat like a sheet of paper. What is going to happen? The nose will be ruined, the sides of the head will be far to the left and the right. You'll see the ears straight on like they were eyes. And generally, everything will look terrible. Things that look great in 3D will look terrible in 2D and vice versa.

Here is an image of a 3D head graphed out and then flayed out into 2D:

See what I mean? Does the Shroud look anything like that? No. Then it was created 2D to begin with.

When you look at the Shroud, it's a perfect 2D human form. This is why I believe it is fake. That sheet was made by a talented artist, but not one who was familiar with 3D forms.

SEE MUCH TOO MUCH

Take a look at this enhanced negative image of the face on the Shroud:

What do you notice? A face with a nose, eyes, cheeks, jaw, mouth, neck, moustache and beard, and hair. That's what I notice. Yet, we shouldn't be noticing all those things.

Think about it. If the Shroud draped across the face:

• The nose bridge would prevent it from touching the nostrils and cheeks.
• The full forehead would not be touched.
• The eyebrows and cheeks would prevent the eyelids from being touched.
• The moustache and beard would prevent the lips from being touched.
• The nose, cheek bones, and beard would prevent the cheeks and whole jaw from being touched.
• The jaw would prevent the neck from being touched.
  
• The hair should barely be visible at all, because it would have fallen back and away.

To mention but a few.
We should see none of those things. Yet, we do. And it happens throughout. That's not right.

This image shows what we might expect if we took a photo of a man standing, but not if a sheet lay across a body lying. Go ahead, Google "body under a sheet" and take a good look at any of those images. Notice anything? An almost complete lack of detail. You could never identify a body under a sheet. Yet, you could very well identify the body from the Shroud if you knew who that was. Shouldn't be possible.

And we only went over the head. The whole of the body displays these same things. Look at the belly where the arms cross. Should not see the belly there. The arms would prevent it. Same with the feet and ankles.

When you look at the Shroud, it's a perfect 2D representation of a human form even in the places where we should see nothing at all. This is why I believe it is fake. That sheet was made by an artist, but not from a sheet draped over a lying form.

SOMETHING IS MISSING

In addition to what you should not see, there are some things missing that you should see. 

You cannot take a flat sheet like the Shroud of Turin then wrap it around a human body without folding it in many strange ways. Yet, when you look at the Shroud, it's a perfect 2D representation of a human form. No folds. No wrinkles. I don't mean of the fabric, I mean of the image. The image displays no hint that the fabric was folded or wrinkled when the image was created.

When was the last time you folded an article of clothing without having a single wrinkle? The image was created with the appearance of being folded, but folded in nice, crisp lines; perfectly straight and true. The amount of effort it would take to pull that off is simply more than the people had when they rushed to bury Jesus before sundown.

Some say the image was generated all at once with a sudden bright light. Fine and well. That does nothing to what I am saying. It should still be distorted because the sheet would have been folded and wrinkled in places. It was wrapped around the body after all. When it is unfolded and unwrinkled, laying nicely flat, the resulting image should not be so perfect as we see. It should look somewhat tie-dyed in places, or shattered. It does not.

Another thing that is missing - the top of the head. If it were folded around the head, where is the top?

Here is a screenshot of the Shroud at the area of the head. The Shroud is one continuous sheet of fabric. It appears to have been laid under the body, wrapping up the back from the feet to the head, folding around the top of the head, then wrapping back to the feet again.

We must ask, where is the top of the head? If it folded around the top, it should look as if you took a sheet of paper and rested it on your head. When you put a towel on your head, it touches the top of your head, no? If it were generated by a single miraculous flash of light, then it should look somewhat like a continuous, undivided head, no?. Yet, we get a distinct face and a distinct back of the head - complete with hair absolutely firmly in place and defying gravity - but no top of the head. And for that matter, no sides of the head either.

When you look at the shroud, it should display wrinkling like shattered glass in places, yet it does not. It should have a top of the head, yet it does not. It should have sides of the head, yet it doesn't. This is why I believe it is fake. That sheet was made by a talented artist, but not from a sheet draped over a lying form.

JOHN 20

Similar to the last section, we get a verse in the Gospel of John that throws a wrench into the details we see in the Shroud.

(JON. 20: 6-7) 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.

Jesus' head was wrapped in a separate cloth. There is no hint of a separate cloth on the Shroud. No matter how you arrange it, a separate cloth wrapped around the head would change or entirely prevent the image on the Shroud. Whether this separate cloth were under the Shroud or over it, it doesn't matter. It would wrinkle the Shroud. It would distort the image.

Also, John says linen cloths, plural, not cloth, singular. There should be more than one part to the Shroud.

When you look at the Shroud, it's a fully recognizable human face. This is why I believe it is fake. That sheet was made by an artist, but not from several sheets from a Jewish burial with another cloth wrapped around its head.

HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR

The last point I will give you is that the image on the Shroud is a typical Germanic face of the type which was popular in European art. It does not resemble the typical face of a Jewish man from the Middle East.

We do not know what Jesus looked like, but you can be certain He did not look like this:

That is a statuette of Jesus from Germany. Look at how thin and long that face is. It even has the proper blond hair and blue eyes of a German. Nothing about this says Middle Easterner to me. Yet its general shape resembles the image on the Shroud.

Is it particularly wrong to imagine Jesus in our own image? I really do not believe it is wrong, morally. There are German Jesuses, Chinese Jesuses, African Jesuses, and etc. Some people complain Jesus wasn't sub-Saharan black. Well, guess what - He wasn't northern European white either! Setting iconoclasm aside here, I don't think these various depictions are wrong, per se, morally. Our Lord is in each of His own people. But if we are looking for accuracy - and the burial cloth of Jesus would be as accurate as anything else could be - then we have to say none of the images of Jesus we have today are genuinely accurate ...including the one on the Shroud.

Perhaps you think the Shroud looks more like a Spanish Conquistador than a Holy Roman Emperor. No matter. The point I am making is that the image on the Shroud is a European face if ever I've seen one, not a Jewish face.

And have you ever noticed the beard on the Shroud? It's forked. (Much like the statue above.) That style was particularly popular in kings and officials from the Carolingian and later eras (think Charlemagne and Holy Roman Empire). That would make it a symbol of royalty and status in the Medieval period. The first mention of the Shroud comes from the 1300s. If you do a search for medieval kings, you will see several in the target time period where kings have forked beards. The question is - were forked beards popular among wandering preachers in Judaea in the 30s AD? Highly doubtful. We can never know for certain, but chances are the popular style followed Greece.

When you look at the Shroud, it's a perfect 2D representation of a European form. This is why I believe it is fake. That sheet was made by a talented European artist, but not from sheets draped over a Jewish man lying on a slab.

CONCLUSION

As I said at the start, this is not a salvational issue. Disagree with me if you will. That's your right. But in my opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a very beautiful and clever piece of artwork but it is not authentic.

If I have not convinced you, that's fine. Thank you for hearing me out. Go in peace. God bless you.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Accurately Represent Thine Enemy

I was reading a post online recently about God the Son in the Old Testament. One person was responding to something another person had written. The first did not agree with the second and they were explaining why - making an apology, if you will. It was refreshing to read from someone who likes the challenge of reading things they disagree with. One line stood out to me, and it was: 

"I did my best to accurately represent him."

Incredible! And rare. That is a laudable approach and an example I think we all should follow.

Take a look at this paragraph:

"I wrote a new essay. It is responding to [certain author] of [certain podcast]. I'm hoping my language is much more irenic and charitable than the last time I did response content. I really like [certain podcast], and I like [certain author]. I disagree with a good bit of his takes, I agree with many others, and others make me go 'Interesting interpretation. I don't know if I agree or not, but it's an interesting possibility.' At the end of the day, he makes me think. And I like people who challenge me to think, especially about The Bible."

That is the right way, in my view.

I come from an Armstrongist background. Surprise! Bet you didn't know that. It's not like this charitable attitude did not exist at all in that system, but I can say without reservation that it was not the typical approach. Typically, I witnessed contests of ego vs. ego. You could find someone willing to die on every hill, as the expression goes.
(For those who are unfamiliar - the expression "a hill to die on" is a battle metaphor and means to have an opinion so strong you will not change your mind about it. It goes along with another expression "not a hill worth dying on", which means you have very strong opinions about a topic that is not important enough to argue over in the first place.)
Some people were willing to die on any and every hill. No topic was too petty to argue strenuously over and potentially risk the common peace and longstanding friendships over. Possibly the most contentious of all topics were calendar-related. I cringe just thinking about it. What a small thing to argue about so strenuously.

Take a look around at all of the Armstrongist splinter churches. Hundreds of them! Why are there so many? Some are in places where a small, isolated church is just how it has to be. Most, however, only exist due to church splits. One group of egos couldn't abide another opinion. Among the worst of all is the Philadelphia Church of God, where they do things almost identically to every other splinter church yet they frequently ridicule and condemn the other splinter churches and forbid their members from having any contact with outsiders - even if those outsiders are close family relations who attend another splinter. These splinter churches do almost everything identically. If two churches are 99% identical, why are there two? Because that's the Armstrongist way, that's why. A mother not talking to her daughter because of a disagreement over calendar dates, does that sound godly to you? Not to me! Yet, that's how it goes.
And it gets worse. There are the many, many times I've witnessed Armstrongists purposefully distorting the positions of mainstream Christianity. We have articles on this (for example "Primer To The Trinity Doctrine". "Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", and "Rome's Challenge"). There is no honor in straw man arguments. To not only misunderstand someone's position but to purposefully misunderstand it in order to distort it? Not good!
It gets much worse yet. The Armstrongist vs Traditional Christian disagreements don't even need to be real. I've watched people make things up whole cloth just so they could find some way to condemn someone they disagree with. I personally have been accused of all sorts of outlandish things over the years. Under normal circumstances we have a word for that: lying. Some people are simply too busy Sabbathing to bother with the Commandment against bearing false witness. Not godly!

These are the exact opposite of the approach I read online recently.

The strangest part of this is, there are several things mainstream Christians believe which are the same as Armstrongism. Want an example? I've given some in the past, but I will repeat one. Take the name "Church of God" for one example. In Armstrongism past and present, it is preached the one true church must have the one true name, and that name is "Church of God" - hence the names Worldwide Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Church of God International, etc etc. (For reference, see "The WorldWide News", August 25, 1986, p. 5. column 2, paragraph 1.) Yet, none other than the Catholic Church has called itself the Church of God since the earliest times. There are at least four references in the very Catechism of the Catholic Church where the Catholic Church refers to itself as Church of God (see Catechism of the Catholic Church on usccb.cld.bz, and search for the exact phrase Church of God.) The Catholic Church calls itself Church of God. Armstrongist splinter churches usually call themselves Church of God. Same! Is it the one true name then? It can't be, if your goal is to use it to distinguish yourself. Yet, there the Armstrongist churches go, calling themselves Church of God as if they are the only ones, blissfully ignorant of what others believe because they willfully refuse to know what others actually believe.

I prefer the approach I recently read online. I prefer trying to understand those I disagree with. It's so much more civilized. How can anyone possibly claim to be an honest person if they cannot be honest with something they disagree with? How do you even know you disagree with someone if you don't really know what they believe? If they're wrong, they're wrong. But if they're right, they're right. Anything else is just self-delusion. Or worse - self righteousness.
Doing your best to accurately represent someone's position seems to be the only reasonable way. It seems to be the godly way.

(MAT. 5: 43-48) 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

It seems to me people distort things they disagree with out of fear. Don't be afraid. The truth can take care of itself. 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************