Monday, November 19, 2007
The Trinity
I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father incarnate in flesh and bone, and in such a state, eternal.
I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in His physical ascension to heaven and assimilation, or return, to the Father. However I cannot say with certainty whether I believe in Christ Jesus as being truly eternal. It is a difficult issue. To me it is a paradox. I know the Father is eternal: having no beginning and no end. He is omnipotent (infinite power), omniscient (infinite knowledge), and omnipresent (He is everywhere). I believe He became incarnate in flesh and bone in Jesus, and in that state was a temporal being (bound by the laws of physics and time). Yet He was both perfect Man and perfect God. In essence He “stepped into the time-stream”, exiting his state of infiniteness. But on the same note, even if you remove a small piece of an infinitely large being, you are not left with fractions. You are still left with infinite sums.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
John 1:1-2 (NIV)
These verses would seem to answer my dilemma. But I can’t help but think that the author of the book of John was attempting to make an addition to the book of Genesis. As far as being a Gospel - and I’ll define “gospel” as being a testament to the life and teaching of Christ – this opening chapter is not something the author of the book of John could have witnessed. This is a statement of belief. Yet the very nature of an eternal being is not bound by the constraints of time. If it ever existed then it always existed. I could potentially “chase my tail” in circles until I’ve spun myself silly! I suppose it is nothing more than an academic issue. It isn’t really relevant in practical faith and day to day living.
There has to be another belief or doctrine than the Trinity. It is my belief that the Trinity is a man-made explanation to attempt to explain, or define, the nature of God. It is a useful tool to help a finite mind grasp an infinite entity and concept, but is, at its core, flawed. If fact, there is some evidence of a very human, ulterior and political motives present.
"…a great ecclesiastical council held in Nicea in Asia Minor (325 CE), at which the Church settled on the nonscriptural formula that Jesus was “of one substance with the Father” – that is, they shared the same essential being."
J. R. Porter, The New Illustrated Companion to the Bible, 2001, pg. 328
"Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons – Father, son, and Holy Spirit – who are united in one substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariable refers to the Father; but already Jesus Christ, the Son, is seen as standing in a unique relation to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is also emerging as a distinct divine person."
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99
Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. 318 of the 1800 Bishops who were invited actually attended. We do not know what the final actual vote was, but even if it was unanimous, 318 of 1800 only constitute 17 2/3 %, hardly a majority! It must also be noted that this was not a subjective issue, but an objective one. Even if all 1800 Bishops (even if every single solitary human being on this planet) voted in favour, wouldn’t make a difference. Now add to this that there was a potential political threat from Bishop Arius, and the possibility of the Arian movement attaining too much power and control, effectively wrestling it from the Church’s authority, and we have an all too human political motive. The end result was that after making the “of one substance with the Father” orthodox Church doctrine, Bishop Arius was condemned as a heretic, excommunicated, and exiled; the Arian crisis was resolved, and the “orthodox” Church remained just the way they wanted it to remain – theirs.
It is difficult to explain these ideas and beliefs without using the words and terms of the Trinity, so, if you’ll allow me, I’ll continue with this terminology:
God the Father became incarnate in flesh as God the Son. He chose to exit His “natural” state of eternalness and enter our universe of four dimensions: to enter the time-stream He would do this by submitting Himself to the governing rules of this universe by becoming fully human, completely under the ruling power of death. He would be Jesus Christ. (God the Son) And it would be through the controlling power of death that the Father would accomplish the impossible. He would be resurrected from the dead by His own will and power and forever break the control of this world’s ruler. [Hebrews 2:14-15] He would free mankind forever of sin by carrying the burden completely upon Himself. He would pay this final price. He would reveal His true nature and identity to us [John 14:7] and adopt us into His family. Where we would become extinguished in death, we would now live forever through the power of the Father – through the Tree of Life (the Father) and the Fruit of the Tree of Life (the Son). [John 14:6]
The Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God I see more as the active hand of God within our world and our lives. It is that aspect of Him that exists within each of us. I believe, since the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, that the entire of mankind (and the universe for that matter) was inundated by His essence. We all carry Him within us – He has chosen to live within us. Whether we successfully identify, acknowledge, and accept this is completely another matter. For those who do not acknowledge and accept this gift, it becomes dormant within us, a potential seed waiting a watering. For those who discover it and embrace it, allow the Father in live with us, work through us and become, quite literally, our Father.
I have never found a distinction between these three aspects of the Trinity. It is only during the actual 33 year life span of Jesus that I can make (the only) distinction between the Father and the Son. Were they two entities during this time? No, I don’t belief so. If we can view the Father as an all-powerful and infinite entity and He chose to exit this state of timelessness and enter our time-stream, so to speak, then we must consider how. If you take a piece off an infinite object you are not left with a fraction of infinity. It is a mathematical impossibility. The piece that you took of the infinite object is also not a smaller fraction of that original infinite piece. However, since He also chose to be perfect man as well as perfect God, He also had to choose to limit Himself to some degree. Jesus was not all knowing (see Matthew 24:36) because of this self-imposed limitation, otherwise He could not be human. This is clearly stated in Philippians 2:5-8:
“God in Christ voluntarily and consciously limiting the independent exercise of his divine attributes.”
The issue comes down to whose will are we following? Jesus tells us we are to follow the will of the Father, yet often, it is not the Father that we are trying to appease. But are we to follow the Father or the Triune God? The understanding and defining attribrutes must lie in the understanding or interpretations of the Trinity.
God Outside Time
The Egg
One analogy of the Trinity I was given was that of an egg. The egg has three components: the shell, the white, and the yoke, all of which on their own can still be called an egg.
This analogy however does not address what the whole or unified egg is. What, or who, is the Triune God?
The Gnostics believed this whole, or Godhead, was the Pleroma (“fullness”) or the source of ALL: the Unknown Father, the Alien God. This perfectly describes the invisible God who dwells in inaccessible light and eternal glory. Yet, it is this same inaccessible, infinite, invisible God who presents Himself to us face to face in the incarnation of Jesus Christ – very accessible, very finite, very visible, and very human.
Needless to say I subscribe to the author of the book of John’s view of Jesus – God the Father incarnate in flesh. It is the understanding or definition of the Father that applies and is important.
The egg illustration succeeds on one level yet fails miserably on another. If this is the Trinity then it is hidden in a mysterious inaccessible realm beyond our understanding. It is completely without relationship to humanity or Creation, which poses serious problems. The Holy Spirit has nothing to interact (have relations) with and the Son can play the roll of mediator (or priest) to the Father with nothing and nobody. Ultimately this analogy of the Trinity functions only in the sense of God’s inter-relationships – His relationship with Himself – which is of very little or no use to us. It is an aspect, which we can never know, never discover, and will never reveal itself.
This illustration does succeed in the fact that it makes the presence of the Triune God obvious and very important. If we entertain the idea of the Trinity as being only three distinct persons who share this “God-hood” then we are ultimately polytheistic. If we are to truly claim to be monotheistic then we absolutely must acknowledge a single God – the Triune God, which the Egg illustration very successfully points out – the whole and unified egg. It doesn’t however label or identify what it is.
It is the understanding of the Triune God’s extra-relationships – His relationship with Creation (and humanity) – that is the only relevant and most important aspect and understanding of the nature of the Trinity. To understand the Triune God’s relationship with Creation really is all about His actions and the functions of the persons of the Trinity. It is about interactions.
I feel the following three diagrams best show these interactions, revealing a more accurate view of the Trinity and a critical hidden part of it.
The Flashlight
In this illustration of the flashlight, it could be said that the Batteries represent God the Father, the Lightbulb represents God the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Light itself as God the Holy Spirit. The Seeing Eye is humanity, Creation, or us.
If we remove the Seeing Eye from the diagram the whole function of the flashlight becomes redundant. The light is not revealing anything nor viewed by anyone. It serves no purpose. If we were to remove Creation from the Trinity it too becomes redundant. Most especially with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are about relationships.
The Bicycle Wheel
In the Bicycle Wheel illustration it could be said that the Crank Shaft is God the Father, the Chain is the Holy Spirit, and the Gear is God the Son. Ultimately all these mechanisms are the drive, or propel the Wheel, which, once again is Creation, or humanity.
This mechanism works quite well. God the Father is the guiding force. The crank shaft is the “engine” or power source of the bicycle. The power generated by the crank shaft is channeled along and through the chain – the Holy Spirit – to the gear, God the Son. The gear (God the Son) plays mediator to mankind and guides it and propels it, the wheel.
If we remove the wheel from this machine what we have left is incomplete at best and pathetically silly and without purpose at worst – a machine that serves no function, a bicycle that goes nowhere. The wheel is not only important, it is critical.
Celestial Bodies
The Sun represents God the Father. The Moon represents God the Son (Jesus Christ) the Sunlight is the Holy Spirit (and interestingly enough, the Reflected Sunlight is the perfect reflection or representation of the Father). The planet Earth yet again represents Creation or humanity.
Once again, if we remove the planet earth from this illustration all would seem to be for naught. There is again no function and redundancy.
All three illustrations include Creation as a critical part of understanding the Trinity and it’s extra-relationality. However, this does in no way describe in detail Creation’s roll.
When dealing with Creation we inevitably come across some very difficult and legitimate questions. Why did God cause Creation if there is absolutely nothing that can be added to God’s perfection? What was His motive? How could an omnipotent and good God created a flawed world? Who was the Creator? These questions can become more and more complex and complicated, and near impossible to answer. They are however all based on one simple assumption:
Creation was a deliberate act.
After hearing a statement like that the first response will be to assume that is was an accident. Then if Creation was an accident we reintroduce the question of God’s omnipotence (an omnipotent being can’t or at least shouldn’t) be making accidents. After all, how could an all-powerful being make a mistake or accidentally cause Creation? But this question too is based on an assumption. The assumption that if something was not a deliberate act then it must have been an accidental act. But incidences or events do not have to be either a deliberate act or an accident. Creation could be a byproduct of the nature of God – it could have been inevitable.
We must begin to look at the nature of God. The nature of God is goodness. What is goodness in its simplest form? Goodness by its nature gives itself, communicates itself. One cannot be good and utterly isolated or in an eternal or perpetual “social” vacuum. Since goodness by its nature gives itself and communicates itself, it must have a recipient to give itself to and to communicate with.
Creation – although absolutely not God’s purpose – is a byproduct of the state of Godhood. Creation is a byproduct of God’s goodness. Creation and its creatures add nothing to God nor is God dependant on Creation or its creatures in any way or form, but Creation (even as a byproduct) is completely dependant on its Creator. It is something that simply and naturally pours out of God. This answers the question “Why does God create?” It also addresses many of the more difficult questions: Why did God cause Creation? What was His motive? He didn’t choose to cause Creation and He had no motive. “Why did God create a flawed world (or allow it to fall)” becomes a little trickier to answer, but still easy. Once again, God did not, as an act, cause Creation. Why a fallen world? To not have introduced Free Will would again contradict God’s nature. Goodness gives itself and communicates itself. To have recipients without Free Will is to have robots or automatons, which ultimately make communication, and giving impossible. Free Will was a necessity of Creation: a byproduct of a byproduct.
It is an aspect of God, which brings us back to the actual nature of God. There are 5 elements to the nature of God:
- God the Father
- God the Son
- God the Holy Spirit
- Creation (as a byproduct) in which to give Himself to and communicate with, &
- The unified or whole God (The Triune God), which the three persons of the Trinity compose.
But what or who is the Triune God? Who is God the Father? It is clear who the Son is and what roll He plays. It is also clear who the Holy Spirit is and what roll the Spirit plays. It is not however clear what roll the Father plays. Even in the naming of the theologies it isn’t clear. Christology is the study of the divine nature of Christ. Pnumatology is the study of the nature and actions of the Holy Spirit. Why is there not a “study of the Father”; Father-ology, if you will?
Could the Father be the Triune God, this unified and Whole God?
As the diagram to the left shows, could the Father actually be the basis, or foundation, of the Triune God, or the Trinity?
If forced to answer the question, “Trinitarian or Unitarian?” I’d have to say both. A serious flaw and hypocrisy of most Christians is their claim to be monotheistic yet their practice of never acknowledging or addressing the unified Triune God.
I really cannot blame Jews and Muslims for accusing Christians of being pagan and polytheistic. Most Christians openly and freely acknowledge the three persons of the Trinity in worship but never the singular Triune Deity. But when faced with the accusation of being polytheistic they are the first to state that they do believe in one God, which has three persons. When pushed to define the Trinity many resort to some lame excuse of “the mystery of the Trinity” with a follow-up of not being able to know the true nature of God. A statement which dangerously toes the line of being agnostic, because one aspect of agnosticism is the belief that God is unknowable (or incomprehensible) to the human mind. So what does this make Christians who make this claim? Are they Christian Agnostics?
Is this “mystery of the Trinity” claim really another less direct way of saying “I don’t know”? I believe in the Concept of the Trinity, but not the Doctrine of the Trinity. At the end of the day I think the Doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made construct.
The Gestalt God
We need to look at the concepts of the “Unity God” or the Triune God, or possibly – a better description – a Gestalt God. The concept of a Gestalt God has some presumptions, which should be looked at first. The word gestalt means an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. Simply put, a gestalt says that 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 (not 3).
To apply this to the state or nature of God presumes that God is like a cut gem or a diamond - having facets. These facets are the only direct aspects of God that we as humans can perceive or be aware of – not the diamond itself. These facets, when combined, would form the whole, or Unity God, or Triune God, whose nature and being is utterly incomprehensible and alien.
It is interesting to note that what we today define the word “holy” is absolutely not as the Hebrews defined it. The Hebrew word for holy is kaddosh, which does not mean a state of moral perfection nor has anything to do with morality. It means “otherness”, not natural, but supernatural, not of this world, but alien.
It is only the echoes of this deity’s actions that we can perceive. If the natural universe, or all Creation, were a pond and God places His foot into the waters we could not possibly see or even comprehend His foot but only the ripples of water that emanate from it.
If God is represented by this blue triangle then He is One God and only One God and the only One God. (The triangle shape is not to signify the Trinity but a spear or arrow like device, which we’ll see later). He is independent and non-reliant upon anything: He requires nothing else and is completely whole, perfect, and self-sufficient. In this state there is neither Triune God nor Trinity.
Certain aspects of God are dependent on the Created Universe, while the Created Universe is dependent on One aspect of God. The Created Universe is dependent on God the Father, while God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are dependent on the Created Universe.
Before you grab your torches and begin sharpening your pitchforks, please read on. Creation is a byproduct of God’s Goodness (as discussed earlier). If we can agree that God’s nature is goodness, then goodness by its nature gives itself and communicates itself. Creation becomes a byproduct of God’s Goodness because the very nature of goodness cannot exist in an isolated vacuum. It must give itself and communicate itself to someone or something! Thus the Created Universe comes into being. The only two arguments I’ve heard against this idea do not hold water when thought through.
In the following diagram we represent the entire Created Universe as a red circle, God (still the blue triangle) is still external, alien, and independent: He does not need Creation. It is important to note in this representation that the red circle is the entire Created universe of 4 dimensions. This circle would have height, depth, length, and time. Time, history, and anything temporal would only exist within the circle’s boundaries. Anything outside the circle’s boundaries – most specifically God – would be eternal and timeless.
The first argument states that since the Created Universe is a temporal thing (it has a beginning and it will also have an end) and God’s nature is eternal, there are vast amounts of time before Creation and after our universe’s end. During these times God would not have this byproduct of His Goodness. The flaw in this argument however is in its very question. Time only exists within our Created Universe. Our Created Universe is 4-dimensional (if not more!) and God is outside of it. There is no time before or after our universe! Our universe is Time. If this weren’t true – if time did exist before and after Creation – then God Himself would be subjected to time and a chronological chain of events as well as aging. From God’s point(s) of view, the Created Universe –as a self-contained 4-dimensional universe – would always exist.
The second argument agrees that God’s nature is Goodness and Goodness must give and communicate itself to another. However, this argument does not agree that Creation must be that other. Before Creation God existed in a Triune state – three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God’s Goodness “gives” Himself and “communicates” Himself to Himself. There is no need or place for Creation.
This idea of the Trinity is flawed and even polytheistic. It does not recognize the Triune God as a whole but only as three persons. Trinitarian Christians here must exercise great care.
Lee Strobel’s interview with William Lane Craig, Ph.D., Th.D., in his book The Case For A Creator, talk about the necessity of a single Creator and Ockham’s razor principle.
At that point, another objection popped into my mind. “Why does it have
to
be one Creator?” I asked. “Why couldn’t multiple Creators have been
involved?”
“My opinion,” Craig answered, “is that Ockham’s razor would shave
away any
additional creators.”
“What’s Ockham’s razor?”
“It’s a
scientific
principle that says we should not multiply causes beyond what’s
necessary to
explain the effect. Since one Creator is sufficient to explain
the effect, you
would be unwarranted in going beyond the evidence to posit
plurality.”1
Basically Lee Strobel is asking if it is possible that there were more than one Creator – a pantheon of deities. Dr. Craig answers that it is not impossible, but highly unlikely because of the proper scientific methodology of the Ockham razor principle. He then goes on the give a simple explanation of what this principle is. He ends by stating that it is “unwarranted” to create a “plurality” of deities. One is the simplest answer, so One it should be.
Most monotheists would absolutely agree with this and may even use Ockham’s razor in an argument. But let’s go back to the original argument: God’s Goodness “gives” Himself and “communicates” Himself to Himself, as the three persons of the Trinity. There is no need or place for Creation.
If we apply Ockham’s razor to this comment we find a redundancy. Why have more than one, when only one is necessary? God’s Goodness needs only to give and communicate to one receiver, not two. That one receiver is Creation. These other two aspects of the Trinity (the Son and the Holy Spirit) only come into play when God interacts with Creation. In fact, they are part of God’s Goodness. The Son and the Holy Spirit are the Giving and the Communicating actions themselves. They are God’s presence within and among His Creation. They are in fact, personifications of the Jew’s Shekinah (see below). They are “begotten” beings only because they exist only as God’s Goodness “gives”, “communicates”, and interacts within our Created Universe. They are the ripples that emanate from God’s foot dipping into the pond we call our universe.
However, if God “steps” into our natural universe from His external, supernatural (holy – kaddosh) state, we could only see the “ripples” of His steps in the pond. This is the part of the triangle (now purple) that enters Creation, the only aspect of God we can perceive. This is God’s echo or ripple or emanation. This aspect of God is very much dependent on our Created Universe for it would not - could not - exist without our universe.
This aspect of God (echo, ripple, emanation, etc.) is what the Wisdom or Reason of God is (see Proverbs 8:12). Sophia and the Logos is this facet. One is God’s “ripple” and activity within Creation – God’s Wisdom, Sophia, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, while the other is God’s echo and activity within men’s hearts and souls – God’s Reason, Word, Logos, or Son.
Certain Rabbis spoke about the Spirit of God brooding over creation and they compared it to a rider of a horse. While the rider is on the horse the rider depends on the horse but the rider is never the less superior to it and has control over it. The term Shekinah comes from the Hebrew word shakan that means to pitch one’s tent. The Shekinah was not a conceived, separate divine being, but the presence of God in our world. This was the Jewish rabbinical concept of the Shekinah, which I believe is just as applicable in this representation as any of the Christian nomenclature is.
While we have now identified the purple overlap within the blue triangle of God (call it Sophia, the Logos, Wisdom, God the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the Shekinah). God’s presence within our world, His footsteps if you will. The remaining part of the blue triangle (still blue and still external) is that third aspect of God, the alien (holy), unknowable, incomprehensible, and supernatural aspect – constant and external – the foot that causes the ripple in the pond.
These examples and diagrams are all very symbolic, an attempt to explain something extremely abstract. I however believe certain groups of ancient Jewish Gnostics understood this much better than we give them credit for.
If we use the same diagrams but change the circle of the Created Universe to another red triangle (its point representing man’s reaching out to God) we find some interesting results:
The final symbolic result is a Star of David. The Star of David itself is an ancient figure. Scholars do not know when it became a widespread symbol of Judaism, but as far as is known, it first appeared on a Jewish holy seal in Sidon in c. 600 BC.
This star is also a Gnostic symbol.
The upward pointing triangle is the physical realm (fire) reaching up towards
the spiritual and the downward pointing triangle is the spiritual realm of the
waters of life reaching towards the Earth in order to lift it upwards. The
symbol was first popularized by Kabbalists (Jewish mystics)…2
The very fact that, again, it is linked to an older Jewish group, the Kabbalists, maintains it’s Jewish heritage. Ultimately it can be said to mean that it is all of Creation’s desire to search and seek out God, and God’s love to reach out to mankind. The symbolism is significant. There are three ways to discover God. Revelation (prophecy), Reason or logic (philosophically), and Imagination or Symbolism (mysticism). Reason (logic) and Imagination (symbolism) are man reaching out to God, while Revelation is God reaching out to man.
This strongly suggests that older non-Christian groups acknowledged – to some degree – various facets or aspects of God. They may not actively have identified a Triune nature of God, but they were most definitely aware of this nature. This God reached out to us!
Ultimately I would have to agree with the Jew and Muslim’s concept of an undivided and Unified God more so than the Christian’s three deities of the Trinity. Either we are monotheistic or we are polytheistic. You cannot be both. This really isn’t an issue with one faith being right and the other wrong; this is an issue of perception. Much of the debate and arguments between these faiths come from nomenclature (and the egotistic desire to be right as opposed to finding the truth).
The best illustration I can think of is sunlight. God is sunlight. It touches everything we see. We cannot see anything without sunlight. Everything we see is because of sunlight. However, we cannot see the sunlight itself. We can see its effects. We can feel its warmth. We can see the objects it illuminates. But we cannot see the sunlight. When we see rays of sunlight peeking through a cloud we are only seeing the atmosphere and airborne particles being lit up by the sunlight, but not the sunlight itself. When we see all the various colours of the flowers we are only seeing parts of the sunlight that are being reflected – but not the sunlight. When we stare directly at the sun we are seeing the nuclear fires that cause the sunlight, but not the sunlight. Yet everything we see is because of the sunlight. Nobody debates or denies the existence of sunlight, yet nobody has seen it. What we do see is its effects on our world around us. It is not a localized phenomenon, but permeates every aspect of the world around us. Sunlight does not have an agenda or purpose. It defines everything’s purpose. Sunlight did not have a reason why it is letting us see everything. It did not choose to allow us to see everything. We see everything because of it. Our sight and vision is a byproduct of it.
God is the unseen sunlight. We cannot see or be aware of God, just as we will never scientifically prove God’s existence. We can see and be aware of God’s effects. We can see these reflections of God. These reflections of God are the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God is never the less a very real and living aspect of God. Existence is a byproduct of God’s nature just as vision is a byproduct of the existence of sunlight. And just as shadows are a necessary byproduct of sunlight, so too is evil a byproduct of our existence – Free will. Can it be said that sunlight created shadows? No, not purposely. But is sunlight responsible for shadows? Yes, definitely. Can God be said to have created evil? No, not deliberately. But is God responsible for evil? This successfully addresses the problem with Isaiah 45:7, KJV. Is this god the author of evil? Yes God is the author of evil yet is Himself absolutely not evil.
Creation’s Cascade to Sin
There is a cascade effect from God’s Goodness. A byproduct of God’s Goodness is Creation. A byproduct of Creation is Free Will. A byproduct of Free Will is Evil, or Sin. The byproducts of Evil or Sin, are pain, misery, and suffering. This cascade effect is the out-flowing of God’s Goodness or Love. It permeates everything but can potentially be stopped by Free Will. Sin therefore is not really the absence of God’s will, but the blockage of it.
If we return to the analogy of sunlight we’ll find that the Sun in the diagram is God. The Sunlight is God’s Goodness, which naturally flows from Him. The windows are humanity - or us - and the blinds of the windows represent our Free Will. We have the ability to choose whether the blinds remain open or closed. If we choose to keep our blinds open, then this cascade effect continues into and through us bringing us sunlight (God’s Love). If we choose to keep our blinds closed (which is sin and the blockage of God) then the result is shadows and darkness, which is sin. Now the consequences of shadows or darkness are as follows. When we attempt to walk around our house in the dark we are relatively successful because we know our own homes. However when we stub our toe on the bed’s leg and break it – which is the consequence of walking in the dark - we suffer pain and misery. Now although God can be said to be responsible for all of this cascade effect, He cannot be blamed for it, because it wasn’t a deliberate act. It is all a byproduct of His nature. I feel this properly addresses the problem of God being the author of evil as Isaiah 45:7 states. It is also interesting to look at various translations of this verse. Most translate it as something more akin to “I create darkness”, or “disaster” rather than “I create evil.” The translation of “I create darkness” matches this “Creation’s Cascade to Sin” very well. Darkness or shadows being a byproduct of God’s out-pouring light.
I feel we have established that God is responsible for the existence of evil but He is not to be blamed for it – as a fault - as it wasn’t a deliberate act. However, what is a direct, conscientious, and deliberate act is His intervention to free us from stubbing our toes. He entered our universe and became one of us. He would stub His toe once and for all and show us how to avoid breaking our toes. He would make the point known that we absolutely do not know our own houses as well as we believe we do – we cannot walk around in the dark without getting hurt. Jesus’ redefining of the Commandments is evidence of this. Before Christ most people could say, “at least I never committed adultery!” Jesus’ redefining of adultery to include even lust in your heart would seem to set us all up for a fall. It’s a command we cannot obey and a standard we cannot live up to! His point was not to suggest that we are all useless failures but to say that we need God – we need sunlight to navigate through our houses – regardless if we think we know our homes well enough or not.
Eternity
What is Eternity? Some would answer that Eternity is forever. I would only partially agree with that answer. That answer is only half-correct. Let’s look at the word “forever”. Forever is in a temporal and historical context. The “fore-“ is similar to “forward” signifying direction - from here onward. It is measurable. The same can be said of forever. Starting from this point in time and endlessly onwards. However, “endlessness” is absolutely not the same as eternal. They are not the same. “Endlessness” may not have an end but it can have a beginning. Endlessness and Eternal are not the same. If we enter some sort of state of forever we can say that at this one (measurable) point in time and history we became endless. We can’t measure anything beyond that point because it’s a different state, but we can mark down on our calendars that one point in time. Something that is Eternal cannot be measured, cannot have a measurable point in time or history. To enter a state of Eternalness may only be recorded historically as an exit point. We exited this state and entered another state.
We must be very aware of two very different realms or states of being - the Infinite and the Finite - the Temporal and the Non-temporal. There exist two continuums. Our world exists within a time-stream. We have history. We can record when things happen. We exist within a time-stream, a Temporal Continuum. When we die our souls go dormant and wait for the End Time (again, another historical point in time yet to come). We are judged, and for those who receive eternal life (salvation) pass into Heaven and the presence of God. But this is critically important! We pass into eternal life. We exit this state or temporal world and enter another non-temporal state or world. We exit the time-stream and the implication is significant. We cease to be time-orientated beings. Even though our death, judgement and salvation may all have a chronological, measurable, and recorded sequence, our eternal lives do not. They exist eternally. They exist outside this time-space continuum, and to exist outside of time-stream is to be immeasurable, and timeless. It creates somewhat of a paradox. If an individual receives salvation within (or at the end of) our world, then in this other state of being, they have already and forever have received it. We (our “future” spiritual selves) could potentially co-exist side-by-side with our current very physical, very temporal selves.
Let us look at this from another point of view; from our own living point of view: We live our lives. At some point in our lives we die. In the grave we enter soul-sleep – in which we have no awareness. From our own perspective we would die and then open our eyes to be greeted by Christ and immediately stand before God for judgement. Although hundreds, or thousands, or millions of years may have passed we would have no recollection of it. We receive salvation (hopefully) and enter eternal life, exiting this temporal state. In this newly acquired eternal life we would now have access to all existence, which would include the historical time of our physical and temporal lives.
Therefore if we will receive salvation then we already have. We currently exist in our eternal lives. Granted we may not recognize ourselves or no have access, but we would co-exist. I believe this is exactly what Paul was speaking of when he said
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of
his Son, that he might be the firstborn among his brothers. And those he
predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he
justified, he also glorified."
Romans 8:29-30 NIV
So, to say that eternity means forever is only half-correct. Eternity more correctly is not forever, but for always. (It applies both forward and backwards in time).
This theory is interesting because it readily accepts two seemingly contradictory points of view or beliefs.
One school of thought is that upon death judgement is immediate and the saved soul passes immediately to Heaven and the presence of God. The other school of thought is that upon death the soul goes into a soul-sleep and waits for Judgement Day. Both can be correct. From the deceased point of view judgement and salvation would be immediate. Upon entering this new eternal-life state of being their existence would cover their perceived “now”.
It is interesting to note that certain sects of Gnostics believed that it was crucially important to find one’s divine, or heavenly, counter-part. It was only through the discovery (and potential joining) of their heavenly or spiritual “twin” could they become enlightened and receive gnosis (knowledge). The interpreted assumption was that our world mirrored the divine world. But if this idea is applied it takes on a completely new perspective. Only those “chosen” or “saved” have the potential to find or discover their “divine” counter-parts, having already been saved. This could potentially be the fusion of three radically different beliefs. I believe it also offers an alternative to the Arminian-Calvinist theological debate. This is neither one nor the other.
An Eternally Existent Finite Universe:
God’s Glass Marble
Imagine a glass marble. Within its center is a bright light with various rays or beams of light streaking out to its outer edge. This glass ball represents the whole of Creation; our entire created universe. The smooth outer surface of this ball is the end of our universe. The very center of the bright light in its center is the birth or creation of our universe – the Big Bang if you will. The rays or beams of light streaking out are galaxies, stars, and planets travelling through space and forward through time. Time would be represented as the distance from the center, similar to counting rings on a tree stump. The further away from the center, the further into this universe’s finite history you would find yourself – the outer edge being the end of the universe and the end of time. Although the universe is finite (having both a beginning and an end), viewed like a glass ball, this whole could exist eternally. God could carry this glass ball around in His pocket like a young boy carries a marble. It would always exist and would always accompany Him. In this “state” it would be completely static. Time would not flow.History would be laid out in plain view from the beginning to the end, from Alpha to Omega.
However, the analogy of the boy and his marble must end here because God can do something the boy can never do. God can dip His finger into the glass marble! As He enters, Time ceases to be frozen and static and become a stream - history. God can enter the Time-stream, thus exiting His “state” of eternalness.
Other Implications of a God Outside of Time.
1 Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator, pg. 109
2 Bernard Simon, The Essence of the Gnostics, pg. 147
The Evolution of the Logos
Pre-birth
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2
John 1:1-5 and Proverbs 8:22-31 are the only references to any sort of Pre-birth state of Jesus. I would tend to make a distinction between the divine Logos and the Son of God.
Pre-baptism
He had demonstrated some abilities as a youth. His knowledge of scripture (Luke 2:46-47)(It is also interesting to note that the boy Jesus was in the temple courts for 3 days) is a good example. But far from being miraculous.
Post-baptism / Pre-resurrection: The Ministry of Jesus
After John baptizes Jesus, marking the commencement of His 3-year ministry, the frequency and degree of His “powers” seems to drastically increase. Yet Jesus Himself admits that He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
Post-resurrection / Pre-Ascension
After Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection His “powers” and abilities seem to increase even more so. Having the (apparent) ability to mask or hide His identity (Luke 24:15-16) on the road to Emmaus and the ability to simply appear within a locked and enclosed room (John 20:19).
Post-Ascension
We know nothing about the Ascended Jesus, but can only assume this “power” still increases. It is here that the situation becomes interesting and critical. It is at this point that I believe the post-resurrection Jesus, as the Son of God, truly becomes the Logos, reaching His absolute and full divine potential, returning to His pre-birth status.
We should come to see that this really isn’t the evolution of “power” or omnipotence, but just the opposite. The act of entering our created universe of 4 dimensions (stepping into the time-stream ) was a de-evolution of the divine.
Another point of interest is the seemingly recurrent number of 3. From birth to the beginning of His ministry was 30 years, or three decades. Jesus’ ministry itself only lasted three years. From his crucifixion to His resurrection was three days. And, as noted above from Luke 2:46-47, when Jesus was left behind in the Temple Courts it was again for three days. Also, the three final hours of Jesus’ life, darkness fell across the land (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, & Luke 23:44). I cannot help but take notice of the symbolism here. We really don’t need to ask whether this was something manmade or specifically designed by God – a seemingly coincidence. If we allow ourselves to get bogged down by this we truly miss the point. The point being that this symbolism is present. It would be a bit of a step to argue this in defense of the Trinity, but it would also be a large step to outright ignore it too.
Ultimately, in my attempts to understand the Trinity, I would be more inclined to believe that the Logos, more than the Son, is one of the persons of the Trinity. The Son is an aspect of the Logos – a watered down, or un-evolved form of it – or “contained” within the Logos. I could accept the Logos aspect of God as the Creator, but not specifically Jesus. As we have already noted, the pre-resurrection Jesus was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. So how could He have been the Creator? However the post-resurrection or post-ascension Jesus really is more closely resembling the Logos. The Logos aspect or facet of God could very easily – and in all likelihood - be the Creator.
The Nature of the Heavenly Realms
Daniel 10:12 is a strange and difficult passage. First of all we need to identify the "players". They are
Daniel
Speaker (angel)
Michael (archangel)
Prince of Persia
Second of all we need to identify what’s happening. Daniel made a prayer for his people. The speakers (an angel) heard the prayer or was "commissioned" to act upon it. Somehow, the prince of Persia was critical to how Daniel’s people were in their persecution/plight and had to be persuaded to change. The angel (the Speaker) could not accomplish this task and was "tied-up" for 21-days until the Archangel Michael became involved, to successfully "persuade" the prince of Persia .
I don't think the "prince of Persia" is any sort of human governor, prince, king, etc. In fact, I think the prince of Persia is some sort of fallen or evil angel - for all intent and purposes, a demon. This demon-prince of Persia does not rule in a political sense, but rules and effects (affects?) the minds of Persia's human rulers. Now this will inevitably lead us back to hell (or in this case, Hell). Does Satan and his fallen angels and/or demons reside in Hell? Not yet, as it only come into existence at the End Times. Extremely few today would honestly say they believe in a Hell with a physical, geographical location. The point I'm getting to is that we are completely dealing with the Spiritual Realm, or the "Heavenly Realms".
We have the issue of an angel being "detained" for 21-days. This is making the assumption that the "heavenly realms" are eternal which I don’t believe the bible supports.
Genesis 1:1 clearly states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" thus making "the heavens" a created thing. Now it could be debated whether this was meant to mean the sky and heavens as in space and outer space, but Genesis 1:16 clearly makes this distinction, specifying the sun, the moon, and stars. So, Genesis 1:16 is not talking about the "heavenly" or spiritual realms. Also, Genesis 1:6-8 refers to "the waters" of the earth (the raw materials of the universe) being divided and organized. The earth is formed (the physical universe) and the heavens are also created (the spiritual universe) during this "parting of the waters/filaments".
Revelations 21:1 and Isaiah 65:17 speak of a new heaven and earth. The Greek word used for new is καινός (kainos), which does not mean "new" in a chronological sense, but "new" as to be fresh or refreshed – like hitting the refresh button on your internet explorer’s toolbar – what was previously there is simply gone, overwritten.
So we can safely say that these "heavenly realms" have a definite beginning (Gen. 1:6-8) and also a definite end (Rev. 21:1). This "heaven" exists within the context of history. It is a temporal thing (which Daniel 10:12 also confirms).
Now, many assume that this "heavenly realm" is the Heaven we like to teach our young children about (We’ll have to make some sort of distinction here, so I’ll refer to this heaven with a capital “H”) – a place of clouds, pearly gates, good angels, Saints, and where God "lives". (Hell, being somewhere else). This assumption is wrong.
Ephesians 6:12 confirms that there are spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Thus the "heavenly realms" are not a Holy and Good place. It is not where God the Father "resides". These "heavenly realms" are part of the Created Universe and God the Father "resides" somewhere "outside" of Creation (in His truly eternal state). This is not "Heaven" where we go when we die (that Heaven – eternal life – is only after the End Times), but would most definitely be more correctly called a "spiritual realm".
So it is very conceivable for an angel to be detained for 21-days in either our physical world or the spiritual world. Both these compose our Created Universe and both are subjected to time.
However, bearing in mind that this is all a dream or a kind of vision to Daniel, all these "truths" and revelations could well be put into a context, or use imagery that a very human Daniel can comprehend. So, there could be strong symbolism used here too.
I believe these passages
Gen.1:1,
Gen.1:6-8,
Gen.1:16,
Isaiah 65:17,
Daniel 10:12,
Eph.6:12, &
Rev. 21:1
spell out that the "spiritual realms" (heavenly realms) are very much bound by time (they are not eternal) and are neither Heaven nor Hell.
Also, if we apply the Kalam Argument we find the same results. The Kalam Argument makes 3 simple statements:
1) If something had a beginning it had a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) The universe was caused.
If we use the inverse argument we’ll discover that only something that is eternal has no cause and no beginning. Since these "heavenly realms" has both a cause and a beginning they cannot be eternal. If they are not eternal then they are bound by time.
Conclusion: The “Heavenly Realms” are not Heaven proper, but an active Spiritual Realm where both good and evil are active. When Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-7 speak of Satan sitting in the presence of God and His angels also ties into and confirms this conclusion: the “heavenly realms” are really a time-bound aspect of our Created Universe – a spiritual realm, and possibly Sheol.
So we are left with the question, What does happen to us when we die? I believe the answer to that question lies with Sheol. Is this “heavenly”/spiritual realm Sheol?
Sheol, Soul-Sleep, & Purgatory
Often Sheol is freely translated into Hell and Hades. Although Hades is Greek and Sheol is Hebrew, ultimately, beyond the language issue, I don’t believe they are the same thing as “Hell”. The translators of the King James Version translate the name Sheol into “hell” 31 times, “the grave” 31 times and “the pit” 3 times. These translations are in error, most especially “hell”. Sheol is the common fate of all mortals. It is not a place of punishment. In Psalm 16:9-11 the author acknowledges that he will not be left in “hell” after death but that God will show him the path to life. The use of the word “hell” should actually have been left as the original Sheol for they do not suggest the same thing.
The Hebrew word Sheol (or sheh-ole) means Hades or the world of the dead, as in a subterranean retreat – the grave. However, when the word Sheol got translated into the Greek Hades in inevitably introduced various Pagan-Greek beliefs and assumptions about the nature of Hades. In Greek Mythology, Hades was not only the place of the dead, but more closely resembles, in its nature, the traditionalist’s Hell. The Hebrew’s Sheol is none of these things. There are ample passages from both the Old Testament and New Testament (as well as from Intertestamental writings) that refer to the dead sleeping or being in some sort of state of hibernation – but not punishment and suffering. The dead do not ascend to Heaven nor or descend Hell. The dead go down into “sleep”. There are many and various passages that state this. To cite a few for example from the Old Testament there are Jeremiah 51:39, Job 14:12, Psalms 17:15, Daniel 12:2, 1 Samuel 28:11-20.
From the New Testament there are Acts 7:60, Acts 13:36, 1 Corinthians 15:6, 1 Corinthians 15:18, 1 Corinthians 15:51, 1 Thess. 4:13-15, and 2 Peter 3:4.
From the Inter-testament writings we have Tobit 14:6-8 and 2 Maccabees 12:43-45. However, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 is an interesting passage:
“He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”2 Maccabees 12:43-45 (RSV)
2 Maccabees 12:43-45 does more than just confirm (with the addition of other passages) that the dead are in some sort of soul-sleep or spiritual hibernation. It also strongly suggests that even after death (and before the End Times) that there is still hope for salvation. It suggests that those who have died “unsaved” still have a chance for salvation.
Now - and we must be careful here - it implies these things but does not directly state nor teach it. However, having said that, this passage does introduce the possibility of some sort of Purgatory, or the potential of Sheol actually being Purgatory, a place or state of possible purification. So the question must be asked, do the “unsaved” dead have any hope for salvation? 2 Macc. 12:43-45 definitely confirms “soul-sleep” and possibly some sort of purgatory. However, if Jesus taught that the opportunity to repent was cut off at death then this isn’t a possible interpretation.
Are the Spiritual Realms (a place of activity) and Sheol (a place of the dead and inactivity) the same? No, there is no scriptural indication or reason to believe so. Sheol is a place of waiting and rest, a place of “soul-sleep” or spiritual hibernation. So the “spiritual realms” (or “heavenly realms”) are not Sheol. But is Sheol and Purgatory the same? Does Jesus teach that the voluntary opportunity to repent is cut off at death? Does He teach that an external intervention after death is impossible – a posthumous intervention towards salvation?
The Sleep of Sheol vs. Direct Bodily Ascension
If the dead go down into the sleep of Sheol, then how can we explain those figures that directly bodily ascended to Heaven? How do we explain Enoch (Gen. 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Jesus?
In 1 Samuel 28:11-20, Samuel was “called up” from his “sleep” in Sheol by the Witch of Endor; confirming both Sheol and “soul-sleep”.
However, in the Transfiguration (Mat. 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, & Luke 9:28-36) both Moses and Elijah were present which seems to be a contradiction. Elijah did not go down into “the sleep of Sheol”, but was ascended directly and bodily into Heaven. How could he have been present at the Transfiguration? We know that the dead may be “called up” from their “sleep in Sheol” from 1 Samuel 28:11-20. But can someone who was directly ascended into Heaven (not the “heavenly realms) be “called up” or “summoned”?
In the Transfiguration if both Moses and Elijah were called up from the dead (which is the common interpretation), what could Jesus be talking to them about? If Moses was called up from Sheol (a place of no activity, no interaction – of rest, waiting, and sleep) what could possibly be the point of a conversation? Jesus – especially in His Transfiguration, (which I feel is more closely approaching that state of the Divine Logos ) is “shedding” His self-imposed limitedness, has absolutely nothing to gain or learn from Moses. In fact, the conversation’s only purpose could be for revelation to Moses. But again, revelation for what purpose considering where Moses was “summoned” from and returning to.
If Elijah was called from Heaven (or his “eternal life”, not Sheol) then he has effectively seen the “other” side of eternity. What possible good could revelation be to him?
This interpretation of the Transfiguration becomes riddled with problems. The assumption in the interpretation is a chronological one. It is assumed that on the mountaintop Jesus encountered both Moses (who has been long since dead) and Elijah (who has also been long since dead) and that both of them somehow were called up. Scripture tells us very little about what they talked about. It is only in Luke 9:31which mention anything of the topic matter. “…and spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” (KJV)
“His Decease” – literally, his “exit” or “departure”. The word translated here “decease” – that is, exit, or “going out” – is elsewhere used to denote death. See 2 Peter 1:15. Death is a departure or going out from this life. In "this" word there may be an allusion to the “departure” of the children of Israel from Egypt. As that was going out from “bondage,” pain, and humiliation, so death, to a saint, is but going forth from a land of captivity and thralldom to one of plenty and freedom; to the land of promise, the Canaan in the skies.Barnes Notes
Is it possible that the Transfiguration was something else entirely?
In Exodus 24:15-18 it talks about Moses on the mount and the mount being covered with a cloud and the cloud covering it for 6 days and on the 7th day the Lord spoke to Moses. The sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire. Moses was on the mount for 40 days and 40 nights. There is also mention in Exodus 34:29 that Moses’ face shone as the sun, with a special brightness.
In 1 Kings 19:8 Elijah went to Mount Horeb for 40 days and 40 nights (similar to the amount of time Moses was on the mount), and the word of the Lord came to him.
The Synoptic Gospels accounts of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, & Luke 9:28-36) say that after 6 days (which is the same amount of time Moses was forced to wait before God spoke to him) Jesus brought Peter, James, and John up to a high mountain and was transfigured before them and that His face shone like the sun and His clothes were like light, and He was talking to Moses and Elijah. And as they talked a bright cloud overshadowed them.
Could these three incidents have actually occurred "outside" of time and simultaneously, within both Moses’ and Elijah’s lifetimes? What was Jesus talking about to Moses and Elijah? We know He was talking about His death and an achievement in Jerusalem. This can only mean his Crucifixion and ultimately the vicarious atonement – Salvation. But could there have been more? Could the actual conversations be recorded in Exodus 24:15-18 and 1 Kings 19:8? Could these three events have actually been only one event? Could it have been Jesus - in His Transfigured state - that spoke to Moses on the mount? Could it have been that it was a Transfigured Jesus who spoke to Elijah in the cave on Mount Horeb?
The common assumption is that Jesus is talking to a posthumous Moses and Elijah. We do not know this to be true we only assume it.
Economic Business Model
I believe when somethings become an industry their core principle and purpose becomes compromised. I believe the institutional church has become an industry.
I don't believe church should be based upon an economic business model, and I believe "church" as we traditionally/generally understand it today is. Church has been based upon an economic business model. Church has ceased to be what it's original purpose was and has become an industry. One key element in any viable industry is that it must be self-supporting or self-renewing.
I've been accused by some of taking the easiest way - the path of least resistance- of following a belief-system yet not committing to the burden and responsibility of a church and the obligations that go with it. Kinda like going out with a girl but not committing to marriage - trying to have the best of both worlds.
But I would disagree. In fact, my path leaves me very vulnerable and is far from the path of least resistance. Since I haven't supported that church I shouldn't rely upon it's services. Since I haven't invested in that church I shouldn't become one of it's services' consumers.
I run another real risk because I also know how supportive a caring community can be in difficult times. I am also aware that if or when those times befall me and my family (and I pray they won't) that I can expect little or no support. After all, I chose not to pay into this system - I chose not to pay my "spiritual insurance premiums". Is that why we're to go to and support our local churches? Is it really nothing more than a disguised insurance company? I know it shouldn't be.
I believe in the business of church.
I just don't believe in Church as Business.
The institutional church needs to abandon the Economic Business Model.
What are some of the more practical and mundane “tools of the trade” (for pastors/church leaders)? A cell phone, a computer with Internet, an email account, a telephone, an office, and a vehicle. What would the monthly expense for these things be? How do you afford these things? (And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that you also need to pay your mortgage and feed your family). In a word, parishioners. There exists a very real, very practical aspect of church today that necessitates a Business Model. It’s a simply fact of economics. Bills need to be paid. Money needs to be made. Take away the money and the bills don’t get paid. Take away parishioners and you take away the numbers. Take away the numbers and the money goes away.
I find this disturbing. I hear talk about trying to emulate church leadership after the New Testament times with its pastors and elders, and presbyters, etc., but what I repeatedly see is the Economic Business Model. I don’t believe Jesus and His Disciples’ ministry was based upon this model.
Before we can even begin to entertain how church is “done” and before we can begin even asking the question, we must first look at changing how the most basic, practical, and mundane issues of how it is managed is done. How do we pay the rent? Or, maybe, even that’s asking the wrong question. Should we even be paying rent? The church does not need a roof over her head. The church is a Corporate Entity, but it is not a person like you and me.
But church, as this Corporate Entity, has a roof over her head while individual people are left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness. And I don’t believe this is what the Lord had ever intended.
Jesus said that He had sheep of other folds (John 10:16). He also repeatedly told Peter to “Feed my lambs”. “Take care of my sheep”. “Feed my sheep”. (John 21:15-17). So the question begs to be asked: Why does the church have a roof over her head while there are people left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness?
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Anti-theory
An Anti-theory may only ever be proven correct. It is based upon evidence not yet discovered, known, or found. It is perpetually waiting for the “final evidence”, regardless of whether it will ever be found or not. It is based upon a yet undiscovered evidence that will actually prove itself. This is simply a poor and self-serving methodology.
Waiting, as a perennial solution to a given problem, becomes an Anti-theory.
The Anti-theory can never be proven wrong, while the Theory can only ever be proven wrong.
Mu
Bibliolatry
The Chronological Old Testament
Bear in mind that very few of the dates these books were written are absolutely known:
The Pentateuch:
Genesis (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Exodus ( c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Leviticus ( c. 1445 – 1444 B.C.)
Numbers (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Deuteronomy (c. 1407 – 1406 B.C.)
The Historic Books:
Joshua (c. 1380 B.C.)
Judges ( unknown, c. 1000 B.C.?)
Ruth (c. 1375 – 1050 B.C. ?)
1 Samuel (unknown, c. 1000 B.C. ?)
2 Samuel (c. 1050 – 970 B.C.)
1 Kings (c. 562 B.C. ?)
2 Kings ( c. 562 B.C.)
1 Chronicles (430 B.C. [referring to events c. 1000 – 960])
2 Chronicles (430 B.C. [referring to events c. 970 – 586])
Ezra (430 [referring to events c. 538 – 430])
Nehemiah (420 B.C.)
Esther (c. 470 B.C. ?)
Books of Poetry:
Job (unknown, est. 2000 – 1800 B.C.)
Psalms (c. 1440 – 586 B.C.)
Proverbs (c. 960 B.C. ?)
Ecclesiastes (935 B.C. ?)
Song of Songs (960 B.C. ?)
Major Prophets:
Isaiah (700 – 681 B.C.)
Jeremiah (627 – 586 B.C.)
Lamentations (c. 586 B.C.)
Daniel (c. 535 B.C. [referring to events c. 605-535])
Minor Prophets:
*Hosea (c. 715 B.C. [referring to events c. 753-715])
Joel (835 – 796 B.C.)
Amos (c. 760 – 750 B.C.)
*Obadiah (c. 586 B.C.)
Jonah (785 – 760 B.C.)
Micah (742 – 687 B.C.)
Nahum (663-654 B.C.)
Habakkuk (612 – 589 B.C.)
Zephaniah (640 – 621B.C.)
Haggai (520 B.C.)
Zechariah (520 – 480 B.C.)
Malachi (430 B.C.)
With the apparent exceptions of Hosea and Obediah I would say it is in chronological order.
