“I and the Father are one”, what does that mean?

This verse in John 10:30 “I and the Father are one” has been a bone of contention among religious leaders. This has been used as one of the bases for the Trinitarian concept of the “godhead”. To understand this quote one has to read chapter John 10:24-40 regarding the narrative.

From the context of this narrative, the following become clear:

1. The verse does not mean that Jesus and the Father are equal since the “Father is greater than all”.

Also, it does not mean that they have “oneness of power or essence/substance” as other commentators teach. Remember that when Jesus spoke those words, he was still on earth as a man/anthropos, flesh-composed unlike the Father who is spirit-composed, although man-Jesus was an incarnation of Creator YHVH-Elohim or Lord God. Similarly, it does not mean that the Father and man/anthropos-Jesus have the same knowledge of the future, as saith Jesus in Mark 13:32, “that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only”. Man-Jesus did not have that knowledge as the Father

2. To the Jews of that time, the verse meant to them that he, being man, was “like the Father, is also “god”. That seemed to them to be blasphemy, so they picked up stones. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33). While only God the Father should be worshipped, to the Jews of his time, they cannot believe that Jesus also defined “man as god“,(although not to be worshipped). Similarly, in the verse “Before Abraham was born, I am” the Jews again picked up stones to stone him, as they knew part roar he Abraham was older than him. Yet, Jesus defined man as “god”. What is “god”? is a question that has been explained in another post.

3. Rather, the verse to be “one“, clearly meant by Jesus to be about him, having been given the Holy Spirit by the Father at River Jordan, as in Matthew 3:16. This is the empowering spirit that made him “one” with the Father and from then on, miraculous works of man-Jesus came about(and not before). Notice verse John 10:38 “But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Summary

John 10:30 has been used to mean anything but the truth to explain it, but unfortunately, with misinformation. It has also been a foundational teaching to Trinity that has been deconstructed. But, the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth as in John 16:13,

Truly, the presence of the Holy Spirit in Jesus made him “one with the Father as we will be “one” with the Father and his Son-Jesus with the Holy Spirit “in us“. This is the energy/power that will empower us to fulfill the goal in “oneness doctrine“.

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the pioneer/trailblazer towards our salvation from eternal death. And because of him and through him, we will be “one”. As the prophecy in Genesis 2:24 that we “shall be one flesh” , this time with the “ongoing creation” by the Holy Spirit, we “shall be one Spirit”.

God bless🙏😇

Hyperlink version original post: January 25, 2020

Climate Change and the “end of the world”?

Nary a day goes by without being forewarned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to “global warming“. The prospect of global deluge and conflagration leading to “end of the world” is indeed very scary, not only for adults but also for the young generation.

This was highlighted by Greta Thunberg, a schoolgirl climate change warrior with Asperger’s syndrome from Sweden, in her address to the United Nations. Since 2004, so-called “scientists” were pressuring Pres. Bush through the Pentagon to declare an extreme proclamation that “global warming/climate change” is a national security.

Climate Science

The “basics, evidence, impacts and solutions” of climate science have been written and “eventually, entire regions (will) become uninhabitable“, an end-time scenario.

There is 97% consensus on global warming which is overwhelming. But “Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%”

While there are “31,000 scientists (that) say no convincing evidence” to this prediction, this number is questioned by “believers“.

Taking an opposing side, a former NASA scientist, Dr Leslie Woodcock, “laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor.

Similarly, Dr Mark Imisides, an industrial chemist, logically claimed that carbon dioxide can’t cause global warming. He posits that human influence on our climate, “even if we really tried, is miniscule. He continued:”The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.5 septillion) litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 septillion) joules of energy are required. To put this amount of energy in perspective: If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!” He theorized that the reason for change in climate is the same as that for season changes, i.e., the earth’s tilt towards the sun.

Dr Roy Spencer(former NASA scientist) and Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, mocked (no pun intended) this global warming hoax.

The controversy of climate change (global warming) is summarized in a nutshell by Dr James Lovelock, who quipped It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain”.

Where do we go from here?

Not a “denier or believer“, it may well be that the issue is not on the controversial validity of “climate science” championed by those scientists for global warming or those against it? The “root cause” maybe more deep rooted for years. It may well be “religious, not secular” and may properly segue to “who to believe?

It was not long ago, in the 1950’s and 1960’s when there was widespread fear of population explosion and catastrophic events would happen because of the “prophesy/prediction” emblazoned in a best-selling book “Population Bomb” written by Stanford University Professor Paul Erlich and his wife Anne in 1968. It predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth“. Many believed that and responses were China’s one-child policy and India’s two-child policy for population control. Many families in other countries, on their own volition, adopted what was euphemistically called “family planning” which became a “gateway to abortion and what has become a step towards infanticide”. Innovation and technological advances made a mockery of this Malthusian theory.

On a personal note, there was a senior medical student that I met in New York, who decided not to finish medical school because of 1975 in Prophecy written by Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. His argument and justification for his action was, “Why finish medical school when the world will end soon?” The year quickly went by and we were still around. Indeed, an interpretation of Biblical events but still a human prediction, nevertheless.

Upping the ante, so to speak as the Bible has a different take on the future, should people believe humans or God? Could this be a continuing debate between “atheists and theist”? Is “global warming” another in a litany of “doom-and-gloom scenario” that may find itself in the dustbin of history? Will there really be another “global deluge”, this time from melting polar caps due to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect? In contrast, what did God promise mankind?

Noah’s flood

To understand this dilemma, one has to go back to the narrative of Noah’s flood. Didn’t God promise and, even with a rainbow sign, that there will be no more deluge on earth? Yet, are people rejecting this by subscribing to “climate change hoax”? Not really on that basis, according to some religious pundits who believe in “global warming” and advanced the argument that Noah’s flood was entirely about a promise not to have “rain” as a cause of earth’s inundation. Was God’s promise really about the cause or not to have global flood, per se, irrespective of cause?

To analyze this proposition by religious experts, let us go back to the Bible’s narrative of Noah’s flood in Genesis. The following are clear:

1. The flood was a punishment for human wickedness, evil mind and corruption that filled the earth with violence, as in:

Genesis 6:5-7And God saw that the wickednessof man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the faceof the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 6:11-13Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

2. This destruction would be for all life on earth, except Noah and his family, as well as representative living creatures:

Genesis 6:8 “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Genesis 6:17-22 “..,to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you,and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

3. The punishment was: “floodwaters” as in:

Genesis 6:17 “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth…” NOTE: the warning of punishment was about “floodwaters” and

4. The means utilized were “rain” for 40 days and forty nights andfountains of the great deep broken up” to bring this on, as in;

Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Genesis 7:10-12 “And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

5. Here is the promise:waters of a flood

Genesis 8:21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imaginationof man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.(meaning with floodwaters).

Genesis 9:11 “And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

From the preceding verses, one can clearly see that God’s promise was to refrain from using “global floodwaters” to punish humanity as a whole. And, a rainbow became a sign/token that sealed this covenant as in Genesis 9:12-17. This rainbow then served as a sign, not just for global floodwaters coming from rain but any source of future deluge or water inundation.

Summary

Whether a “denier or a believer in climate change”, what is more important is the action one takes for the environment. There is nothing wrong with keeping our surroundings clean as we keep our homes “spic-and-span“. That is just “common sense”. But, as a mandated governmental, or worse, global policy, that then borders on extremism. People have to guard themselves from “false prophets of doom“.

Opponents of “climate science” may just be an expression of extremism from both sides of this divide, that requires suspension of disbelief. People can be “believers or deniers” of global warming/climate change. But, this issue may not be secular in nature after all. It may have roots as to who to believe: human prediction or God’s covenant with humanity. His promise will not be broken and any teaching of “global flood resulting from global warming” is antithetical to God’s ability to fulfill his promise since Noah’s flood.

Herein is the choice: fear human prediction or fear of God? Hopefully and prayerfully, we will have wisdom to discern truth from fiction. Let us therefore fear God because “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Quoting Mark Twain: “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t”.

Floodwaters, deluge or water inundation of earth is a delusion. God promised no more “global floodwatersas punishment for humanity, as a whole. The future punishment is in fact lake of fire“(Gehenna fire). Revelations 20:14-15.

God bless 🙏😇

Original post, Hyperlink Version: January 18, 2020

Dedicated to my friends who passionately believe in climate science.