Monday, September 15, 2025

King David’s Hymnody impacted ancient world

by Damien F. Mackey “Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten”. Facts About Religion There is an abundance of articles, and some YouTube videos, too, drawing parallels between the incredibly alike Psalm 104 of King David of Israel and pharaoh Akhnaton’s (Akhenaten’s) Hymn to the Aton (Aten). The following example neatly tabulates comparisons between these ancient texts: https://factsaboutreligion.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/psalm-104-is-almost-a-duplicate-of-the-egyptian-hymn-to-aten/ Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten. On the wall of a 14th century BCE tomb in Egypt archaeologists found a beautiful hymn to the god Aten. What is really strange is that the Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336) who lived in an era when everyone believed in many gods, chose to believe in only one, Aten. In fact, many scholars have argued that Pharaoh Akhenaten is the earliest documented example of a monotheist in history, though others argue that he was a henotheist (thought many gods existed, but chose to worship only one.) What’s really curious about the Great Hymn to the Aten is that it closely mirrors Psalm 104 in the Hebrew Bible as a song of praise to the creator, though written hundreds of years before. Biblical scholars and historians disagree as to whether these two hymns are actually related by way of influencing one another, or whether both were independently written. In any case, the similarities are fascinating. A logical conclusion could be that King David (c. 1000 BC) was indebted to Akhnaton, more than three centuries before David, for the inspiration to compose his Psalm 104. Some would put it more bluntly. It was a case of plagiarism on the part of the Bible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDI3cMDzqEY Biblical Plagariasm? | Akhenaten’s Hymn to Aten Vs. Psalm 104 | Audiobook And so we must suppose it must have been - that is, until Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky turned things upside down and inside out in his Ages in Chaos (1952) and Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960) reconstructions of ancient history, demonstrating that pharaoh Akhnaton actually belonged to the C9th BC, rather than to the C14th - necessitating now that King David could not possibly have known about Akhnaton and his Hymn, whose advents were still some centuries in the future. From this superior chronological base, Dr. Velikovsky was able most convincingly to identify a succession of Syrian (Amurru) kings approximately contemporaneous with Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) age, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad and his successor Hazael – two mighty Syrian kings well known from the Old Testament. This was an aspect of Dr. Velikovsky’s challenging revision that was very well received. Already, his new revision (written far earlier than today’s so-called New Chronology), was proving itself to be fruitful. See my recent article: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (5) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And it doesn’t stop there. I, building on this far preferable chronology for Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) period, have been able to show that Dr. Velikovsky’s Aziru/Hazael composite was the same ruler as the Syrian ‘condottiere’, Arsa (Irsu)/Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, who invaded Egypt and who overthrew the gods there. AI Overview “The "Arsa (Irsu)" or Aziru mentioned in the Great Harris Papyrus is a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods …”. Dr. Velikovsky had really missed a trick here. From there, it not such a great step to identify the foreign invader, Aziru/Hazael/Arsa, as pharaoh Akhnaton himself who so greatly undermined the national Egyptian gods. And, as one will find upon reading my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (5) Akhnaton's Theophany the new chronology cuts even deeper yet, into the Bible, fully accounting for Akhnaton’s celebrated monotheism – for monotheism (not henotheism, or something else) indeed it was. With EA re-located now to the C9th BC, then the United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon, c. 1000 BC) could be estimated by Dr. Velikovsky to have corresponded in time with the rise of the magnificent Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (c. C16th BC, conventional dating) – in whose later stages we encounter Akhnaton. Relevant for this article is Dr. Velikovsky’s establishing of twin pillars of revision: Hatshepsut as the biblical “Queen Sheba” and pharaoh Thutmose III as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who despoiled the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem shortly after King Solomon had passed away. These twin identifications have had to undergo a rocky ground-breaking of trial and error, however, before they could be securely established as pillars of revision. For Dr. Velikovsky, an intuitive genius who could arrive at right identifications, often took quite wrong paths, adopting spurious methodologies and archaeologies, to get there. Quite the opposite of some of his critics, who, fussing over and analysing minute details, and belabouring the reader with endless charts and numbers, hardly ever seem to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. For my same conclusions as Dr. Velikovsky in these two instances, but with significantly different arguments, see e.g., for “Sheba”: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife (8) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife and: The Queen of Beer(sheba) (8) The Queen of Beer(sheba) While, for “Shishak”, see: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (8) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem That background sets us up, now, to consider Davidic (Solomonic) and biblical influence in the inscriptions of Hatshepsut, who had grown up as a princess in Israel. In my article: Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba I gave the following examples in which biblical wisdom can be glimpsed amidst the stiff and formulaïc Egyptian inscriptions: …. Scriptural Influence (i) An Image from Genesis After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’ …. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie … noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation. Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's ‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ …. with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) …. (ii) An Image from the Psalms When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were com¬pleted, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that …: ‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’. In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues, ‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’. Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer: ‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah. ‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’ (iii) An Image from Proverbs In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom …: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’. Interestingly, the original rôles of Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses's sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal … says ‘Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, I had compared this Egyptian account with the action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10. (iv) Images from the Song of Songs In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts ….: ‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5). [Hyam] Maccoby … went so far as to suggest that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of Sheba/Hatshepsut. Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage (e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby …: l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you, my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl, but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian. 2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman. 3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10). 4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking metaphorically about her country (and her native reli¬gion?) as a ‘vineyard’? The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome politi-cal and religious implications. 5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her. What has been presented here probably represents only a very small portion of Israel’s wisdom influence upon the ancient nations. The only other theme that I shall touch on here, most relevant to King David of Israel, is the notion of the king as shepherd. I have already written something about this in my article: Shepherd King contemporaries of King David (10) Shepherd King contemporaries of King David And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). CONTEMPORARY SHEPHERD KINGS One could describe David’s life during his service to King Saul, as, ‘never a dull moment’. King Saul was indeed a mercurial character, totally unpredictable. Naturally, Samuel had been nervous about visiting Jesse of Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing one of his sons to the kingship (I Samuel 16:1-2): The LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king’. But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me’. Even the wise Samuel had been inclined to judge by appearances (“height”) the worth of Jesse’s sons (v. 6): “When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD’.” But, in an interesting glimpse into the Lord’s thinking, we then read (v. 7): “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’.” Had not Saul himself, who would so miserably fail as king, been a man of the most striking height and appearance (I Samuel 9:2): “Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else”? David, the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons, was not even present (v. 11): “‘There is still the youngest’, Jesse answered. ‘He is tending the sheep’.” It is this characteristic that would mark David’s kingship, ‘tending his sheep’. He was, like Jesus Christ, a true “Shepherd King”, modelling himself upon “the Lord [who was his] Shepherd” (Psalm 22, Douay). Kings at this time (revised) came to describe themselves from this time onwards as Shepherds. For example (Hammurabi Stele): I, Hammurabi, the shepherd, have gathered abundance and plenty, have stormed the four quarters of the world, have magnified the fame of Babylon, and have elated the mind of Marduk my lord. And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, was an older contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon. Rim-sin’s prayerful sentiments can be very David-like – even quasi-monotheistic: “-7......, who is fitted for holy lustration rites, Rim-Sîn, purification priest of An, who is fitted for pure prayers rites, whom you summoned from the holy womb ......, has been elevated to lordship over the Land; he has been installed as shepherd over the black-headed. The staff which strengthens the Land has been placed in his hand. The shepherd's crook which guides the living people has been attached at his side. As he steps forward before you, he is lavishly supplied with everything that he offers with his pure hands. 8-20Your attentive youth, your beloved king, the good shepherd Rìm-Sîn, who determines what should be brought as offerings for his life, joyfully pours out offerings for you in the holy royal cultic locations which are perfect for the cultic vessels: sweet-smelling milk and grain, rich produce of the Land, riches of the meadows, unending abundance, alcoholic drink, glistening wine, very sweet emmer beer fermented with pure substances, pure ...... powerful beer made doubly strong with wine, a drink for your lordship; double-strength beer, superior beer, befitting your holy hands, pale honey exported from the mountains, which you have specifically requested, butter from holy cows, ghee as is proper for you as prince; pressed oil, best oil of the first pressing, and yellow cream, the pride of the cow-pen, for the holy abode of your godhead. 21-26Accept from him with your joyful heart pure food to eat as food, and pure water to drink as water: offerings made for you. Grant his prayer: you are indeed respected. When he humbly speaks fair words to you, speak so that he may live. Guide him correctly at the holy lordly cultic locations, at the august lordly cultic locations. Greet him as he comes to perform his cultic functions. 27-37May his kingship exist forever in your presence. May he be the first of the Land, called (?) lord and prince. Following your commands he shall be as unshakeable as heaven and earth; may he be ...... over the numerous people. May the mother goddesses among the gods attend to his utterances; may they sit in silence before that which he says, and bring restorative life. May he create heart's joy for the population, and be the good provider for their days. May the terrifying splendour that he wears cover like a heavy raincloud the king who is hated by him. May all the best what he has be brought here as their offerings. 38-52The good shepherd Rim-Sîn looks to you as to his personal god. Grant him ...... a life that he loves, and bestow joy on him. May you renew it like the daylight. As he prays to you, attend to his ....... When he speaks most fair words to you, sustain his life power for him. May he be respected ......, and have no rivals. As he makes supplication to you, make his days long. In the ...... of life, ...... the power of kingship. May his correct words be ever ....... May he create heart's joy in his ....... ...... make the restorative ...... rest upon him, the lion of lordship. When he beseeches you, let his exterior (?) ...... shine. Give him ...... life ....... May you bring ...... for his life with your holy words. Hear him favourably as he lifts his hands in prayer, and decide a good destiny for him. 53-69As his life ......, so may it delight his land. Cast the four quarters at his feet, and let him be their ruler. Reclining in meadows in his own land, may he pass his days joyously with you ....... In the palace, lengthen the days and reign of Rim-Sîn, your compliant king who is there for you; whose name you, Acimbabbar, have named, ...... life. ...... the august good headdress. ...... due praise for his life. ...... the throne, and may the land be safe. May satisfaction and joy fill his heart. May ...... be good for his ....... Place in his hand the sceptre of justice; may the numerous people be bound (?) to it. Shining brightly, the constant ...... in his ....... Confer on him the benefit of months of delight and joy, and bestow on him numerous years as infinite in number as the stars in the lapis-lazuli coloured heavens. In his kingship may he enjoy a happy reign forever. 70-85May you preserve the king, the good provider. May you preserve Rim-Sîn, the good provider. May his reign be a source of delight to you. Lengthen the days of his life, and give him kingship over the restored land. For him gladden the heart of the land, for him make the roads of the land passable. For him make the Land speak with a single voice. May you preserve alive Rim-Sîn, your shepherd with the compliant heart. May his canals bring water for him, and may barley grow for him in the fields. May the orchards and gardens bring forth syrup and wine for him, and may the marshes deliver fish and fowl for him in abundance. May the cattle-pens and sheepfolds teem with animals, and may rain from the heavens, whose waters are sporadic, be regular for him. May the palace be filled with long life. O Rim-Sîn, you are my king!” Compare, for example, King David’s Psalm 60 (Douay), otherwise Psalm 61:6-7: ‘Increase the days of the king’s life, his years for many generations. May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever; appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him’. According to Timothy S. Laniak (Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible, p. 63): “By the beginning of the second millennium BC [sic] Akkadian and Amorite kings were using conventional shepherd language to describe themselves”. When David - young, but mature beyond his years - indignant at the mockery being publicly and loudly uttered by the Gath-ite champion, Goliath - ‘defying the armies of the living God’ - was told by King Saul that he was not experienced enough to fight against the Philistine, he will apprise the king of the extreme dangers that he had already faced as a shepherd: ‘When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it …’. Here follows David’s exchange on this occasion with King Saul (I Samuel 17:32-37): David said to Saul, ‘Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him’. Saul replied, ‘You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth’. But David said to Saul, ‘Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine’. Saul said to David, ‘Go, and the LORD be with you’. Young David had been taking supplies from his father Jesse back to his three oldest brothers, and then returning “to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” (vv. 14-19). Now these were the very three sons, the “firstborn was Eliab; the second, Abinadab; and the third, Shammah”, whom Samuel had first considered for the anointing (I Samuel 16:6-9). Yet here they were frozen almost to a standstill in the face of the angry Goliath (“all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified”), while David, the youngest of them, was aflame with indignation. It is a famous story (17:1-11): Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him. Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, ‘Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us’. Then the Philistine said, ‘This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other’. On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified. Eliab, the oldest of Jesse’s boys, the one upon whom Samuel had first fastened, would severely reprimand his youngest brother for intruding into the army’s affairs, also implying that David may have been neglecting their father’s sheep. But we had already been told that David, who was only obeying his father’s instructions, anyway, had “left the flock in the care of a shepherd”. Here follows the feisty David’s exchanges with the Israelite soldiers and with Eliab (vv. 20-31): Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear. Now the Israelites had been saying, ‘Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel’. David asked the men standing near him, ‘What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?’ They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, ‘This is what will be done for the man who kills him’. When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, ‘Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle’. ‘Now what have I done?’ said David. ‘Can’t I even speak?’ He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him. It has been said: “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. King Saul’s armour, which the huge Benjaminite wore easily, was nothing but cumbersome to the smaller man, David. To use another saying, it fell ‘all over him like a cheap suit’. Vv. 38-39: Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. ‘I cannot go in these’, he said to Saul, ‘because I am not used to them’ So he took them off”. Then, it is back to his shepherding experience (v. 40): “Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine”. Christians can regard David’s “five smooth stones”, symbolically, as the five wounds of Christ, and again, with the “sling”, as the five-decade Rosary. Thus Frits Albers introduced his book, “… five smooth stones …” (1998).

Saturday, September 13, 2025

The Bronze Serpent

‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life’. John 3:14-15 Jake Allstaedt has written (2020): https://www.1517.org/articles/jesus-is-our-bronze-serpent Jesus Is Our Bronze Serpent Looking at a bronze serpent on a pole cannot remove deadly venom coursing through your veins. But it can if God says it can. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) is a well-known verse. What isn’t so well-known is the sentence right before it: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15). That short, seemingly obscure reference is a throwback to an event in the life of God’s people, the Israelites, as they journeyed in the wilderness after having been freed from slavery in Egypt. Understanding that story will enrich our understanding of who Jesus is and what He came to do for us. So, what happened? Throughout the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness God took care of them. He gave them bread from heaven and water to drink. God graciously provided for their every need, yet they turned against Him in the desire for something more than what they had: “And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food’” (Numbers 21:5). Oh, there was food and water. God made sure of that. This complaint exposed their selfish discontentment with what they had been given. They were ungrateful, forgetting that they had been rescued from slavery. These gracious provisions weren’t enough; they wanted something more. God gave them something more: fiery serpents. These serpents bit the people and many died. It was because of these serpents that the Israelites realized that they had sinned against God. They asked Moses to pray for them, that God might take away the snakes. Moses did as the people asked and God had mercy on them. He commanded Moses to lift up a bronze serpent on a pole so that everyone who was bitten could look at it and live. Scientifically speaking, that doesn’t even make sense. Looking at a bronze serpent on a pole cannot remove deadly venom coursing through your veins. But it can if God says it can. God spoke. He attached His promise to that bronze serpent and the Israelites looked to it in faith—believing that God would save them through the way He provided. Let’s go back to John 3:14-15: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” Jesus came to this world because deadly venom courses through our veins too. It’s called sin. Adam and Eve, our first parents, were “snake-bitten.” Like the Israelites in the wilderness, God graciously provided for their every need, yet they turned against Him in the desire for something more than what they had. The ancient serpent, Satan, tempted them and they gave in, bringing sin into their lives and into creation itself. The venom of sin has passed from generation to generation. You and I have it. Our kids have it. It’s why you’ll never have to teach your children how to be bad. It’s why our hearts are filled with so much hatred, violence, abuse, racism, pride, selfishness, jealousy, adultery—it’s why we journey through the wilderness of this life often craving something more than what God has graciously provided. We have a sin problem. We’ve inherited it and we commit it. This venom is deadly and it is killing us. But God has mercy on us. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God promised a Savior who would crush the head of the serpent, undoing the deadly consequences of sin, while He himself would be bitten. This Savior, Jesus, the Son of God, was lifted up to death on the pole of the cross. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, he lifted up that which was killing the people. God, in effect, was declaring, “Look! That which is killing you is now hanging on a pole! I have put away the snake and its venom. I have put away your sin. Look to this serpent in faith and live!” Jesus is our bronze serpent—He became that which was killing us! St. Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him (that is, Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus was “snake-bitten” for us. He became our sin on the cross—the sin we’ve inherited, the sins we have committed, and the sins we will commit—all of it hung on the pole of the cross in the person of Jesus. Look! The sin that is killing you is hanging on the pole of the cross! God has put away your sin. Look to Jesus in faith and live! Let’s read the words of John 3:16 one more time: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” God had mercy on Adam and Eve because He loved them. He had mercy on the Israelites because He loved them. Why does He have mercy on you? Because He loves you. One more time: Because He loves you. He loves us so much that, even though we’ve turned against Him, forgetting His goodness and craving more than He graciously provides, He sent His Son, Jesus, to become our sin and die our death to ensure that you will not perish, but have eternal life. That’s love right there. Anyone—anyone—who looks to Jesus in faith will not perish but have eternal life. 14th September, 2025 Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Pope Leo XIV to write a document concerning the needs of the poor

FILE PHOTO: Pope Leo XIV blesses people as he holds a general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, September 10, 2025. REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane/File Photo© Thomson Reuters By Joshua McElwee VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -Pope Leo is preparing to publish the first high-level document of his four-month papacy, which is expected to signal continuity with his predecessor Pope Francis and focus on the needs of the world's poor, three informed sources told Reuters. Pope Leo writing first document on needs of poor, sources say Story by Joshua McElwee The text, known as an apostolic exhortation, will likely take the name "Dilexit te" (He loved you) and be published in the next few weeks, they said. The title of the new text suggests a strong tie with Francis, who died in April after leading the 1.4-billion-member Catholic Church for 12 years. His last major document, an encyclical, was issued in October 2024 with the name "Dilexit nos" (He loved us). Popes often write a document setting out their priorities in the first months of their tenure, but it is unclear if Leo's text will address several themes or focus on one issue. Francis shunned many of the trappings of the papacy. He often hosted meals with Rome's homeless population and frequently criticised the global market system as not caring for society's most vulnerable people. Leo, the former Cardinal Robert Prevost and the first U.S. pope, was elected to replace Francis by the world's cardinals on May 8. Francis' last encyclical, "Dilexit nos," took a different approach from many of his other writings, largely abstaining from talking about political issues and instead focusing on spiritual themes. In that text, Francis urged the world's Catholics to abandon the "mad pursuit" of money and instead devote themselves to their faith. (Reporting by Joshua McElweeEditing by Gareth Jones) Pope Leo writing first document on needs of poor, sources say

Monday, September 8, 2025

Pope Leo canonises “God’s influencer”, first millennial saint

Saint Carlo's online mission gained praise from Pope Francis, who had previously spoken about the need for technology to be in service of "human dignity". The Italian teenager became a saint on September 7. (Wikimedia Commons: Fair Use) The Catholic world has gained its first millennial saint. Saint Carlo Acutis, an Italian teenager who tragically died in 2006, has been canonised by Pope Leo XIV in a ceremony at the Vatican, giving the next generation of Catholics a relatable role model who used technology to spread the faith and earn the nickname "God's influencer." However, the Pope's death on Easter Monday and the subsequent mourning and conclave periods delayed the proceedings. On June 13, Pope Leo announced that Saint Carlo, along with young Catholic author Pier Giorgio Frassati, would be the first saints named in his pontificate. Saint Carlo, who is known as the "saint in sneakers", has been touted as the patron saint of the internet for his work cataloguing miracles and evangelising online. And with Catholicism on the decline in many countries, including Australia, some are hoping a relatable saint will help galvanise the next generation of Catholic youth. Who was Carlo Acutis? Born in London in 1991 but raised in Milan, Saint Carlo loved gaming, computer programming, soccer, Pokémon, and his dog Billy. While neither of his parents were religious before he was born, he identified as a devout Catholic from an early age and devoted his life to sharing his love of Jesus. "There was an unexpected crowd of people from all over Milan; basically, the poor and the homeless," he says. "It became apparent that Carlo had befriended so many of these people." Saint Carlo's body was moved to Assisi's Sanctuary of the Renunciation a year after his death. In 2013, the Archdiocese of Milan opened a formal request to consider him for canonisation. Pope Francis declared him venerable in 2018 — a significant step towards sainthood — and two years later, the church officially recognised a miracle attributed to Acutis. He is believed to have cured a young Brazilian boy with a serious birth defect in 2014. This led to his beatification, the Catholic Church's proclamation that a deceased person has entered heaven and can be publicly venerated. After the beatification ceremony, Saint Carlo's relics and tomb were opened to the public. The young saint's body was encased in wax to preserve his likeness, and he was laid to rest in jeans, a jacket and Nike sneakers. A live stream of the tomb is available to view online. Saint Carlo is believed to be responsible for another miracle: healing a Costa Rican woman after a life-threatening bicycle accident in 2022. On September 7, he was officially canonised and declared a saint. A relatable saint Where most saints throughout history were theologians, missionaries or members of clergy, Saint Carlo broke the mould. "His life shows that a true faith in God, a true faith in Jesus Christ doesn't mean that you don't get to have a normal life and be a normal teenager," Professor Pierce says. Antonia Pizzey, a lecturer in theology at Australian Catholic University, says Saint Carlo speaks to "younger people today". "People who have grown up with the climate crisis, who have grown up with the internet," she says. "I think young people see him and they feel a sense of connection with him." Saint Carlo's methods of outreach inspired other young Catholics, too. In the past few years, several documentaries have been made about him, including one chronicling his influence on young American Catholics making a pilgrimage to the Vatican. This year, three Irish teenage brothers even created a Lego short film about his life. Father Ranson says the young saint demonstrated that "holiness is not something only reserved for the past". "He's such a wonderful example to young people that even as children or adolescents, it's possible to draw close to God and to have a heart that's open to something transcendent." 'God's influencer' Saint Carlo is not the first patron saint of the internet. Saint Isadore of Seville was also given that title by Pope John Paul II in 1997. Born around 1,400 years before the invention of the computer, Saint Isadore was a scholar, theologian and archbishop who meticulously catalogued human knowledge in a 20-volume encyclopedia. However, Saint Carlo, who gained the moniker "God's influencer", is the first saint to have grown up in the internet age. "He had a message; he had work to do even though he was so young, and he felt that he needed to do that work in the [best] way he knew how," Dr Pizzey says. "The internet became a medium for him where he thought, 'I can get this message out and I can engage with people'." While digital evangelism is not new, Dr Pizzey says Saint Carlo's youth and devotion to his cause were "quite unusual". "With his work through the internet, reaching out to people from all over the world, you could say he was actually one of the most extraordinary pilgrims in [how] far he travelled," she says. "[That's] central to the idea of pilgrimage: to go out and to encounter people." Saint Carlo's online mission gained praise from Pope Francis, who had previously spoken about the need for technology to be in service of "human dignity". Professor Pierce says the late pope appreciated Saint Carlo's message: "that [technology and faith] don't need to be distinct, as long as your heart's in the right place".

Monday, September 1, 2025

Jonah may have actually died in the ‘fish’ and gone to Sheol

‘I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God’. Jonah 2:6 We read at: https://www.biblebro.net/jonah-died-in-the-whale/ Jonah Died In the Whale First note that this is not a greatly supported teaching … Like most bible believers, I once believed that Jonah miraculously lived in the belly of the whale for 3 days before he was spit up onto land to warn the people of Nineveh to turn to God. The more I studied the situation and the language, the more I realized that it’s a strong possibility that Jonah died in the whale and was resurrected. Jesus & Jonah Died and Went to Sheol Jonah is a type of Christ. Here’s what Jesus said: Matthew 12:39-40 – “But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them (religious leaders), An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” [Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly] – Yes, a whale’s belly, not just “a great fish” as some insist because of Jonah 1:17. [the Son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth] – Was Jesus alive in the ground? No, and neither was Jonah alive in the whale. Jesus died and went to Sheol, as did everyone who died in those days. …. Jonah 2:1-2 – “Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.” [the fish’s belly] – belly H4578 = the stomach, abdomen, inside or outside part of the belly. Note that this word is different than that used in “the belly of hell”. [the belly of hell] – belly H0990 = the belly, the womb, or of depth of Sheol (fig.). Hell H7585 = š ‘ôl; Sheol, the world of the dead, abode of the dead. In other words, Jonah’s soul was in the pits of hell. [Comment: Sheol was not exclusively hell]. The “belly” here is not describing the whale’s stomach, but Sheol. Jonah 2:6-7 – “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.” [the bottoms of the mountains] – The bottoms of the seas, which were recorded to be the lowest parts of the earth, hence the gates of Hell (Job 38:16-17). In the resurrection of the wicked dead, the seas give up their dead, and so does death and hell (Rev 20:13). Note the connection between the bottoms of the seas and Hell. [the earth with her bars was about me forever] – He was in the eternal place of Sheol where the bars, or “gates of hell” (Matt 16:18) had him locked up. “I was going to stay in hell forever [sic], but you brought my dead body back to life, up from corruption. [thou brought up my life from] – You brought me back from the dead. See Acts 2:27. [my soul fainted] – “I prayed from the whale, passed out, died, prayed from Sheol, and was resurrected.”

Thursday, August 21, 2025

Findings at Göbekli Tepe doing no favours to evolutionary theory

by Damien F. Mackey “But the idea that agricultural amenities spawned religion is making an about-face in light of the fully constructed temple complexes discovered at Gobekli Tepe … in southern Turkey”. Brian Thomas Another insightful article (2012) on the most intriguing of sites, Göbekli Tepe: https://www.icr.org/content/oldest-temple-topples-evolutionists-history-religion Oldest Temple Topples Evolutionists' History of Religion BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. …. "Anthropologists have assumed that organized religion began as a way of salving the tensions that inevitably arose when hunter-gatherers settled down, became farmers, and developed large societies," according to a National Geographic feature in June 2011.1 But the exquisitely carved pillars of the world's oldest known temple, Gobekli Tepe, contradict that evolutionary version of ancient human history.2 Standard evolutionary anthropology—the study of ancient man—insists that humans invented religious worship as they emerged from an ape-like ancestry. Religion supposedly emerged after the development of agriculture provided people with enough free time and close proximity to bicker, thus also providing them with an incentive to invent God and religion. Evolutionary storytellers such as H. G. Wells provided possible reasons why early humans developed religion. In 1939, Wells speculated about Neolithic peoples: Tabu, that is to say primitive moral control, and magic, which is primitive science, are now grouped about the directive priesthood, and an elaborate astronomy fraught with worship, links the plough and the labouring beast and the sacrifice upon the altar with then constellations.3 Similarly speculative, the National Geographic's report on Gobekli Tepe asserted that "those who rose to power were seen as having a special connection with the gods."2 But the idea that agricultural amenities spawned religion is making an about-face in light of the fully constructed temple complexes discovered at Gobekli Tepe (pronounced Guh-behk-lee Teh-peh and roughly translated "potbelly hill") in southern Turkey. The remarkable findings there show that mankind was able to worship from the beginning of the human race. Many mysteries surround the temple site. Nobody knows why the pillars at the complex were buried on purpose, perhaps centuries after their careful construction, or why they depict stylized ornamental patterns, as well as images of birds, snakes, a scorpion, bulls, foxes, reptiles, a man, and even possibly dinosaurs. And no one knows why the pillars were arranged in the four stone circles that excavators have uncovered so far, or why they were built at all. "In fact, nobody really knows how Neolithic man managed to hew these pillars," according to Elif Batuman, who described his visit to Gobekli Tepe in the December 2011 issue of The New Yorker.4 These general questions may never find answers, but these fascinating ruins have clearly rebutted certain evolution-inspired claims about ancient humans. Batuman wrote, "The idea of a religious monument built by hunter-gatherers contradicts most of what we thought we knew about religious monuments and about hunter-gatherers."4 Archaeologist Klaus Schmidt, lead researcher of the excavations, has suggested that perhaps religious worship evolved first, and this development triggered the need for agriculture. But this reversal of the standard evolutionary story only shows that man-made histories are subjective, plastic, and unreliable. Biblical history places the cradle of civilization geographically close to where Noah's Ark landed, near the Middle East's Fertile Crescent that includes parts of Turkey. So, it makes sense that Gobekli Tepe was one of the first building sites of post-Flood peoples. This amazing find vindicates what the Bible has said about mankind all along. The earliest humans were every bit as smart and able as modern ones—perhaps even more so. And according to Scripture, people were made on one day by God and in His image—with all the faculties necessary to imagine, build, farm, and worship. References 1. Mann, C. C. The Birth of Religion. National Geographic. Posted on ngm.nathionalgeographic.com June 2011. 2. Cosner, L. and R. Carter. How does Göbekli Tepe fit with biblical history? Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com July 26, 2011, accessed January 3, 2012. 3. Wells, H. G., J. E. Huxley and G. P. Wells. 1939. The Science of Life. New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1458-1459. 4. Batuman, E. The Sanctuary. The New Yorker. December 19 and 26, 2011: 72-83. ….

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

German archaeologist may have been misrepresenting anthropological data

Top German Archaeologist Accused of Faking Prehistoric Discoveries Axel von Berg was among the world’s most respected archaeologists. Now, his historic findings are being called into question. German Archaeologist Faked Skulls & Fragments As Prehistoric https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbsFMb1tB9k We read at: Top German Archaeologist Accused of Faking Prehistoric Discoveries By Tim Brinkhof December 6, 2024 Axel von Berg, long ranked among the world’s most respected archaeologists, is facing allegations of falsifying some of his most important prehistoric discoveries. Authorities in the German province of Rhineland-Palatinate have launched an investigation into claims that Von Berg misrepresented the age and origins of several artifacts, including a skull he famously identified as Neanderthal in 1997. The controversy began earlier this year, when the Interior Ministry of Rhineland-Palatinate received evidence suggesting a senior employee at the General Directorate for Cultural Heritage had tampered with archaeological findings. A report in the German newspaper Der Spiegel has identified Von Berg as the accused, claiming to have received inside information. According to the publication, an initial investigation by the ministry found that 21 skull fragments had been incorrectly dated, with 18 more potential cases of falsification—involving finds from spearheads to armor buckles—still under review. Von Berg rose to prominence following a 1997 discovery at a volcanic site near the town of Ochtendung, where he claimed to have unearthed Neanderthal skull fragments while the construction workers clearing the site for redevelopment were away for Easter break. “I knew where to look,” he recalled, “but I was also lucky.” After review by prominent archaeologists and paleontologists, the find was celebrated as a breakthrough and covered extensively in scientific journals. In the issue of the journal Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel in which Von Berg detailed his discovery, he described the fragments as coming from a “typical Middle Paleolithic context,” with a French Neanderthal expert concurring with his assessment. Recent investigations, however, have revealed that the skull fragments belong not to a Neanderthal but to a human from the early Middle Ages, making them much less significant. Mackey’s comment: And this may be only the tip of the Axelberg. See also e.g. my articles: Messing with the Neanderthals https://www.academia.edu/82426592/Messing_with_the_Neanderthals Sawing off the jaws of Neanderthals to make them appear more ape-like (6) Sawing off the jaws of Neanderthals to make them appear more ape-like

Thursday, July 31, 2025

St. Cardinal John Henry Newman to be made a Doctor of the Church

Lead, Kindly Light by John Henry Newman (1834) Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom, Lead Thou me on; The night is dark, and I am far from home, Lead Thou me on. Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me. I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou shouldst lead me on; I loved to choose and see my path; but now Lead Thou me on. I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears, pride ruled my will; remember not past years. So long Thy power hath blessed me, sure it still Will lead me on. O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till The night is gone; And with the morn those angel faces smile, Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. Fr. Juan Velez has written (2025): https://www.cardinaljohnhenrynewman.com/st-john-henry-newman-to-be-declared-a-doctor-of-the-church/ St. John Henry Newman to be Declared a Doctor of the Church Today, July 31, 2025, the Vatican published the wonderful news that Pope Leo XIV has approved the future declaration of St. John Henry Newman as doctor of the Church. We are delighted with this news and wanted to share with you even if you learned about it earlier today. We have already posted some blog posts on this topic and will soon publish others. Today we wanted to share the news with you and ask to invite friends to give thanks to God for this news and to follow our weekly podcasts. Here is a link to the news from the Vatican webpage and some words by the journalist Alexandro Carolis: “One of the great modern thinkers of Christianity, a key figure in a spiritual and human journey that left a profound mark on the Church and 19th-century ecumenism, and the author of writings that show how living the faith is a daily “heart-to-heart” dialogue with Christ. A life spent with energy and passion for the Gospel—culminating in his canonization in 2019—that will soon lead to the English cardinal John Henry Newman being proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. The news was announced today, July 31, in a statement from the Holy See Press Office, which reported that during an audience granted to Cardinal Marcello Semeraro, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, Pope Leo XIV has “confirmed the affirmative opinion of the Plenary Session of Cardinals and Bishops, Members of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, regarding the title of Doctor of the Universal Church, which will soon be conferred on Saint John Henry Newman”. The saints give glory to God and teach us how to live as God’s children. We rejoice with the upcoming declaration of Newman as doctor of the Church. …. We read this by Dr. Samuel Gregg, at: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/31/john-henry-newmans-long-war-on-liberalism/ John Henry Newman’s long war on liberalism Saint John Henry Newman’s devastating critique of liberal religion remains even more relevant in our own time. Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on July 30, 2017, and is reposted today to mark the news that Newman has been named a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo XIV. There is truly nothing new under the sun. That’s the pedestrian conclusion at which I arrived after recently re-reading the address given by one of the nineteenth century’s greatest theologians, Saint John Henry Newman, when Pope Leo XIII made him a cardinal on May 12, 1879. Known as the Biglietto Speech (after the formal letter given to cardinals on such occasions), its 1720 words constitute a systematic indictment of what Newman called that “one great mischief” against which he had set his face “from the first.” Today, I suspect, the sheer force of Newman’s critique of what he called “liberalism in religion” would make him persona non grata in most Northern European theology faculties. When reflecting upon Newman’s remarks, it’s hard not to notice how much of the Christian world in the West has drifted in the directions against which he warned. Under the banner of “liberalism in religion,” Newman listed several propositions. These included (1) “the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion,” (2) “that one creed is as good as another,” (3) that no religion can be recognized as true for “all are matter of opinion,” (4) that “revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective faith, not miraculous,” and (5) “it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy.” Can anyone doubt that such ideas are widespread today among some Christians? Exhibit A is the rapidly collapsing liberal Protestant confessions. Another instance is that a fair number of Catholic clergy and laity of a certain age who shy away from the word “truth” and who regard any doctrine that conflicts with the post-1960s Western world’s expectations as far from settled. Yet Newman’s description of liberal religion also accurately summarizes the essentially secular I’m-spiritual-not-religious mindset. At the time, the directness of Newman’s assault on liberal religion surprised people. It wasn’t for idle reasons that the speech was reprinted in full in The London Times on 13 May, and then translated into Italian so that it could appear in the Holy See’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano on 14 May. Everyone recognized that Newman’s words were of immense significance. The newly minted cardinal had hitherto been seen as someone ill at ease with the Church’s direction during Pius IX’s pontificate. Newman’s apprehensions about the opportuneness of the First Vatican Council formally defining papal infallibility was well known. Not well-understood was that concerns about Catholics being misled into thinking they must assent to a pope’s firm belief that, for example, the optimal upper-tax rate is 25.63 percent, didn’t mean that you regarded religious belief as a type of theological smorgasbord. Those who had followed the trajectory of Newman’s thought over the previous fifty years would have recognized that the Biglietto Speech harkened back to a younger Newman and a consistent record of fierce opposition to liberal religion. In 1848, for instance, Newman had lampooned liberal religion in his novel Loss and Gain (1848). One character in the book, the Dean of Nottingham, is portrayed as someone who believes that “there was no truth or falsehood in received dogmas of theology; that they were modes, neither good nor bad in themselves, but personal, national, or periodic.” Such opinions mirror the views of those today who primarily regard Scripture, the Church, and Christian faith as essentially human historical constructs: a notion that invariably goes hand-in-hand with a barely disguised insistence that the Church always requires wholesale adaptation to whatever happens to be the zeitgeist. The end result is chronic doctrinal instability (and thus incoherence) and the degeneration of churches into mere NGO-ism: precisely the situation which characterizes contemporary Catholicism in the German-speaking world. Another of the novel’s characters is Mr. Batts, the director of the Truth Society. This organization is founded on two principles. First, it is uncertain whether truth exists. Second, it is certain that it cannot be found. Welcome to the world of philosophical skepticism, which, Newman understood, is based on the contradiction of holding that we know the truth that humans really cannot know truth. Newman’s antagonism towards liberal religion, however, also reflected another side of his thought that, I suspect, some today would also prefer to ignore. This concerns Newman’s critical view of liberalism as a social philosophy. Newman was fully aware of the ambiguity surrounding terms like “conservatism” and “liberalism.” In his Apologia Pro Sua Vita (1864), Newman specified that his criticism of liberalism shouldn’t be interpreted as slighting French Catholics such as Charles de Montalembert and the Dominican priest Henri-Dominique Lacordaire—“two men whom I so highly admire”—who embraced the liberal label but in the context of post-Revolutionary France: a world which differed greatly from the Oxford and England of Newman’s time. We get closer to the “liberalism” against which Newman protested when we consider a letter to his mother dated 13 March 1829. Here Newman condemns, among others, “the Utilitarians” and “useful knowledge men” whose ideas were propagated by philosophical Radical periodicals such as the Westminster Review. These beliefs and publications were clearly associated with utilitarian thinkers and political radicals such as Jeremy Bentham (the Westminster Review’s founder), James Mill, and, later, John Stuart Mill. In this sense, liberalism was Newman’s way of describing what we today call doctrinaire secularism. This is borne out by the Biglietto Speech’s portrayal of a society’s fate as it gradually abandons its Christian character, invariably at the behest of those Newman calls “Philosophers and Politicians.” Newman begins by referencing their imposition of “a universal and a thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, industrious, and sober, is his personal interest.” Recognizing, however, that utility, pragmatism, and self-interest aren’t enough to glue society together, liberals promote, according to Newman, an alternative to revealed religion. This, he says, is made up of an amalgam of “broad fundamental ethical truths, of justice, benevolence, veracity, and the like; proved experience; and those natural laws which exist and act spontaneously in society, and in social matters, whether physical or psychological; for instance, in government, trade, finance, sanitary experiments, and the intercourse of nations.” But while liberals uphold this mixture of particular moral principles, matter-of-factness and science, Newman points out that they simultaneously insist that religion is “a private luxury, which a man may have if he will; but which of course he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others, or indulge in to their annoyance.” It’s not, Newman says, that things like “the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence,” etc. are bad in themselves. In fact, Newman adds, “there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true.” Nor did Newman adopt an “anti-science” view at a time when some Christians worried about how to reconcile the Scriptures with the tremendous expansion in knowledge of the natural world which marked the nineteenth century. Newman wasn’t, for example, especially troubled by Darwin’s Origin of the Species. As he wrote to the biologist and Catholic convert St George Jackson Mivart in 1871, “you must not suppose I have personally any great dislike or dread of his theory.” What Newman opposed was a problem with which we are all too familiar today. This consists of (1) absolutizing the natural sciences as the only objective form of knowledge and (2) using the empirical method to answer theological and moral questions that the natural sciences cannot answer. In such cases, Newman wrote in his Idea of a University (1852), “they exceed their proper bounds, and intrude where they have no right.” It also fosters a mentality which has seeped into the minds of those Christians who prioritize sociology, psychology, opinion polls, and what they imagine to be the “established scientific position” when discussing what the Catholic position on any subject should be. More generally, Newman argued that it’s precisely because these principles are unobjectionable in themselves that they become dangerous when liberals include them in the “array of principles” they use “to supersede, to block out, religion.” In these circumstances, those who maintain that religion, in the sense of divinely revealed truths about God and man, cannot be relegated to the status of football teams competing in a private league are dismissed as unreasonable, intolerant, lacking benevolence, unscientific, and reflective of (to use the curious words employed in a L’Osservatore Romano opinion piece) a “modest cultural level.” In a word—illiberal. Newman well understood the ultimate stakes involved in the advance of liberal religion and the nihilism it concealed under a veneer of progressive Western European bourgeois morality. It was nothing less, he said, than “the ruin of many souls.” For Newman, there was always the serious possibility that error at the level of belief can contribute to people making the type of free choices that lead to the eternal separation from God we call hell. The good news is that Newman had “no fear at all that [liberal religion] can really do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church.” For Newman, the Church was essentially indestructible. That didn’t mean it would be free of disputation or disruption. Newman himself spent his life immersed in theological controversies. But Newman’s deep knowledge of the Church Fathers made him conscious that orthodoxy had been under assault since Christianity’s earliest centuries. Newman believed, however, in Christ’s promises to his Church. Moreover, Newman ended his Biglietto Speech by stating that “what is commonly a great surprise” is “the particular mode by which . . . Providence rescues and saves his elect inheritance.” Even in times where serious theological and moral error seems rampant, God raises up courageous bishops and priests, clear-thinking popes, new religious orders and movements, lay people who reject liberal Christianity’s mediocrity and soft nihilism, and, above all, great saints and martyrs. Against such things, Newman knew—and we should have confidence—liberal religion doesn’t have a chance.

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Mithras myth, since probably based on Jesus, could not have influenced Christianity

by Damien F. Mackey “Much of what is presumed about Mithras comes from ancient, caption-less pictures and murals, so the vast majority of scholarly work on Mithras is pure speculation.” Bruce Cooper Unsurprisingly, after the extraordinary life of Jesus Christ on earth, there emerged mythological or semi-fictitious figures whose stories were based on Him. One of the most celebrated of these was Apollonius of Tyana of whom I have written: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (6) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction To the emperor Vespasian, a genuine historical person, there were fitted legends that clearly borrowed from the earlier Jesus Christ: Vespasian ‘becoming a god’ (6) Vespasian 'becoming a god' “Now, here we have Vespasian, a late contemporary of Jesus Christ by any estimate, and afflicted with dysentery no less, being re-cast by modern writers as a miracle-working messiah from whose life the Evangelists supposedly compiled their respective portraits of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ”. Even an early fictitious entity, such as: Buddha partly based on Moses (6) Buddha partly based on Moses had Gospel elements added to his evolving story. Thus, as listed by Bashir Ahmad Orchard (1990): https://www.alislam.org/articles/buddha-jesus/ 1. Jesus was born of a virgin without carnal intercourse. (Matth. Chapter 1) – Buddha was born of a virgin without carnal intercourse. (Hinduism by Williams, pp. 82 and 108) 2. When Jesus was an infant in his cradle, he spoke to his mother and said: I am Jesus, the son of God. (Gospel of Infancy) – When Buddha was an infant, just born, he spoke to his mother and said: I am the greatest among men. (Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism, pp. 145-6) 3. The life of Jesus was threatened by King Herod. (Matth. 2:1) – The life of Buddha was threatened by King Bimbarasa. (History of Buddha by Beal pp. 103-104) 4. When Jesus was a young boy we are told that the learned religious teachers were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Luke 2:47) – When sent to school, the young Buddha surprised his masters. (Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism) 5. Jesus fasted for forty days and nights. (Matth. 4:2) – Buddha fasted for a long period. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 28) 6. It is believed that Jesus will return to this world. (Acts 1:11) – It is believed that Buddha will return to this world. (Angel-Messiah by Bunsen, Ch. 14) 7. Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not to destroy but to fulfill. (Matth. 5:17) – Buddha came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 140) 8. Jesus taught: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. (Matth. 5:44) – According to Buddha, the motive of all our actions should be pity, or love for our neighbour. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 249) 9. It is recorded certain of the scribes and pharisees answered, saying, Master we would see a sign from thee. (Matth. 12:38) – It is recorded in the Sacred Canon of the Buddhists that the multitude required a sign from Buddha that they might believe. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 27) 10. It is written in the New Testament that Jesus said: If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and caste it from thee. (Matth. 5:29) – A story is related of a Buddhist ascetic whose eye offended him so he plucked it out and threw it away. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 245) Mohammed follows the same pattern. Essentially arising from the Old Testament, he will ascend into Heaven from Jerusalem (and so on) as Jesus did at the end of his earthly life. On the archaeologico-historical falsity of, not only Mohammed, but also the early Caliphates, see e.g. my article: Let’s not rush into accepting the rash tradition of Islamic Rashidun imperial conquest (6) Let’s not rush into accepting the rash tradition of Islamic Rashidun imperial conquest Mithras (Mithra), a complete fiction like Apollonius of Tyana, is yet supposed by some to have influenced Jesus Christ and the Gospels, as is said of the real Vespasian (2017). Bruce Cooper has well written on this erroneous state of affairs: https://bcooper.ca/2017/10/06/the-roman-god-mithras/ The Roman God Mithras I’ve been listening to a podcast with J. Warner and Susie Wallace where they are discussing why it is that young people are leaving the church. You can listen to it here. I do encourage you to listen to it because it will give you a better appreciation of the repost below and what both Jim and Susie are talking about, the need for evidential facts that support Christianity to be available for our youth, is a reality that cannot be over emphasized. Not only is the need urgent for our youth but in fact, for every Christian, regardless of their age. In the podcast Jim speaks about how a young Christian reacted when she was basically setup by an Atheist that had been invited to speak to their group. The setup had to do with the “supposed” background similarity of the Roman/Persian god Mithras and Jesus. As Jim indicates in the podcast, this “similarity” in background is very prevalent on the Internet and the repost below is an excellent example of why it is necessary to do your homework. ________________________________________ Is Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Mithras Mythology? …. Jesus “mythers” claim Mithras was born of a virgin, in a cave, on December 25th, and his birth was attended by shepherds. Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master. He had twelve companions (or disciples) and promised his followers immortality. Mithras performed miracles and sacrificed himself for world peace. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. His followers celebrated this event each year at the time of Mithras’ resurrection (and this date later became “Easter”). Mithras was called the “Good Shepherd,” was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion, and was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” the “Logos,” the “Redeemer,” the “Savior” and the “Messiah.” His followers celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”) and they celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper”. Mithras, by this description, sounds a lot like Jesus doesn’t he? Most young Christians discover claims such as these while surfing the Internet or sitting in classes as university students. Atheists like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald have written extensively about such comparisons. But while there are a number of pre-Christian mythologies with dying saviors, none are similar to Jesus in any significant way, including the Mithraic mystery religions of Persia and Rome. A significant portion of what we just described about Mithras is simply false. There are two distinct and non-continuous traditions related to Mithras, one coming out of the areas of India and Iran, and another, centuries later in Roman times. Many skeptics have struggled to try to connect these as one continuous tradition, and in so doing, have distorted or misinterpreted the basic elements of the tradition and mythology. Much of what is presumed about Mithras comes from ancient, caption-less pictures and murals, so the vast majority of scholarly work on Mithras is pure speculation. Let’s take a look at the claims we have already described and separate truth from fiction (for another examination of Mithras and many other alleged Christian precursors, please visit David Anderson’s excellent website(currently non-functional). I’ve also done much research on Mithras from the texts listed at the end of this blog post): Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a hole in the side of a mountain (presumably described as a “cave”). He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but the first Christians knew this was not the true date of Christ’s birth anyway, and both Mithraic worshippers and the early Roman Church borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. Shepherds are part of Mithraism, witnessing his birth and helping Mithras emerge from the rock, but interestingly, the shepherds exist in the birth chronology at a time when humans are not supposed to have been yet born. This, coupled with the fact the earliest version of this part of the Mithraic mythology emerges one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament, infers it is far more likely this portion of Mithraism was borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around. Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he was a teacher of any kind, but he was could have been considered a master of sorts. This would not be unexpected of any deity, however. Most mythologies describe their gods in this way. Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible the idea Mithras had 12 disciples is simply derived from murals in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun). Even this imagery is post Christian, and, therefore, did not contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity). Claim: Mithras promised his followers immortality Truth: While there is little evidence for this, it is certainly reasonable to think Mithras might have offered immortality, as this is not uncommon for any God of mythology. Claim: Mithras performed miracles Truth: Of course this is true, as this too was not uncommon for mythological characters. Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace Truth: There is little or no evidence this is true, although there is a story about Mithras slaying a threatening bull in a heroic deed. But that’s about as close as it gets. Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter) Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he ever even died, let alone resurrected. Tertullian did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. Christianity could not, therefore, have borrowed from Mithraic traditions, but the opposite could certainly be true. Claim: Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd”, and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion Truth: There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an association with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say he was associated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is actually post New Testament; Mithraic believers may once again have borrowed this attribute from Christianity. Claim: Mithras was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.” Truth: Based on the researched and known historic record of the Mithraic traditions, none of these terms has ever been applied to Mithras with the exception of “mediator”. But this term was used in a very different from how Christians used the term. Mithras was not the mediator between God and man but the mediator between the good and evil gods of Zoroaster. Claim: Mithraic believers celebrated Sunday as Mithras’ sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”) Truth: This tradition of celebrating Sunday is only true of Mithraic believers in Rome and it is a tradition that dates to post Christian times. Once again, it is more likely to have been borrowed from Christianity than the other way around. Claim: Mithraic believers celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper” Truth: Followers of Mithras did not celebrate a Eucharist, but they did celebrate a fellowship meal regularly, just as did many other groups in the Roman world. From this quick examination of the Mithraic comparisons, it should be obvious Mithras isn’t much like Jesus after all. …. J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity and ALIVE

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Noah and Jonah - not merely didactic fiction

“Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends”. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz While one is free to form one’s own opinion about Noah and Jonah, it always strikes me (Damien Mackey) as surpassing strange when a Catholic priest denies their reality. These, as followers of Jesus Christ, in whose divinity they would be expected to believe, are rejecting as real two biblical characters about whose existence Jesus had no doubts whatsoever, he even selecting the Jonah incident as the only sign that he would provide for his own Resurrection from the dead (Matthew 12:39): “He answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah’.” I once criticised a Dominican priest, for instance, who had claimed in a sermon that The Book of Jonah was “didactic fiction”, that is, a fictitious non-history whose intended purpose is to teach a moral or ethical lesson. * * * * * Kitty Foth-Regner here will likewise insist on the historicity of Jonah and Noah (2020): https://www.everlastingplace.com/eternal-eyes-a-blog-about-forever/were-noah-and-jonah-fictitious-what-difference-does-it-make Were Noah and Jonah fictitious? What difference does it make? …. An old friend of mine recently said she’d been taught that the Bible’s accounts of Noah and Jonah are merely parables that never happened. Is that so? And does it really matter? In a nutshell: No, and quite possibly. These are both historical accounts—real history. And yes indeed, our take on these accounts could have implications for where we each will spend eternity. So let’s take a closer look. (For a deep dive, you’ll need to do some research. Here’s a good place to start.) What does the Bible say? First of all, how does the Bible itself treat these accounts? Fact is, both are verified multiple times throughout both Old and New Testaments. For instance, check out Jesus’ confirmation of the historicity of Jonah in Matthew 12, and of Noah in Luke 17. Yes, many of us have been taught since childhood that Noah and Jonah were just stories designed to teach us--well, something or other. But were our teachers eye-witnesses to these events? Were they more reliable truth-tellers than the Bible’s writers? Than Jesus? Second, to quote virtually every unbeliever since Pontius Pilate, what is truth? I know the accounts of Noah and Jonah sound like science fiction to skeptics. But are they? Or are they simply demonstrations of the supernatural power of the God who created the universe and everything in it? Does “goo to the zoo to you” make more sense? Are supernatural explanations more fantastic than the “goo to the zoo to you” stories we’ve been spoon-fed since childhood? Think about it: We’ve been taught ad nauseam that evolution is fact. But dig into the subject even superficially, and we find that the evidence does not support this theory, that it instead points straight to the supernatural. As a starting point, think back to what we've been told about the origins of this universe, when “nothing that was something” allegedly exploded into “everything.” Where did all that “nothing that was something” come from? What caused it to explode? Where did the space it occupied come from? And how about time--where'd that come from? There is in fact no evidence that would support, via natural mechanisms, the sudden appearance of space, matter, energy and time. There are not even any credible theories being bandied about. Instead, evolutionists pull the “ignore the man behind the curtain” bait-and-switch to turn our attention to fossils (which in truth prove precisely nothing, but that's another subject entirely). Are Noah and Jonah really so outlandish? Now let’s apply our critical thinking skills to these supposedly fictitious Old Testament “stories.” Take the Genesis account of Noah and the global flood, for instance: What is so fantastic about that? We see the geological evidence of it everywhere. Look at aerial photos of the Grand Canyon, and consider what makes more sense – that the “mighty” Colorado River carved the whole thing out, or an enormous flood? (Note that the world’s real-life Chicken Littles are warning us of global catastrophe due to gas-ridden cows and plastic straws, and heads of state worldwide somehow find that perfectly reasonable. But not the Genesis flood.) Damien Mackey’s comment: Conservative biblical apologists may not be helping the situation by insisting upon a global Flood, because: Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood (10) Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood and Noah preparing an Ark full of, not only every type of animal, but dinosaurs as well! Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Or leap over to the book of Jonah. Is it really impossible for a man to be swallowed by a great fish and survive for three days? Certainly not when the Creator of the universe is in charge; Jesus Himself said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). To be sure, there are stories out there of modern-day Jonahs being swallowed by whales. I don’t know that any have been confirmed, however. Damien Mackey’s comment: February 2025: https://www.escape.com.au/destinations/south-america/horrifying-video-captures-kayaker-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile/news- Horrifying video captures kayaker being swallowed by humpback whale in Chile A kayaking trip took a shocking turn when a humpback whale swallowed a paddler, with the terrifying moment caught on camera. Watch the video. Adella Beaini A kayaker in Chilean Patagonia had a heart-stopping encounter when a humpback whale briefly swallowed him before swiftly spitting him back out. The incredible moment was captured on camera and has quickly gone viral on social media. Last Saturday, Adrián Simancas was paddling alongside his father, Dell, in Bahía El Águila near the San Isidro Lighthouse in the Strait of Magellan when a massive humpback whale suddenly surfaced. In an instant, the whale engulfed Adrián and his bright yellow kayak, holding him for a few seconds before releasing him unharmed. Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Most likely, Jonah’s experience was a one-time supernatural event. Do one-time events need subsequent repetition to be proven true? If so, then hmmmm, how come all those evolutionary scientists are still trusting in the Big Bang theory? What's the problem? The trouble is that skeptics insist on trying to assign natural causes to supernatural events. That’s simply not necessary when the miraculous is not only possible, but in evidence everywhere we look. For proof, check out your children and grandchildren. How did those eyes evolve, one step at a time? How did their circulatory systems come to be, bit by bit? How about their immune systems? Their ears? GI systems? Brains? Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Poof! …. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz has written (2022): https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/352682/noah-jonah-and-life-after-catastrophe/ Noah, Jonah, and Life After Catastrophe The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The very name “Jonah” itself suggests a link; the Hebrew word for Jonah is “Yonah,” or dove, which is the type of bird that Noah sent out of the ark to see whether the flood was over. Thematically, there are contrasts and parallels. Noah is commanded by God to take refuge in a boat, as protection from God’s wrath; Jonah defies God’s command, by fleeing in a boat from God’s mercy. There are multiple other similarities, including how characters offer sacrifices after being saved, the counting of forty days to destruction, and how gardening takes center stage at the end of the story. It is clear that the Book of Jonah is meant to be read with the story of Noah in mind. What is the meaning of these literary connections? At first glance, Jonah is the anti-Noah. Noah is devout, while Jonah flees God’s calling; Jonah is even willing to sacrifice his life to defy God. Noah saves a remnant of the world from destruction, and although Jonah does save Nineveh in the end, he makes it clear that he would prefer Nineveh to be destroyed. Noah saves a menagerie of living beings by bringing them on his ark, while Jonah endangers an entire boat with his presence; the boat is safe only after Jonah is cast into the sea. Jonah could be dismissed as a rogue prophet who has turned his back on God and man. And the Book of Jonah is merely a repetition of the story of Noah, a reminder that the way of destruction is not the way of God. This interpretation misunderstands Jonah’s motives. Jonah is actually a prophet of justice who finds inspiration in the story of the flood, when a world of wickedness was washed away. Jonah is principled in his desire to punish the evil-doers and segregate the righteous from the unworthy. The flood, he believes, is the best blueprint for a human future. But Jonah is not a reactionary who conveniently forgets the end of the flood story; he knows that after the flood God promises that “never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood,” and designates the rainbow as the symbol that “never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” However, Jonah understands this divine promise as a concession to reality, a pragmatic necessity, to prevent the world from being destroyed on a regular basis. As Don Isaac Abravanel puts it, without God’s forbearance, “it would be necessary to have a flood every year, even perhaps every month,” due to humanity’s sins. God’s covenant of the rainbow does not undermine the importance of justice. Damien Mackey’s comment: Regarding Abravanel, see my article: Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? (11) Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz continues: Jonah offers a clear answer to one of the most difficult questions in the Noah narrative: what was the purpose of the flood? God sent the flood because “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). Yet, after the flood, the Torah explains that the reason why there will never be another flood is because “every inclination of the human heart is evil” (Genesis 8:24). The identical rationale is given for why God brought the flood, and why He promises never to repeat the flood. If humanity is equally evil both before and after the flood, what exactly did the flood accomplish? Jonah would answer that the flood is a constant reminder to humanity that we are fundamentally unworthy. Even if God can’t destroy the world again, we need to recognize that this is merely a loophole, letting humanity off the hook from a punishment they actually deserve. …. This is why Jonah finds God’s command to save Nineveh both unbelievable and unpalatable. Why save the wicked from destruction? If it weren’t for technical problems, destruction would and should be the norm. It is worth noting that Nineveh is built by Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who is cursed and rejected by Noah. Jonah may be following in Noah’s footsteps by rejecting the wicked descendants of Ham, while at the same time fleeing to Tarshish, the descendent of Noah’s blessed son Jephet. Jonah can very well claim that he is carrying on Noah’s legacy, cursing the wicked while blessing the good. Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends. …. The next article was written this year, 2025: https://www.harryfreedmanbooks.com/blog/what-do-jonah-and-noah-have-in-common/ What do Jonah and Noah have in Common? There is a remarkable correspondence between the biblical story of Noah and the Book of Jonah. The clue lies in the name Jonah, meaning dove in Hebrew. The dove, of course, is the bird that Noah sends out of the ark to discover whether the flood waters have dried out. But the connections between the two tales are far greater than just this. Noah is told by God that the world is about to be destroyed in a flood. He is commanded to build an ark to save himself, his family and the animal kingdom. He obeys the command, builds the ark and spends the next year peacefully floating above the flood. He is safe from the stormy waters. Jonah is told by God that Nineveh, the greatest city in the world, is to be destroyed. Even its animals will be wiped out. He is commanded to travel there and urge its inhabitants to repent. Unlike Noah he disobeys the command, runs to Jaffa and boards a boat. Unlike Noah, his time in the boat is not peaceful. The boat is buffeted by a storm, Jonah realises it is his fault and he is ejected into the water. The motifs of destruction, water, storms, boats and God’s command in the Noah story are reversed in the Jonah narrative. Jonah is swallowed by a great fish. A rabbinic midrash (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 10) says that a pearl in the fish gives him light. Noah is told to place a tzohar, translated as a light, into his ark. Another midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 31,11) explains it was a light emitting gem. The rabbinic commentaries seem to be drawing a parallel between the inside of the fish and the interior of the ark. According to the Midrash in Pirkei d’ Rabbi Eliezer, this is the third mission Jonah has been sent on (The first is recounted in the Second Book of Kings, 14,23). The dove in the Noah story is also sent out three times. After three days inside the fish, Jonah is spewed out onto dry land. He is about to conclude his third mission. The dove concludes its mission when it finds dry land. When Noah does reach Nineveh and delivers his message the king proclaims a public fast. Even the animals are to fast. They too will be saved, just as they are in Noah’s ark. These are just a few of the parallels and contradictions between the two stories. There are many more. The stories are also linked by common language, using the same Hebrew words in each narrative. In both stories God says that the people’s wickedness has come before me. In both the Noah and Jonah narratives God sends a ruah, a wind, to whip up the water. Noah’s rain falls for forty days. Jonah is told to proclaim to Nineveh that the city will be destroyed in forty days. God regrets making man. After the people of Nineveh repent he regrets his threat to destroy them. The question of course is why these stories seem to be connected. Did the author of Jonah want his readers to be reminded of Noah when they read the book? If so, why? Perhaps the solution lies in the plants. The dove completes its mission positively, showing Noah that the land is dry, by bringing him a leaf from an olive tree. Jonah completes his mission negatively, angry that after all his travails the city was not destroyed. He sits in the baking hot sun, hoping to die. When God makes a vine grow over him, he is glad. When the vine withers he becomes angry. God asks him why he pitied the vine but could not pity the city. The episode with the vine seems to symbolise Jonah’s petulance. Both the Noah and Jonah narratives demonstrate that the wicked will not prosper, that God has mastery over the world. Perhaps the author of the book of Jonah wants to remind his readers that the threatened destruction of Nineveh was not the only time that the wicked faced divine judgement. And uses the parables of the plants to show his readers that the humble obedience of the dove, performing his mission quietly and diligently, is preferable to the petulance of Jonah.