Causation and Causality

Durham, England

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/08/annihilation.html

This short posting will present another example of how similar words are used differently in my related PhD/MPhil theses fields, of philosophy of religion, and empirical theology and social research methods/statistics. As usual with my blog postings I am mixing it up between the various academic disciplines I am studying. My last post dealt more with Biblical studies with some philosophical theology.

Blackburn explains that in philosophy, causation is the relation between two events. It holds that when one event will determine and necessitate the second event, it is causation. When the first event occurs, the second must occur by necessity. Blackburn (1996: 59). Jaegwon Kim writes that causation is the relation between cause and effect, which can be an event, or state of an object. Kim (1996: 110).

In Reformed theology as God is infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient, he is reasoned to be the cause of all things. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains that within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). I hold to soft determinism and therefore:

God causes all things, including human actions.

Human beings cause human actions.

Human actions are not forced or coerced by an outside force.

Theological concepts of predestination found in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 work well with the philosophical concept of cause. God causes the elect to follow Christ, and by moulding their hearts in regeneration through the Holy Spirit, simultaneously has elected persons to freely choose God. Therefore persons although predestined, are not coerced or forced to believe.

With the unregenerate, God wills everlasting punishment by not electing persons, and the unregenerate freely choose to sin with a corrupted human nature, and therefore although caused and determined to reject God, persons are not forced or coerced by God to sin and reject God. The unregenerate are simply allowed to exist with a corrupted nature and choices and are judged and punished accordingly.

Within social research methods and statistics, causality is the concern with making causal connections between variables (the attribute in terms where cases differ), rather than the mere relationships between them. Bryman (2004: 537, 545). A relationship between variables would examine the association between two variables, where the variation in one variable coincides with the variation in another. Causality would be looking for what causes the connections between the variables. Bryman (2004: 537, 543). In a questionnaire/survey a variable could be age and another variable could be income. The connections between the statistical findings from the variables would be examined to see what has caused the similar results with the two variables.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

KIM, JAEGWON (1996) ‘Causation’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

End

Thanks to Odd Facts in my satire and theology links for the following:

Black and white twin sisters

If a woman is of mixed race, her eggs will usually contain a mixture of genes coding for both black and white skin.

Similarly, a man of mixed race will have a variety of different genes in his sperm. When these eggs and sperm come together, they will create a baby of mixed race. But, very occasionally, the egg or sperm might contain genes coding for one skin colour. If both the egg and sperm contain all white genes, the baby will be white. And if both contain just the versions necessary for black skin, the baby will be black.

For a mixed-race couple, the odds of either of these scenarios is around 100 to one. But both scenarios can occur at the same time if the woman conceives non-identical twins, another 100 to one chance.

This involves two eggs being fertilised by two sperm at the same time, which also has odds of around 100 to one.

If a sperm containing all-white genes fuses with a similar egg and a sperm coding for purely black skin fuses with a similar egg, two babies of dramatically different colours will be born.

The odds of this happening are 100 x 100 x 100 - a million to one.

Black and white twins: Daily Mail




Black and white ravens (Thanks, Mom)

Please have a look at my previous article. I spent much time on it.

Objections to Christ

Objections to Christ

Preface

This short, non-exhaustive article was originally published on Blogger, 20080801. Serving as a secondary article referenced for a larger entry on academia.edu.

The primary article...

Tuesday, June 18, 2019: The Orthodox Study Bible: The Psalms, types of Psalms and prophecy

I am not an expert on the Hebrew Bible or a linguist. I do take Jewish scholarship seriously. I realize that both Jewish and Christian scholars need to take verses in the Hebrew Bible in the original context. 

Objections to Christ

Bible Hub: Psalm 22: 17 Hebrew (My add)

Psalms Chapter 22: mechon-mamre.org (My add)

Cited

17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. 

18 I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me. 

19 They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.

Why Jews don't Believe in Jesus: Ohr Somayach International

Psalm 22: 17

The Rabbi states:

In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

A Christian response:

Brown

Reply to Objection: First, the verses regarding the piercing are not quoted by New Testament writers, Secondly, the translation of pierced is backed up the Septugint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the translation problem here is not only a Christian problem its also a Jewish problem.

Jewish interpreters claim the Christians have misinterpreted Psalm 22:16 [17] because in the Masoretic text the verse reads ka’ari followed by my hand and my feet. The word ka (like) followed by ari (lion) means like a lion. The imagery here presents the picture of “Like a lion” my hands and my feet are mauled. In the older Dead Sea Scrolls version of Psalms 22 the word is ka’aru meaning, “to dig out” or “to bore through”

So the issue of pierced is not so much a question of the King James translators, as much an issue of Jewish manuscripts. Dr. Michael Brown sums up this argument succinctly,

……….According to Rashi, the meaning is “as though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth.” While the commentary of Metsudat David states, “They crush my hands and my feet as the lion which crushes the bones of the prey in its mouth.” Thus, the imagery is clear; These lions are not licking the psalmist’s feet! They are tearing and ripping at them. Given the metaphorical language of the surrounding verses (cf. vv. 12-21 [13-22]), this vivid image of mauling lions graphically conveys the great physical agony of the sufferer…….

…Where did the King James translators come up with this idea of ‘piercing’ the hands and feet? That’s not what the Hebrew says.” …..

…..Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as “they pierced my hands and feet” (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriach Peshitta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz’u) not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka’aru (not ka’ari, “like a lion”), a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts—recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought—where instead of ka’ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka’aru or karu.

In conclusion, the Dead Sea scrolls agrees with the picture of the pierced Messiah in the 22nd Psalm, verse 16.

The Rabbi also raises concerns with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 14:7.

In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah".

John M. Frame suggests that there is a controversy surrounding the Septuagint and Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7: 14. Frame reasons that the virgin birth event influenced Mathew’s understanding of Isaiah 7:14, rather than the other way around. Frame reasons the prophecy may have been culminated in ways that Isaiah did not expect. Frame (1996: 1145).

Brown cited sources

Jews for Jesus: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2mesin.htm 

Judaica Press Tanach, with Rashi Notes, The Judaica Press, Inc.123 Ditmas AvenueNew York, NY 11218 

Jewish Study Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh Translation, Oxford University Press, 2004, Psalm 2 pgs. 1285-1286 

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 3, Dr. Michael Brown, Pgs. 113-114, Baker Books 2003 Jewish Study Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh Translation, Oxford University Press, 2004, Psalm 22 pgs. 1305 

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Dr. Michael Brown. Pgs. 121-122, quoting from the standard translation of Wiliam G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Homiletical Discourses for Festal Days and Special Sabbaths, 2 Volumes (New Haven; Yale, 1968) 680-81, 685-86, 686-87

---

Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc: Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, suggests:

Pent (This website is no longer available)

Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc: www.goarch.org/-/the-word-almah-in-isaiah-7-14 I found another version.

'The Septuagint, in Isaiah 7: 14 as in other instances, proves to be rather an interpretation of the Hebrew text, although the reading proposed by the Greek version, he parthenos "the virgin," does not conflict with the Hebrew text, for the meaning "virgin" is implied in the Hebrew term ha-‘almah "the concealed one" (betrothed)… In summary, while the Hebrew word betulah "virgin" (Greek parthenos) emphasizes the idea of chastity,[16] the term ‘almah [17] hints at the fact that the young woman so labeled was independent,[18] living alone or with her parents, yet separated from her fiancé or future husband, in a state of seclusion, with little or no public appearances.'

The Rabbi suggests in regard to the Trinity: In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.

In the New Testament, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of three distinctions in one nature and essence. Erickson states that each member of the Trinity is qualitatively the same, and they are divine in the same way. Erickson (1994: 337). The essence of the each member of the Trinity is the same, even if one distinction submits to the other at times. Erickson (1994: 338).

From Erickson’s point, the triune God is one God in nature and essence, represented in three distinctions and therefore is not a three-part God.

Jesus Christ is human, with a human spirit, and is resurrected as such.

Jesus Christ is fully God and God in spirit.

The natures do not mix.

God's infinite, eternal nature has never been altered, and cannot be altered.

The Rabbi states:

"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)

Persons viewed the incarnated Christ.

God was not viewed in his entirety.

It would be impossible for a finite being to fully experience the infinite. It is both philosophically impossible and would result in death to the finite person.

The Rabbi raised some textual issues which Jewish and Christian scholars debate. The Christian positions appear to be supported by some within Jewish scholarship. The theological objections to Christ such as to the Trinity and God being seen face-to-face can be overcome.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1996) ‘Virgin Birth of Jesus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.


Thanks, Jeff.

Jeff made this for his blog, Thoughts and Theology. Jeff has joined me in a Green Lantern anti-blog troll network.

Theism and Deism

Wasdale, The Lake District, England (trekearth)

Theism and Deism

John S. Feinberg states that theism is literally the belief in the existence of God. The term may be recent and a counter to the seventeenth century terms deism and deistic and is used as the opposite of atheist. Feinberg (1996: 1080). Feinberg writes the term theist is used for religious believers and those who hold to certain philosophical and theological positions without necessarily being religious. Feinberg (1996: 1080).

Richard G. Swinburne explains that theism is the idea that there exists a God that is personal, without a body, omnipotent, omniscient, free, and the creator of the universe. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all theists. Swinburne (1999: 562). Swinburne states that God is personal in theism as he acts intentionally to bring about purposes and has knowledge of all things. Swinburne (1999: 562-563).

M.H. Macdonald writes that deism describes an unorthodox religious view expressed among readers in the first half of the seventeenth century, most notably Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Macdonald (1996: 304). Deism is from the Latin for deus, in contrast, to theos from the Greek. Macdonald (1999: 304). Deism is different than theism and is connected to natural religion that thinks religious knowledge is gained through reason and not revelation or church doctrines. Macdonald (1996: 304). There is a belief in a supreme being, but this being is not directly involved in the affairs of his creation. Macdonald (1996: 304). Therefore, the revelation of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament would be denied as actually occurring, and the gospel and related doctrines would be denied. In agreement with Christianity, it would be an understanding of God as the first cause and the creator of universal laws. Macdonald (1996: 305). David A. Pailin, my brief former academic advisor, writes that deism is often in parallel to theism. Pailin (1999: 148).

In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others, it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation, therefore, does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Accepting that human nature is corrupt as described in Romans 1-3, it is very unlikely that the problem of evil would ever be solved but rather merely treated by humanity if deism is true. There would at no time be any solution for sin, death, and the problem of evil since the infinite, omnipotent God would not interfere with his creation and through the gospel regenerate and change individuals in order to eventually establish the Kingdom of God where the problem of evil does not exist. With a deistic universe seemingly sin, death, and the problem of evil continue to exist as long as humanity does. Deism seemingly does not offer any ultimate solution to the problem of evil.

Theists and deists are different and deists could only possibly be considered theists in a sense, as there is a shared belief in a first cause creator that has personal consciousness and purpose in creation. But, for the most part, academically, deists should not be considered theists.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1996) ‘Theism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MACDONALD, M.H. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SWINBURNE, Richard G. (1999) ‘Theism’. in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



Is this a new type of door-to-door pseudo-Christian cultist?

Antichrist

Castle Conwy, 2001

My friend from Manchester, England, Mr. Richard McIntosh recently interviewed Dr. Gary Habermas concerning the resurrection: 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/2008-03_manchester_radio.mp3 

Richard's blog:

http://destructionofgog.blogspot.com/ 

I like Firefox as a second browser, but I find it frustrating that unlike Internet Explorer, it does not present my longer URL addresses properly. I need                                             to fix them almost every time I post as they are cut off! Eschatology is quite a complex topic and this blog article is merely a brief overview of one aspect. It is not exhaustive, nor is it primarily speculating on whom in particular, or what in particular, is the Antichrist. I remember when I was a child that a certain television teacher, that I will not name, kept indicating that the Antichrist could be King Juan Carlos of Spain, and that now seems quite unlikely as Carlos is an older man and seemingly not in charge of a major power block. So, we need to be intellectually cautious and respectful in our speculations. Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John. Again as with previous scans, this is a scan using a small scanner and a huge volume and so the scan is not perfectly straight. 

My apologies. I cannot duplicate the information perfectly with my keyboard and so I use these scans, which are also imperfect. The above is from Strong (1986: 13). Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον, which Strong defines as follows: The above is from Strong (1986: 47).

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225). David A. Hubbard writes that the term antichrist is found only in the Johannine letters. The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either. Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55).

The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist. The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55). In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55). 

In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56). The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56). John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56). If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system. Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). 

But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard. To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following: Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41). Mounce explains that a major problem with this position is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42). 

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient. The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context. The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). 

Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). 

The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealitic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43). W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers. 

I reason North America, Western Europe, and the entire West, is heading toward moral collapse, without some type of revival, and although I am not an economist, an economic collapse seems possible since there is tremendous debt in some Western countries and loss of means of production to Asia in some cases. I have no idea when the Antichrist will arrive, but if we have moral collapse and economic collapse in the Western world, plus a very major disaster or disasters, such as nuclear war, I can see the Antichrist possibly arising in that situation. I reason billions of people largely ignorant of the Biblical God would worship a man and/or system with supernatural powers and the ability to temporarily solve many of the world's evils. The fact that this Antichrist will not be able to raise the long dead and provide persons with everlasting life will be a crucial sign that Almighty God is not represented by the Antichrist, but sadly I reason billions of persons will miss this truth in pursuit of temporal happiness, fulfilment, and survival. Sadly, the conclusion for these persons upon death is the lake of fire in Revelation Chapter 20. The lake may be described figuratively, but the idea of everlasting punishment is indicated in 20: 10.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Strong 500, page 13

Strong 2342, page 87