The Logic of Christianity 9: The Justice Link: Crucifixion

DID JESUS RECEIVE JUSTICE? One of the three major genres of rhetoric, according to Aristotle, is JUDICIAL RHETORIC. Here, Aristotle asserts that LOGOS (or logic) is the major proof used to persuade a judge or jury that JUSTICE has been or will be enacted.

If the Transfiguration is the Missing Link in the Logic of Christianity, the Crucifixion and Resurrection combine to form the Key Links. The Transfiguration account is referred to in more parts of the New Testament than Jesus’ birth, pre-existence, baptism, genealogy, Ascension, miracles, parables, healings, Great Commission, Last Supper, childhood, or even his mother Mary. His Lordship, Messiahship, and Twelve Apostles (although, often, only two of them by name) are mentioned in more parts of the New Testament than the Transfiguration, but these are not events (as is the Transfiguration). Only two historic events receive mention in more parts of the New Testament than his Transfiguration: his Crucifixion and his Resurrection. In my next post, I will consider the key logical link of the Resurrection. This post, however, will focus on the key logical link related to the ISSUE OF JUSTICE: the CRUCIFIXION. This, then, is Judicial Rhetoric.

The term “crucify,” along with its cognates, is mentioned in all 4 gospels, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation and four of Paul’s letters (I and II Corinthians, Romans , and Colossians). An additional five letters of Paul (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, II Timothy, and I Thessalonians), plus I Peter, use a cognate of the term “die” to refer to Jesus’ death. Another Pauline letter, I Timothy, speaks of Jesus before “Pontius Pilate.” The book of James mentions the “killing” of Jesus. I John speaks of our redemption through the “blood” of Christ. Other (short) New Testament books just appear to take it for granted that Jesus died by crucifixion. No New Testament book appears, in any way, to dispute his Crucifixion. Even though we have not yet thoroughly established the logical link that the New Testament is fully inspired and trustworthy in every respect (which we will get to, in time), this textual evidence shows virtually unanimous support from the writers of the New Testament for the proposition that Jesus was indeed crucified. He died one of the cruelest deaths of any human. Jesus was mortal.

You may ask, “Why does this matter?” Well, to begin with, there were early heretics, according to Charles S. Clifton, “particularly Gentile converts [who] refused to believe that Jesus had a mortal body, a position that has come to be known as Docetism . . . . The Pagan gods . . . had occasionally appeared in mortal form and vanished when their purposes were accomplished; with them there was no death and resurrection . . . . To these Christians [heretics], who included many of the so-called Gnostics, the crucifixion was only a show, a hallucination projected to observers. It was unthinkable that a divine being could physically suffer and die” (Clifton, Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, xii). Clifton continues later: “The reverse of Docetism might be said to be those explanations of the crucifixion that claim that Jesus himself was not crucified but died a normal death at some other time and place. Parts of the New Testament appear to have been written to counter Docetic teachings . . . . [I John] 4:2-3 . . . says, ‘This is how we may recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which does not thus acknowledge Jesus is not from God.’ Likewise, . . . [II John] says, ‘Many deceivers have gone out into the world, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. . . . If anyone comes to you who does not bring this doctrine, do not welcome him into your house or give him a greeting; for anyone who gives him a greeting is an accomplice in his wicked deeds.’”

Following the Logic of the Transfiguration as I presented it in my previous post: Jesus, while personally earning eternal life by living a perfect life, refused to accept the immortal “form” (i.e., like “God’s” immortal “form” [Philippians 2:6-8]) and returned to the “form” of a human/servant who was capable of death (being mortal). He was obedient to death—even the death of the cross. The Transfiguration was the ULTIMATE PROOF that Jesus was RIGHTEOUS. Jesus did not sin at any point in his life.

There are other INNOCENT humans who die, however. Couldn’t the death of one of these other “innocents” have sufficed as a sacrifice? Babies, according to Jewish (Rabbinic) and Christian (New Testament) teachings are “innocent.” That is to say that THEY HAVE NO SIN CHARGED AGAINST THEM. Setting aside, for the moment, the Catholic doctrine of “original sin,” which prompts the Catholic Church to baptize babies to secure forgiveness for their sins, the dominant Judeo-Christian view at the time of the New Testament was that babies were innocent. According to Rabbinic Judaism, it was necessary for an individual to have both the good and evil “inclinations” in order to be held accountable for sin (and for that matter, to be deemed righteous for passing the test/temptation). The rich young ruler, with whom Jesus interacts regarding eternal life in Luke 18:18-21, insists that he has kept the “commandments” from his “youth” up. It is possible (perhaps, probable) that he means from the time of his bar mitzvah forward. Hebrews 4:15 asserts that Jesus himself was tempted in every respect, as we are, but was without sin. We know nothing, however, about the childhood of Jesus. After the birth narratives, there is no discussion of Jesus’ actions until we near his bar mitzvah. Luke picks up the narrative again, in 2:41, when Jesus was age twelve. Why was Jesus taken to Jerusalem when he was twelve? Why didn’t Mary and Joseph wait until he was thirteen, the appropriate age for a bar mitzvah? The Mishnah supplies the answer in Yoma 8:4: “Young children [anyone just born through 13 years for boys and 12 years for girls] are not made to fast on Yom Kippur, but we should train them a year or two before [they reach age 13, for boys, 12 for girls], so that they become used to (the observance of) commandments.” I encouraged my four children to be baptized immediately following the 12th birthday of my daughters and the 13th birthday of my sons. As I understand Jewish and New Testament teachings, they were innocent before those ages.

A second category of “innocent humans” who die follow the Isaac pattern. Isaac had just reached the appropriate age for a bar mitzvah. Theoretically, he was still sinless, but was responsible for any sin after that time. The same theology allows Jewish writers to tell a story of a “lass” [a young girl age 12] being righteous in one temptation following her “youth” and being awarded eternal life. Since the “lass” possessed only the “evil inclination” prior to her twelfth birthday, any selfish behavior committed prior to this time must NOT have been considered “sinful.” This is precisely the view (the sinlessness of children) that prevailed at this time of the New Testament. Even the second book of Maccabees 8:4 speaks of the “sinless infants.” And the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4) agrees, concerning the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). It is a simple deduction that, if little children are not required to participate in the yearly atonement exercise, they must not be held guilty of any “sins” for which they would need atonement. Jesus corroborates this view of sinless children when he commands his disciples to “suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-14; Luke 18:15-16;). In Mark 10:15, Jesus elaborates: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.” While many interpretations of this comment have been offered, it is possible that he is saying that one must be innocent, as a little child is, to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew’s version of this comment (Matt. 18:1-6) puts it this way: “In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, ‘Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such child in my name receiveth me: But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.” In Matthew 21:15-16, Jesus comments on the fact that children were shouting, “Hosanna to the son of David,” as Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Jesus cites saying: “Did you never read ‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise’?” Alluding to Psalm 8:2 (“Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings has thou established strength”), Jesus appears to be confirming a point I made in my previous post on the Transfiguration: “The only ways that God still spoke freshly to humans, for Rabbinic Judaism, were through children, fools, and the Bat Qol (or mysterious voice from Heaven).” It seems that both children and fools were considered innocent, because they lack the good inclination. Therefore, the Holy Spirit (which inspires prophecy) is able to dwell inside these humans—they are innocent—in the same logical move that prompted Acts 2:17-18 to report that (after Jesus’ death and resurrection) “the Spirit” could be “poured out” on all flesh. Once Jesus’ death provided the forgiveness, the “innocent” believers could receive the Holy Spirit. Apparently, the death of neither children nor those who remain innocent for a short while following their bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah will suffice as an appropriate sacrifice for the sins of the world. Otherwise, Isaac would have been an appropriate sacrifice.

So, we come to Jesus of Nazareth. Of what sin was Jesus guilty? A few charges were floated: 1. “Sedition” against the Roman Empire (the official charge pertaining to his crucifixion), 2. Violating the Sabbath (by healing and harvesting grain; hence, working on the Sabbath), 3. Blasphemy, and 4. Not showing proper respect to the High Priest

SEDITION: While no term for “sedition” (STASIS, DICHOSTASIA, OR STASIAZO) is ever used to charge Jesus for a crime in the New Testament, one or another of these terms is applied variously to Barabbas, Paul, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and others. Paul is accused by his Jewish opponents of fomenting sedition against Rome, but he is never actually accused of taking up arms against Rome, as is Barabbas. Yet, the sign that hung above Jesus on the cross stated “King of the Jews” in three different languages. Clearly, the justification that Rome used for killing Jesus was that he was leading a revolt against Rome. Yet, Jesus rebuked Peter for drawing his sword and severing the ear of a guard who came to arrest Jesus. Jesus healed the wound. Indeed, to the frustration of modern-day Christians who surely see in the Old Testament their right to use weapons, and even kill, in self-defense (Exodus 22:2) and who see Moses killing an Egyptian to defend an Israelite, the behavior and teachings of the Prince of Peace were totally non-violent. Never mind that even Abraham led his household and others in war against the invaders from Mesopotamia who attacked his nephew, Lot, and rescued him from their grasp. For this act of war, Melchizedek “blessed” Abraham and Abraham paid Melchizedek a tithe from the booty. Yet, Jesus was not even a self-defense war monger (although he did permit his disciples to be armed with swords, apparently). Jesus told his followers to “love their enemies,” to “turn the other cheek.” No reputable evidence exists that Jesus was fomenting sedition against Rome. To the contrary, when Jesus was confronted by his enemies with the “gotcha” question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?”—an attempt to prove that Jesus was seditious because he would oppose paying the required tax to Rome—he asks for a coin, observes that the “image” on the coin is of Caesar, and probably alluding to the fact that man is made in the “image” of God—he ingeniously replies: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17). Translation: Give your money (with Caesar’s image) to Caesar, but your life and body (with God’s image) to God. There is no sign of Jesus mounting a revolt against Rome. Even though he readily confessed to Pilate that he was a “king,” he quickly stipulates that his kingdom is not of this world. Jesus was not seditious. But, even if he were mounting a revolt against Rome, that would not have been a SIN! Jesus is not guilty of a sin, here.

BLASPHEMY: Even James Still, who writes a blog hostile to Christianity in which he argues that Jesus was politically seditious against Rome admits: “It was not blasphemous to declare oneself a ‘Messiah’ or a ‘Son of God’ any more than it would have been to claim to be an angel. The Pharisees who composed the majority of the Sanhredrin would dismiss such a charge at once since blasphemy could only be applied to anyone who claimed to be God Almighty. Jesus' declaration that he was a Messiah, merely referred to his earthly desire to ascend to the throne of David--an act of sedition against Rome surely, but not one of blasphemy.” http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_trial.html

Jesus certainly does claim to be the SON OF GOD. This position is argued in various ways in the New Testament. Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 1 both present birth narratives in which Jesus is the Son of the Most High/God via Mary’s virgin birth, after she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. While Mark begins his gospel at Jesus’ baptism and does not include a birth narrative, Mark 1:1 speaks of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. The Gospel of John actually traces Jesus’ existence to the LOGOS that became flesh and dwelt among us. That LOGOS, according to John 1:1 was WITH GOD in the beginning and WAS GOD. Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Even though Hosea’s prophecy originally applied to Israel, Matthew extends it to apply to Jesus after his infancy flight to Egypt to escape Herod. At Jesus’ baptism, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, and Luke 3:22 report God stating (in the Bat Qol): “This is My beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” John 1:34 has John the Baptist testify: “I have seen and bore witness that this is the Son of God. Immediately following his baptism, Matthew 4:3-6 and Luke 4:3-9 present Jesus’ 40 days of fasting and temptation in the wilderness with Satan saying, “If you are the Son of God . . . .” Matthew 8:29, Mark 5:7, and Luke 8:28 have the Gadarene/Gerasene demoniac/s (and Mark 3:11 and Luke 4:41 have other demon possessed) proclaim that Jesus is “Son of God.” John 1:49 quotes Nathanael as saying “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.” Matthew 14:33 records Jesus’ disciples concluding, after the calming of the sea, “Truly, you are the Son of God.” Matthew 16:16 supplies Simon Peter’s Great Confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” In one of the most famous New Testament verses of all, John 3:16 states: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son . . . .” and John 3:18 stipulates that to be saved one must believe “on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 5:25, 9:35, 10:36, and 11:4 have Jesus stating that he is the Son of God. In John 11:27, Martha, the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead, confesses “Yes Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God. Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35, and II Peter 1:17 report God, at the Transfiguration, stating (in the Bat Qol): “This is My beloved/chosen son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” When High Priest Caiaphas questioned Jesus in an attempt to condemn him, Matthew 26:63-64 and Luke 22:70 provide the exchange: “’Tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus replied: ‘Thou sayest.’” John 19:7 has the Jewish chief priests demanding that Pilate crucify him because “he made himself the Son of God.” While Jesus hung on the cross, mockers, according to Matthew 27:40-43, derided Jesus, saying, “He said, “I am the Son of God.” Mark 15:39 tells us that the centurion who witnessed Jesus’ death on the cross exclaimed, “Truly, this man was the Son of God.” In John 20:31, the gospel writer states that he has written his words “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” In Acts 8:37, the Ethiopian Eunuch offers up the good confession—“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”—prior to Philip baptizing him. In Acts 9:20, the Apostle Paul, after his Road to Damascus experience, begins proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God. An example of Paul’s preaching this creed is found in Acts 13:33, citing the second Psalm: “Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.” If Luke’s account of Paul’s belief is insufficient, Paul’s own writings (Romans 1:3-9, 5:10, and 8:3 and 29-32, I Corinthians 1:9, II Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 1:16, 2:20, and 4:4-6, Ephesians 4:13, and I Thessalonians 1:10) corroborate the fact. Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 cite the same Psalm 2 that Acts 13:33 had quoted Paul preaching: “Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, and 10:29 reiterate the claim, as do I John 1:3-7, 3:8 and 23, 4:9-15, 5:1-20, II John 3, and Revelation 2:18.

This is the claim made not only by Jesus, but also by many others: that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. The question is: Is making such a claim “Blasphemy”? Not even James Still, who writes a blog hostile to Christianity, believes that. Even if Jesus were the biological son of Mary and Joseph, Jesus points out from Scripture that there would be nothing wrong with a human claiming to be the Son of God. Jesus is quoted in John 10:33-36 as clearly implying that the term “sons of the Most High” (from Psalm 82:6—a passage I discussed in an earlier blog post, Angels & Demons 13: Who Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis?) refers to “human judges.” Human judges are even called “gods/ELOHIM” in both Psalm 82:6 and Exodus 22:28. Jesus was making the point that it was not blasphemous for him to be called either “god” or “son of God,” if even human judges could be called “gods” and “sons of the Most High.” In that same earlier blog post, I was pointing out that the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6, often mistaken as a reference to angels, is actually a reference to humans. With these multiple biblical references to humans as “sons of God,” there is nothing blasphemous in Jesus calling himself “Son of God,” even if Jesus were the biological son of Mary and Joseph. Jesus is not guilty of blasphemy.

Is making such a claim a “sin”? Only if it is a lie. Among the Ten Commandments is the prohibition against “bearing false witness.” Essentially, if Jesus, his disciples, the Bat Qol, John the Baptist, the evangelists, Paul, and the authors of Hebrews, I and II John, II Peter, and Revelation were all bearing false witness, they would ALL have been sinning. The logic of Christianity says that is not the case. These multiple witnesses (which include God, Himself, in the Bat Qol) assert that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

VIOLATING THE SABBATH: Another commandment from the Decalogue is the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11): “8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

What, then, constitutes “working” on the Sabbath? During the Exodus, the Israelites were commanded to harvest an extra portion of MANNA on Friday, so that they would not be harvesting on the Sabbath. Nehemiah 13:15 states: “In those days saw I in Judah [some] treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all [manner of] burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified [against them] in the day wherein they sold victuals.” It seems, by these examples, that “harvesting” and “selling” are considered work that violates the Sabbath. Actually, Jesus’ disciples are accused of “harvesting” on the Sabbath, but not Jesus. Mark 2:23 reports: “23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” Matthew’s version of this account is found in Matthew 12:1-8. Luke’s version of this account is found in Luke 6:1-5. Jesus does not PERSONALLY harvest on the Sabbath, but neither does he condemn his disciples for doing so. His argumentation is presented in the Mark account. Nowhere do we find an Old Testament situation in which “healing” or “saving” an individual is forbidden on the Sabbath. Yet, the gospels present narratives in which Jesus heals on the Sabbath (and even tells one of his healed persons to “take up his bed and walk” on the Sabbath). Jesus argues: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to destroy it?” (Luke 6:9). Luke 14:5 presents Jesus as arguing: “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?” Matthew 12:11 substitutes a “sheep” for the animals who fell into a pit. Luke 13:15 presents Jesus as continuing the analogy: “Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?”

DISRESPECT FOR THE HIGH PRIEST: Did Jesus sin by disrespecting the High Priest? You be the judge. John 18:19-23 gives the account: “The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.’ 22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, ‘Is that how you answer the high priest?’ 23 Jesus answered him, ‘If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?’” Beyond the fact that this exchange did not suggest any disrespect, Caiaphas was not even a legitimate High Priest. I point out on page 27 of my book Revelation: The Human Drama: “It was common knowledge among Jewish leaders that the High Priestly family was indebted to Herod's family for its prestige and power. Antipas' father, Herod the Great, had deposed the then-current (Hasmonean) High Priestly family in the years preceding Jesus' birth. In its place Herod (the Great) had installed a High Priest from among the Jews of the Babylonian Diaspora (those Jews who had been ‘carried away’ into Babylon in the sixth century B.C. and who had not yet returned to Palestine). It is possible that the term ‘Babylon’ in Revelation and I Peter is a code word for this High Priestly family and/or Jerusalem, the city controlled by the (Babylonian?) High Priestly family.”

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT JESUS COMMITTED ANY SINS. To the contrary, there is the evidence of the Transfiguration that Jesus lived a perfect life. So, did Jesus receive JUSTICE? The best definition of “justice” that mankind, throughout history, has ever been able to formulate is called the LEX TALIONIS (An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life). It means that an individual who has injured another may be punished only to the degree s/he has injured. It is found in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 24:19-21, and other places). But it is also found in the ancient Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian law code carved in stone from about 1750 B.C. It served not as a “requirement” that someone be avenged to the same degree as the injury; rather, it was the maximum “limit” of revenge (or reTALIation—a word stemming from the same root as TALIonis) that could be exacted. This would be the full extent of JUSTICE. Therefore, if Jesus committed no sins, no injuries to anyone, JUSTICE could not allow him to even be KILLED, much less be CRUCIFIED! Indeed, true JUSTICE for a person who committed no sins would be something like the TRANSFIGURATION, which Jesus was offered but did not seize hold of. One might guess that Elijah, Enoch, and (perhaps) Moses were offered this sort of JUSTICE. Of those three, Enoch was the only one to live prior to the Law of Moses, so it is easy to argue that (since he was living under fewer laws) he had an easier pathway to translation than did Moses or Elijah. Elijah, while living under the Law, reached the point in his life at which God took him to heaven in a Fiery Chariot. Hence, Elijah received justice. One would think that, since Moses was the actual Law Giver, he would be well aware of the full ramifications and details of every single law he gave. Therefore, he might be capable of living a perfect life according to the Law. If the fact that he appears with Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration suggests that he did live the Law, Moses received justice. But, alongside these three righteous individuals, Jesus as a righteous individual, suffered one of the most degrading and excruciating punishments known to man.

It may surprise you, but my ANSWER to the question “DID JESUS RECEIVE JUSTICE” is YES! Based upon the principle of the LEX TALIONIS, Jesus received “justice,” but not justice for any sin he personally committed. Crucifixion is a horrible punishment, reserved for only the WORST CRIMINALS in the Roman Empire.

I return to the very first blog in this series: The Logic of Christianity 1: The Shroud, the Pope, and the Faith Continuum. I recall the point at which my wife and I were shown the evidence contained in the Shroud: “Using a variety of scientific methods, we were able to observe visible signs of a face with thorn wounds around the head, of hands and feet that had been pierced by nails, of a back that had been scourged by whips, of a stab wound in the side--a victim of crucifixion identical to the biblical description of Jesus’ crucifixion.” Part of the awe-inspiring experience of viewing the Shroud of Turin was just gaining a glimpse into the physical signs of what a crucifixion victim experienced.

Before Jesus was nailed to the cross, to experience the excruciating pain of having large iron nails hammered through the flesh in each of his wrists and through both of his feet securely into the wood of the cross . . . . Before he—nailed to the cross—was, hanging by only these nail points, lifted skyward, and dropped joltingly upon his cross into the hole in the ground at the base of the cross . . . . Before he was degraded, humiliated, and exposed naked on the cross (a factor that we don’t even share among Christians, due to the embarrassment caused by even thinking of the picture) . . . . Before he thus hung, suspended above the Earth, for hours, while his body experienced dehydration, pain, and the slow process of dying . . . . Before he was forced to carry the agency of his crucifixion—a wooden cross large and heavy enough to hold the full weight of a man—through the streets of Jerusalem and uphill, all the way to Golgotha . . . . Before he was mocked, dressed in purple, slapped repeatedly, and given a crown, comprised of nail-like thorns, which was jammed painfully into the flesh of his head . . . .

Before he was scourged to the limit with flesh-tearing whips and scourges until the open wounds on his back bled profusely . . . . He had to witness one of his closest friends and disciples curse and deny any connection with him. Now, that is probably JUSTICE . . . . Justice for a bin Laden who masterminded the mass murder of thousands on 9-11. Justice for a Hitler who ordered the genocide of six million Jews. Justice for a Jeffrey Dahmer, whose atrocities I recounted in The Logic of Christianity 5: The God of Logic vs. Jeffrey Dahmer. None of those three were forced to go through a punishing death anywhere near as severe as Jesus’ crucifixion. They received nothing remotely near what would be allowed under the LEX TALIONIS.

So, think retrospectively. What sins have you committed? Have you even unintentionally committed murder? Have you committed manslaughter by driving under the influence of alcohol? Have you performed, recommended, or decided to have an abortion? Have you had to make a decision to remove life support for a family member, and experienced conscientious stress over the decision? Have you had to issue a command to send men or women into combat in which they lost their lives, and experienced conscientious stress over the decision? Have you cheated on your husband or wife? Have you practiced homosexuality? Have you embezzled money or committed fraud? Have you dishonored your father or mother? Have you taken the Lord’s Name in vain? Have you coveted another person’s wife or husband, house, money, etc.? Thinking of the LEX TALIONIS, what do you think the fair maximum penalty could possibly be? Could it be any worse than CRUCIFIXION? What kind of sin or crime could one possibly commit that would suggest a fair maximum penalty greater than Crucifixion? I cannot think of one. If that is so, Jesus’ Crucifixion was JUSTICE for any sin known to mankind. Jesus did receive justice. He received justice, not for his own actions, but for the actions of any human that has ever lived. He paid the price.

The CRUCIFIXION, then, is Judicial Rhetoric/The Justice Link in the Logic of Christianity.

The Logic of Christianity 8: The Missing Link (the Transfiguration)

It is described in detail in three of the four gospels, the book of Second Peter, and, as I argue, in what even many liberal scholars consider to be the earliest Christian doctrinal statement in the New Testament (the “Philippians Hymn” in Paul’s writings). Yet, it does not get the respect it deserves, in the Logic of Christianity: The TRANSFIGURATION. Scholars have seen the parallel between Jesus’ baptism and His transfiguration. In both instances, a voice from heaven (which Jews call a Bat Qol) states: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” Certainly, Jesus’ BAPTISM is a pillar of the logic of Christianity, since it is described in three of the four gospels, even though it is not mentioned in Paul’s writings or any other New Testament book. Along with the CRUCIFIXION and the RESURRECTION, which are found or alluded to in virtually every part of the New Testament, and the ASCENSION, which is described in detail in Luke, Acts, Revelation, and Mark, and certainly assumed in Paul’s writings and the rest of the New Testament, these events are the pillars of the Logic of Christianity. So, why is the Transfiguration discussed so little among Christian theologians and biblical scholars? It’s a difficult issue to grasp.

WHAT IS ITS SIGNIFICANCE? I will present, in this post, an explanation of the Transfiguration that is capable of removing the confusion over why it was essential to the Logic of Christianity THAT JESUS BE THE ONE WHO OFFERS HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE for the sins of Adam and all of Adam’s progeny. Incorrectly, I think, on various websites (such as http://www.gotquestions.org/transfiguration.html), it is suggested that the point of the Transfiguration was to demonstrate the DEITY of Jesus to his disciples. Symbolically, these websites also suggests that Moses represents the Law and Elijah the prophets (following Origen, who was the first to make the connection and Luther, who agreed), so when the voice from heaven says to “listen to” His Son, it means that Jesus is more important than the Law and the Prophets. ALSO for the most part INCORRECTLY, Gospels scholar Charles H. Talbert presents the transfiguration accounts as Jesus’ disciples seeing Jesus—as something of a PREVIEW, in a dream vision—that predicted how Jesus would appear, at a LATER date, at his Parousia (Talbert, Matthew, 203-204). While I do not accept Talbert’s dream vision explanation, to his credit Talbert (206) points to the “Jewish apocalyptic expectation that MOSES AND ELIJAH would come together as part of the eschatological windup of history (e.g., Deut. Rab. 3.17 on Deut. 10:1: a saying attributed to Rabbi Johanan ben Zachai; Rev. 11:3-6; . . . MOSES was regarded by some Jews as one who was taken up, as were ELIJAH AND ENOCH, cf. Josephus, Ant. 4:323-26; Sifre 357 on Deut. 34:5; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.15.132; Joshua saw Moses ascend with the angel, Jerome, Comm. Amos 9.6; MOSES ASCENDS LIKE ENOCH AND ELIJAH).” IT IS THIS CONNECTION WITH ELIJAH, [ENOCH,] AND MOSES THAT MAKES THE TRANSFIGURATION LOGICALLY FOUNDATIONAL.

Talbert regards the 2 Peter 1:16-18 passage as a proof that the Transfiguration was understood to primarily signify a preview of Jesus’ power and coming (Parousia), but this passage certainly would not support Talbert’s position that this was a dream vision. The very “proof” being offered in this passage is that the writer was an “eyewitness” who actually “heard” the voice from heaven” when he was actually “on the mountain.” This passage is considered by the author of Second Peter to be proof that the disciples were not following “cleverly devised stories.” They actually witnessed the event.

Furthermore, Talbert’s “dream vision” interpretation overlooks a key PROOF CATEGORY for Jews at the time of Jesus—the Bat Qol (or Voice from Heaven). For Jews of that era, the time of “prophecy” had ceased with the last book of the Tanach (Old Testament). The only ways that God still spoke freshly to humans, for Rabbinic Judaism, were through children, fools, and the Bat Qol (or mysterious voice from Heaven). Jesus alludes to the proofs of God speaking through children during his Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:15-16). And, while Christianity disagrees that the age of prophecy had ended (there are plenty of Christian prophecies), it certainly affords the proof that was still acceptable to Jews: The Bat Qol. This mysterious voice occurs at Jesus’ baptism and at his transfiguration. Jesus, himself, voices the Bat Qol when he speaks to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. In an earlier book, What Is a Gospel, Talbert seems to hint that the Transfiguration may just be a mythic element, along with the Ascension, that attempts to present Jesus as an “IMMORTAL.” He defines immortals as “gods who had a beginning to their existence and had not existed eternally” (26). He mentions a Roman belief from just before the birth of Christ that Hercules and Asclepius “ascended to heaven and . . . obtained the same honors as the gods.” To the mythology of Greek immortals “ascending,” Talbert adds “transformation” (as in transfiguration) as a proof of immortality (27). He further states: “whenever Mediterranean peoples spoke about the immortals constant in their description was . . . ‘he was taken up into heaven.’” This event was either “witnessed or there was no trace of physical remains.” Further evidence of this transformation/ascension, according to Talbert, were “a heavenly announcement at the end of his earthly career” and “appearances . . . to friends or disciples.” Additional evidence of being an immortal is “reference to the man’s being begotten by a god of a human mother” (28). Sure enough, according to Talbert’s hints, the story of Jesus sounds very much like the story of an immortal. If the New Testament story supplies “proofs” such as the “words of children” and the “Bat Qol” that are persuasive to Jewish audiences, it also supplies “proofs” such as the “proofs of immortality” that are persuasive to Greek audiences (and even “astrological” proofs such as the star of Bethlehem that are persuasive to Magi). But, did the Greeks actually invent the category of “immortals,” themselves, or did they somehow receive it from much older accounts, such as (Hebrew) scriptures?

THE CASE OF ENOCH In the fifth chapter of the very first book in the Bible, Genesis 5:22-24 records this account: 22”And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 23And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him” (KJV). The New Testament book of Hebrews (11:5) interprets this passage as a statement that Enoch became an immortal: “By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: ‘He could not be found, because God had taken him away.’ For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God” (NIV). Although it was doubtlessly influenced by Greek mythology, the Book of Enoch, written in Greek (AND CLEARLY NOT BY ENOCH HIMSELF!), between 300 and 1 B.C., presents Enoch as having become an immortal, but neither the Book of Enoch nor the book of Hebrews offers any claim (in any way similar to Talbert’s definition of a Greek immortal) that Enoch became a “god.” Nevertheless, the case of Enoch is the first Hebrew example of a human who appears to have achieved immortality without dying. While I wonder why Enoch was not included in the Transfiguration event, along with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, the answer could pertain to the fact that Enoch was from generations prior to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, while Moses, Elijah, and Jesus were Israelites. Another explanation for the absence of Enoch might be that the Book of Enoch had become such a discredited book by the New Testament period that even Enoch himself was rarely mentioned, which point I make in my earlier blog post entitled “Angels & Demons 13: Who are the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis”: “Louis Ginzberg notes that all of the Enoch legends ‘left no trace in the authoritative rabbinic sources,’ and Bamberger goes so far as to say that Enoch ‘is not mentioned at all’ in ‘the two Talmuds and in the tannaitic literature.’ Bamberger does admit, in the footnotes (p. 275), that ‘actually Enoch is mentioned (but just mentioned)” in Seder Olam Rabbah, chapter 1, beginning. Then, two or three more references in the standard midrashim round out the references to Enoch. One of those references (Bereshit Rabbah 25.1) mentions Enoch, but only to claim that he was NOT translated to Heaven. Other than the reference to Enoch in Jude 14 and the few allusions to I Enoch in Jude, the only reference to Enoch in the New Testament is Hebrews 11:5, which merely lists Enoch as an example of faith who did not die.”

THE CASE OF MOSES The Bible never states that Moses was transfigured, translated, or transported from Earth to Heaven in a fiery chariot. While there are other non-biblical texts (cited by Talbert earlier in this post) that suggest that Moses ascended and/or went to Heaven without dying in a fashion similar to Enoch and Elijah, this was a hotly debated point, even at the time of the New Testament, among Jews. The gospel accounts of the Transfiguration do not suggest how Moses managed to accompany Elijah to the mountain. Nevertheless, the biblical account of Moses’ “death” in Deuteronomy seems pregnant with possibilities: “34 Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah, across from Jericho. There the LORD showed him the whole land—from Gilead to Dan, 2 all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Mediterranean Sea, 3 the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar. 4 Then the LORD said to him, ‘This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, “I will give it to your descendants.” I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it.’ 5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said.6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, BUT TO THIS DAY NO ONE KNOWS WHERE HIS GRAVE IS.” Verses 5 and 6 are the curious ones. Prior to these two verses, there is no mention of Moses dying. Furthermore, the verses speak of Moses in third person and clearly cannot have been written by Moses, even if they correctly recorded his death and burial. No eye witness of this event is, however, mentioned in the Deuteronomy text. This point was not lost on Jewish readers, since the book of Deuteronomy is traditionally assigned Mosaic authorship. How can Moses record his own death and burial? And, if Moses DID record it (in past tense), does that then indicate that Moses was alive again after his death and burial, and thus able to record it? On top of these questions, Greeks who are aware of the “proofs” of immortality to which Talbert referred earlier will find the phrasing of verse 6—“And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day” (KJV)—strongly suggestive of immortals mythology: Talbert suggests that the immortalizing event was either “witnessed or there was no trace of physical remains.” There were no witnesses to Moses’ death and no trace of his sepulchre. If Moses is understood to have actually died and been buried, something strange has reportedly occurred. Moses is on the mountain WITH ELIJAH, according to gospel accounts. Was there a rapid-fire resurrection event for Moses? Did he still have the same body or was his an immortal body as he appeared on the mountain?

THE CASE OF ELIJAH If it is argued that the Genesis account of Enoch is too brief to be certain that it was an immortalizing event, and if the Deuteronomy account of Moses’ death is too confusing to reach any conclusions, still the account of Elijah being taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot is a much more conclusive evidence of a Jewish teaching of an immortalizing event. All three cases (Enoch, Moses, and Elijah) were recorded long before Greek mythology became an important factor in Jewish scripture and lore. Elijah was from the 8th century B.C., Moses was from the 16th century B.C., and Enoch was, according to Jude, the 7th generation after Adam. Alexander the Great’s Greek Empire which reached to the Middle East did not occur until the 4th century B.C. 2 Kings, chapter two, records the event: “2 When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal. 2 Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Stay here; the LORD has sent me to Bethel.’ But Elisha said, ‘As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you.’ So they went down to Bethel. . . . 11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, ‘My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!’ And Elisha saw him no more.”

THE CASE OF JESUS The syllogism looks like this: MAJOR PREMISE: The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23—This is backed up by the first sin of Adam and Eve and their punishment for that sin: death.) MINOR PREMISE: Elijah (and Enoch?) did not die. CONCLUSION: Elijah (and Enoch?) did not sin. If, then, Jesus is found on a mountaintop with Elijah (and Moses), toward the end of his earthly life, and suddenly finds his own body metamorphosing into something of brilliance, one must assume that Jesus has accomplished the same feat as Elijah—living his life without sinning! Just as Moses was on a mountain for his departure, Jesus was on a mountain. Just as there was a fiery brilliance at Elijah’s departure, brilliant light and shining countenance were signs of what was happening to Jesus. JESUS WAS BECOMING IMMORTAL. He, like Elijah (and Enoch—and, possibly, Moses) had ACTUALLY EARNED ETERNAL LIFE. He didn’t accomplish this feat in the way Greeks purportedly became immortals; he accomplished it through piety.

Jewish scholars have noted that, at the time Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, Isaac had just reached the age of accountability. In the Hebrew, he is called a Na’ar. It means he has just reached the age for his bar-Mitzvah. From now on in his life, he must follow the Commandments. He is considered innocent, at that point. Therefore, Isaac might have made a good sacrifice for the sins of Adam and his progeny, but God said “No.” (The Jewish rabbis told a story of a young female equivalent to a Na’ar—the feminine is Na’arah—who was tested by angels to sin, and who successfully passed her test and went straight to Heaven. I relate this story in an earlier blog post entitled: “Angels & Demons 6: An ‘Innocent’ Fallen Angel Story.”) The principle is clear in Jewish logic: One who has not sinned is capable of being translated to Heaven. Nevertheless, someone who has just reached the age of accountability—or even an innocent infant—is not an acceptable sacrifice for the sin of Adam. It takes someone who has lived a significant lifetime, yet who did not sin. Not many people qualify. The blood of bulls and goats is not sufficient to remove sin. The blood of infants and young people who have just begun to be tested is not sufficient to remove sin. It takes the blood of an immortal—one who has lived a significant lifetime, sinlessly, to serve as the perfect sacrifice. Enoch might have qualified, but he apparently took eternal life when it was offered. Maybe Moses, but especially Elijah might have qualified, but they both apparently accepted immortality, when it was offered. Only Jesus, among biblical immortals—those who lived a significant lifetime, yet without sin—was willing and ready to relinquish the reward he had earned: eternal life.

This brings us to the Philippians Hymn, Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV): “5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very form God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Most Christians read this hymn from the perspective that the time when Jesus found himself in the “form” of God was some pre-existent period, before his birth, but the hymn never says that. I suggest that a more meaningful perspective would place this hymn in the context of Jesus’ Transfiguration. He found himself in the “form” of God. The Greek word I have translated “form” in both verses 6 and 7 is the word MORPH, as in the word METAMORPHOSIS, the very word that is translated TRANSFIGURED in Matthew 17:2 and Mark 9:2, the Transfiguration accounts. Reading the Philippians Hymn from this perspective, we are encouraged to be SELFLESS, as Jesus was when he found himself transfigured into an immortal form. But, unlike Moses and Elijah, Jesus did not consider this immortal form something to be grasped, but returned to his earlier MORPH (that of a servant, a mortal), thus humbling himself and becoming obedient to death—EVEN THOUGH HE HAD PERSONALLY ACHIEVED IMMORTALITY! Furthermore, his death was not an ordinary death, or even the quick stabbing of a sacrificial animal. His death was the long, painful, excruciating death on a cross—the sentence of the very worst of criminals. And, therefore, because Jesus had paid the death penalty of even the worst criminals known to man, since he himself was worthy of immortality, the payment was not needed for his own account. It was applied to the account of EVERY SINGLE SINNING HUMAN FROM THE TIME OF ADAM TO THE END OF THE WORLD. That’s why God exalted him. That’s why every knee bows. That’s why every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father!

Now, every great pillar of the Logic of Christianity has its own hymns or songs. There are Christmas songs celebrating the birth of Christ, like Joy to the World. There are baptismal songs. There are songs about the Last Supper. There are songs about the crucifixion on Calvary. There are Easter songs about the Resurrection and the Ascension. But, I’m hard-pressed to think of a strong doctrinal song about the Transfiguration. So, I wrote one and published a music video of it on YouTube. You may listen to it and view it at the following URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMuW4SeThlw&feature=youtu.be COPY AND PASTE THIS URL INTO A NEW WINDOW.

The Logic of Christianity 7: SCANDALIZED (Paris 2015--Was Abraham a Killer?)

Which of the top three world religions best represents the God of Abraham?

As I was in the process of writing this post, at least 129 innocent people were being executed in Paris, in the name of the God of Abraham. Shouting “Allahu Akbar!” eight Muslim extremists, in a coordinated attack, bombed and shot Parisians and tourists who variously were dining, enjoying a concert, and attending a sporting event. Were these 129 victims soldiers who had attacked Islam? No. Were they particularly guilty of some heinous sin or crime? No. Just like the 3000 victims of the 9-11 Muslim extremist terrorist attacks in the United States, they were innocent bystanders. Just last month, a Russian plane, returning 224 vacationers from Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt were possibly bombed out of the sky. These passengers were, again, innocent bystanders, despite the fact that the Russian military itself had entered into armed conflict in Syria. The “Islamic State” claimed responsibility for these deaths. What kind of religion encourages, celebrates, approves of, or even quietly condones the killing of innocents? The Hebrew word for Hell is Gē Hinnom (the Valley of Hinnom), the name of an area outside of Jerusalem where apostate Israelites had sacrificed their innocent children to the false god Molech.

Due to this SCANDALOUS practice of killing children, Gē Hinnom became a name that forever after was considered cursed. Hell in both Judaism and Christianity is referred to as the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna, in the Greek New Testament). So detestable was the thought of killing innocent children! I observe in my book PSYCHOTIC ENTELECHY:

“Like Judaism and Christianity, Mohammed proclaimed the God of Abraham the true God and opposed sins such as murder and adultery. Like Christianity, Mohammed proclaimed Jesus the Messiah, the son of the virgin Mary. . . . Like the Catholic Church and many conservative Protestant churches, Islam opposes the practice of abortion” (p.3). A few pages later in the same book, I comment: “Darwinistic views devalued the lives of members of some races and the victims of some illnesses. Amoral pragmatic philosophies have paved the way for abortion and the infanticide of baby girls in Communist China” (p. 8). In recent months, Americans have been SCANDALIZED by the revelation of Planned Parenthood officials and doctors who have allegedly been harvesting fetuses and aborted baby parts for sale and profit. It is SCANDALOUS to kill these innocent unborn children, in the first place, but even more SCANDALOUS to attempt to profit from this butchery. On pages 72-79 of PSYCHOTIC ENTELECHY, I analyze the abortion debate from most major philosophic perspectives. On page 76, I observe: “Roman Catholicism, Islam, Evangelical Protestants, and some Jewish groups sense danger in the materialist, naturalist, and humanist abortion entelechies. Sheler [in U. S. News and World Report March 9, 1992, page 54] observes: ‘[T]he Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Protestants have been highly visible in opposing abortion.’ The Islamic world has also been a strong opponent of abortion on a global scale as have Orthodox Jews. Without a strong alliance between Islam and the Catholic Church, abortion would be much more rampant world-wide than it currently is. Discussing basic Jewish and Christian morality, a very early Christian text, the Didache, states: ‘Thou shalt do no murder . . . thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.’”

If Islam opposes the SCANDALOUS killing of innocent unborn children through abortion, what is it in the Islamic religion that would make Islamic extremists believe the God of Abraham would approve of them spilling the innocent blood in Paris on Friday the 13th of November 2015 or the innocent blood in the United States on 9/11/2001? We need only to consider the actions of Abraham--the common spiritual ancestor of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—to catch a glimpse of the God of Abraham.

The year was 1967--the year I graduated from Easton High School, in Easton, IL. The movie “The Bible…In the Beginning” had been released in the preceding year, but it had just now arrived at my local theater. It was directed by the famous film director John Huston, who received 15 Oscar nominations and 2 actual Oscars in his film directing career. I supported the movie by buying tickets and attending the screening. I recall an incident that occurred while I was watching the movie in the theater. It clearly made an impression on me, since I have remembered the incident all these years! George C. Scott, who portrayed Abraham in the film, was (unbeknownst to his screen son, Isaac) taking Isaac up Mount Moriah (the mountain later to become the Temple Mount in the days of King Solomon) because God had commanded him to sacrifice his son. Abraham required Isaac to carry the wood for the burnt offering, just as Jesus (2000 years later) was required to carry the wooden cross upon which he was to be crucified. Abraham bound Isaac and laid him upon the wood to which he would soon set fire, to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. Some audience members sitting in the row behind me at the theater were aghast! They were SCANDALIZED by the pending event. I heard them saying to one another statements such as: “How could any good God require such a thing!” “I can’t believe in a God who would ask a man to kill his own son!” I realized that the audience members saying this were not familiar with the biblical account. I turned around and suggested, “Just keep watching. It’s not going to end the way you think.” In the biblical account (and the film), after Abraham had raised his knife to slay his son, the angel of God spoke to Abraham, telling him not to kill his son. God, instead, provided a ram whose horns had been caught in the bushes for Abraham to sacrifice, rather than to kill his only son. God was pleased with Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, however, despite the fact that God would not actually ask him to do such a thing. For any Jew (as it was for those sitting behind me at the movie theater), human sacrifice was SCANDALOUS!

The New Testament agrees with the account as described in the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:17 and James 2:21). While the Koran does not state explicitly that it was Isaac who was about to be sacrificed by Abraham, it does agree that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son: "O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!" (37:102) While Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/MusTrad/sacrifice.html) provide the argument that, even in the Koran, the son to whom Abraham was speaking in the Koranic account was actually Isaac, the much more common tradition among Muslims is that the son to be sacrificed was Ishmael, Abraham’s son through Sarah’s handmaid, Hagar. Ishmael is considered to be a prophet in Islam and is thought to be a progenitor of Mohammed. The Koranic account does not include the biblical detail that the sacrificial victim was to be replaced with a ram, but it suggests that Abraham’s son is to be replaced with a “great sacrifice (Zibhin azeem).” Actually, I agree with Mohammed’s assessment that God would be replacing Abraham’s son with a great sacrifice, but who/what is this “great sacrifice”? How did the story of God commanding Abraham to commit human sacrifice (even if subsequently rescinded) become so significant in the religions of Israel, Islam, and Christianity? If the God of Abraham is the one who made the universe and creates and sustains all life, how can He ask someone to kill another innocent human being, let alone his own son? This seems SCANDALOUS! What is the significance of this Abrahamic sacrificial command? In my previous post, I presented the logical argument that the God who created and animates the universe in logical fashion (and whose own nature as a logical communicator argues consistently with the assertion that He) is the God of Abraham. This is the conclusion of the world’s three largest religions, but the question now arises: Which of these three religions best represents this God of Abraham? JUDAISM correctly makes the claim that it is the OLDEST of the three religions. There is certainly some validity to the argument that, as the first religion to identify the God of Abraham as the one true God, Judaism’s representation of that God deserves our attention. My master’s degree (in Hebrew) was taken at the feet of an internationally-respected Jewish scholar at Indiana University: Dr. Henry A. Fischel. I gained a great deal of insight concerning the God of Abraham from my Hebrew and Aramaic language studies of the Old Testament and the Jewish literature that was produced after the Old Testament period—in times much closer to New Testament times. My master’s thesis, Anamartetous Fallen Angels, which serves as the basis for much of my blog series, posted on this website, entitled “ANGELS & DEMONS,” supplies many insights into the nature of the God of Abraham derived from primarily Jewish/Hebrew sources. That master’s thesis was approved in writing not only by Dr. Fischel, but also by Christian scholar Dr. Paul Sampley and Islamic scholar Dr. Wadie Jwaideh. As it turns out, there is considerable agreement among the three religions in terms of angelology and other theological matters. Indeed, Christianity does not challenge the Jewish assertion that the Hebrew scriptures, which the Jews refer to as Tanach and the Christians refer to as the Old Testament, are supremely reliable accounts of the interactions of the God of Abraham with the Jewish people (in addition to various individuals living prior to the formation of the Jewish culture). Islam’s holy scriptures, the Koran (or Qur’an), likewise pay homage to both Christians and Jews as being “people of the Book” (presumably, alluding to the essential genuineness of the Christian and Hebrew scriptures). While Christians and Jews are in general agreement regarding the make-up and reliability of the Old Testament/Tanach, Muslims are less-enthusiastically supportive, suggesting that certain passages in the Old Testament (“the Book,” as the Koran refers to it) have become corrupted, over the years. On page 70 of Psychotic Entelechy, I phrase it this way: “Christians and Jews do not believe that the Koran is a collection of divine revelations, just as ‘Muslims believe that . . . Jewish and Christian scriptures have been corrupted and are no longer reliable, or are superseded by the Qur’an, and hence no longer necessary.’” Thus, most Muslims claim that it was actually Ishmael, rather than Isaac, who was the object of Abraham’s intended sacrifice.

From the time of Moses, the principle of killing a lamb as a substitute for losing the life of a child is reinforced. Rather than have the death angel take the lives of the first-born males of the Israelites as happened in the final plague upon Egypt, God told the Israelites to kill a lamb and smear its blood on each doorpost. The death angel would then “Pass Over” the household, leaving the first-born Israelite male from that family alive. To this day, Jews celebrate the Passover feast.

Why do Christians and Muslims not simply accede to the superiority of Judaism as the best representation of the God of Abraham? From CHRISTIANITY’S perspective, the Hebrew Scriptures were incomplete. That is, a major portion of these scriptures pointed to a future revelation of the God of Abraham in history. Jews, to this very day, understand that their scriptures promised the coming of a MESSIAH (Hebrew) or CHRIST (Greek). Islam is not the only one of the three religions that sensed that the killing of a ram was not a sufficient substitute for the sacrifice of Abraham’s son. Not only does the Koran suggest that Abraham’s son is to be replaced with a “great sacrifice,” even the Hebrew Scriptures recognize the ineffectiveness of animal sacrifices. David, in Psalm 69:31 suggests that God prefers songs of praise to the sacrifice of animals. Isaiah 1:11 states: "The multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats” (NIV). In a passage taken by the New Testament to be a prophecy concerning Jesus’ crucifixion, Isaiah 59:3-7 states: “3He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces, he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. 5But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (NIV).

The Gospel of John describes a moment in which the statements of Jesus SCANDALIZED many of his fellow Jews. The substance of Jesus’ statements have to do with human sacrifice. This was considered SCANDALOUS by many of his countrymen. John 6:48-66 records the SCANDALOUS comments: “48I am the bread of life.49Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. . . . 60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? . . . 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (NIV). While some commentators suggest that what SCANDALIZED the crowds was a claim to be divine on Jesus’ part, I think it is clear that the SCANDALOUS nature of this account is that it proposes a human sacrifice. Just as Isaac had just turned 13 years of age at the time of Abraham’s test (and, hence, was considered “innocent” by Jewish culture, having just then arrived at the age for Bar Mitzvah—the age of accountability), Jesus, as it is contended by Christians was also “innocent.” He had lived more than 30 years, but was not guilty of any sin. Therefore, Jesus would qualify as an appropriate substitute for Isaac. He was offering himself as a HUMAN SACRIFICE. That was the part that was SCANDALOUS. Just as Jews had, for years, consumed the meat of the animal sacrifice they had offered for their sins, Jesus SCANDALIZED his countrymen by inviting them to consume his flesh and blood. No human in history has ever actually eaten Jesus’ flesh, nor had any of his disciples in the time John wrote his account. Therefore, John could not have understood Jesus’ words to be taken strictly literally.

(Actually, Catholics come close to taking his words literally, in their doctrine of Transubstantiation. They posit that the bread and wine of Communion literally are transubstantiated into Jesus’ actual flesh and blood at the moment they are consumed in the Eucharist. However, the Catholic Church fails to take into account the fact that the Gospel of John, in which this account occurs, is the ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR GOSPELS that does NOT present Jesus as instituting the Lord’s Supper! More on this point, momentarily.)

Yet, in a definite sense, Jesus’ words were to be taken literally! Jesus was literally going to become a human sacrifice. His blood was literally going to be poured out. His flesh was literally going to be killed. Like Isaac, he literally carried the wood on which he would be killed to the mountain. There is no Abrahamic substitute of a ram for his son, here—even though Jesus was quite literally a “son of Abraham,” as traced by the beginning of the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:2, and confirmed in Luke 3:34. The major logical point John has been making throughout his gospel is that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). The reason John does not present Jesus as celebrating the Passover meal with his disciples and introducing the Lord’s Supper, is because John is following a different Jewish calendar, according to which Jesus was killed at precisely the time Jews kill the Passover Lamb. He could not, therefore, eat the Passover meal (according to John’s calendar), because he was dead by the time it would have been consumed (the evening after it was killed). There is no substitute of a Passover Lamb, here; Jesus IS LITERALLY THE HUMAN PASSOVER LAMB. But, unlike the animal sacrifices which had no free will to offer their lives and unlike even Isaac who was bound by Abraham, and therefore coerced into becoming a potential sacrifice, Jesus VOLUNTARILY offered his own body and blood to be sacrificed. No one took his life; he gave it freely. John 10:18 presents Jesus’ words: “18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (NIV). This is the logic of Christianity. It meets the Koranic suggestion that Abraham’s son is to be replaced with a “great sacrifice.” It encompasses Isaiah’s view that God has “no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.” It further presents Jesus as Isaiah’s suffering servant who was led to the slaughter like a lamb. It explains logically Isaiah’s thesis that “he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.” In my next post, I will discuss the logic of why Jesus’ sacrifice was the perfect substitutionary sacrifice.

The Logic of Christianity 6: WHODUNNIT?

If the God of Logic exists—that is, an “agent” who “acts” in forming and animating the universe in “logical order,” using “rational communication,” in the process of accomplishing the personal “motives” of achieving “self-actualization” and developing “social” relationships—who is this God? The board game Clue® allows one to win that game, partly, by identifying all of the potential suspects and systematically eliminating each one until one has come up with the correct “agent” who “killed Mr. Boddy.” Like any good murder mystery novel, film, or television show in which the suspects are identified, scrutinized, and gradually, systematically, eliminated from consideration, we may refer to the game of Clue® as a “Whodunnit” (or, as it is more commonly spelled, “Whodunit”). Although I apologize for the fact that the term “Whodunnit” carries with it the connotation of the “agent” being involved in the commission of a crime (and, certainly, “creating and animating the universe” has not been considered to be a crime by any serious person), the same procedure that is used in Whodunnits may be logically employed for identifying which “god suspect” most logically should be credited with the formation of the universe.

THE LIST OF SUSPECTS The game of Clue® offers a finite list of possible suspects: Miss Scarlett, Colonel Mustard, Mrs. White, Mr. Green, Mrs. Peacock, and Professor Plum. Likewise, we may come up with a finite list of possible “god suspects.” It seems that, since the God we seek to identify uses “rational communication” for the purpose of developing “social” relationships with the only species to whom that God has given the ability to engage in creative “action”—namely, the human—the God we seek to identify should have, at least at some point, “communicated socially” with this human species. Marketing communication professors Moriarty, Mitchell, and Wells correctly point out that “everything communicates” (p. 55), and, as I pointed out in my post entitled The Logic of Christianity 4: “The shepherd-poet-lyricist-singer-turned-king, David, the author of many of the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible cites EMPIRICAL evidence in his poetic proclamations that God was easily detected in the formation of the universe.” This suggests that any objective observer of nature receives some communication from God, but that is not the kind of communication that is required when we suggest that the correct “god suspect” should have, at some point, “communicated socially” with this human species. If this empirical communication were the only form of communication used by the “god suspect,” we might be inclined to agree with the assessment of Albert Einstein which I pointed out in my post entitled The Logic of Christianity 3: “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it . . . I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein, of course, CAN be wrong on some details. Logically, a God capable of and motivated to communicate socially with a species that that God designed and formed to be capable of similar communicative action would be expected to engage in such social communication. Therefore, an objective thinker might logically conclude that the identity of the correct “god suspect” would be known to mankind, being one of the gods identified by various human cultures throughout history. But who are these gods? The list is still finite, but fairly extensive. [FEEL FREE TO SKIM OVER THE GOD LISTS BELOW TO ARRIVE AT FURTHER COMMENTARY.] If one were to play the GAME OF CLUE with these characters, here is the list of characters you might include in your game:

Our list of “god suspects” includes the following MESOPOTAMIAN GODS (from a list supplied by the Ancient History Encyclopedia http://www.ancient.eu/article/221/ ): ABGAL (aka, Apkallu), Adapa (the first man) Uan-dugga, En-me-duga, En-me-galanna, En-me-buluga, An-enlilda and Utu-abzu, ABSU (aka, Apsu and Abzu), ADAD, Shala, ADRAMELECH, Anamelech, AJA (aka, Aya), AMURRU (aka, Amurru and Martu), Beletseri, ANSHAR, ANTUM, ANU, (aka, An), Antu, ANUNNAKI, ANZU (aka, Zu and Imdugud), ARAZU, ARURU, ASHNAN, ASHUR, BABA (aka, Bau or Bawa), Lagash, BASMU, BEL, BELIT-TSERI, BIRDU, BULL OF HEAVEN (aka, Gugalanna), BULL-MAN, CARA, DAGON (aka, Dagan), DAMU, DAMKINA, DILMUN, DUMUZI, EA/ENKI, ELLIL, EMESH, ENBILULU, ENKIMDU, ENKIDU, ENLIL, ENMESSARA, ENTEN, Enmesh, ERESHKIGAL (aka, IRKALLA), ERRAGAL, ERIDAN, ERRA/IRRA, ESEMTU, ETANA, Balih, ETEMMU, GALLA, Igalima, GARRA (aka, Gerra), GESHTINANNA, GESHTU (aka, Geshtu-e), GIBIL, GILGAMESH (depicted as either human or god), GISHIDA (aka, Ningishzida), GUGALANNA, GULA, GUSHKIN-BANDA, HAIA, HUMBABA, IGIGI, IMDUGUD, Pazusu, INANNA (aka, Innina), ISARA, ISHKUR, ISHTAR, ISHUM, KABTA, KI, KISHAR, KITTU, KULITTA, KULLA, KULULLU, KUSAG, KUR, LAHAR, LAHMU and LAHAMU, LAMA (aka, Lamassu), LAMASHTU, LAMASSU, LUGALBANDA, MAGILUM BOAT (aka, The Boat of the West), MAMMETUM (aka, Mamitu), MARDUK, Irra, MISHARU, MUMMU, Ea Mummu, MUSHDAMMA, Ninhursag, MUSHHUSHSHU, MYLITTA, NABU, NAMMU, NAMTAR, NANA, NANAJA, NANNA-SEUN, NANSHE, NEDU, NERGAL, NETI, NIDABA, NIN-AGAL, NINGAL, NINGISHZIDA (aka, Geshida), NINGIZZIA, NINHURSAG (aka, Belet-Ili, Damgalnunna, Nintu, Nintur, Mami and Mama), NIN-ILDU, NINKASI (aka, Ninkar), NINLIL (aka, Sud), Ninazu, NINSHAR, Enshar, NINSHUBUR, NINSUN, NINURTA (aka, Ishkur), NIRAH, NISSABA, NUSKU, PAPSUKKEL, PAZUZU, QUEEN OF THE NIGHT, Liltu, QUINGU (aka, Kingu), RAMMAN (aka, Rimmon, SAKKAN (aka, Sumuqan), SCORPION PEOPLE, SEBITTI, SHAMASH, SHARA, SHERIDA, SHULPAE, SHUTU, SIDURI, SILILI (aka, The Divine Mare), SIN (aka, Nannar), SUMUQAN (aka, Sakkan), SUMUGAN (aka, Shumugan), TABLETS OF DESTINY, TAMMUZ, TIAMAT, TIAMAT'S CREATURES, Musmahhu, Usumgallu, Basmu, Ugallu, Uridimmu, Girtablullu, Umu-Debrutu, Kusarikku, UMMANU, Enuma Elish, Edana, UMUNMUTAMKAG, URSHANABI, USMU (aka, Isimud), UTNAPISHTIM (aka, Ziusudra), UTTU, UTU (aka, Shamash), ZABABA, ZAKAR (aka, Zaqar), ZARPANIT (aka, Beltia), ZALTU, and ZU.

Our list of “god suspects” also includes the following GREEK GODS (from a list supplied by the WikiPagan http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Deities ): Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Athena, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, and, of course, Zeus.

Then, there are the ROMAN GODS: Apollo, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, and Vulcan. Add to these the EGYPTIAN GODS: Anubis, The Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma'at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, and Thoth. Other AFRICAN GODS include: Obatala, Yemaya, Chango, Oshun, Elegua, Oya, Ogun, Babalu-Aye', Ochosi, and Osain. INCAN GODS include: Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracocha, and Zaramama. AZTEC GODS include Quetzalcoatl and Tlaloc. IRISH GODS include: Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Manannán mac Lir, and Kel. ANGLO-SAXON GODS include: Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thunor, Tir, Weyland, and Woden. NORSE GODS include: Asgard, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Fenrir, Forseti, Freyja/Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mani, Njord, Norns, Verdandi, Urd, Skuld, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, and Vor. LUSITANIAN GODS include: Endovelicus, Ataegina, and Runesocesius. ARMENIAN GODS include: Anahit, Astghik, and Vahagn. SLAVIC GODS include Belobog and Chernobog. Throw in AFRICAN GODS (Obatala, Yemaya, Chango, Oshun, Elegua, Oya, Ogun, Babalu-Aye', Ochosi, and Osain), plus deities of ORIENTAL MYSTERY RELIGIONS and IMPERIAL ROMAN CULTS (Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Mithras, Sol Invictus, and Endovelicus), and the URARTIAN GOD Haldi, and you already have a rather UNWIELDY GAME OF CLUE on your hands! But then, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_deities for a list of nearly 300 additional CELTIC DEITIES! Finally, go to http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/chinese-mythology.php?list-gods-names for a list of nearly 500 additional CHINESE DEITIES! Needless to say, our list in this blog is illustrative, but still not exhaustive.

Fortunately, for the Whodunnit question concerning the creation of the universe, we can pare down our list of substantial “god suspects” by eliminating those who are not mentioned as involved in creation or universe formation. The God of logic as we have previously argued is a God of creative logic. Only a “creator god” will fit the description. On page 50 of my book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World, I point out: “Virtually EVERY ANCIENT CULTURE offered explanations of our origins. The EGYPTIANS focused on the role of the Nile River in creation. They saw the beginning as a mass of chaotic waters, called Nu or Nun. To this beginning they added Sun, Moon, Earth, and Sky gods. The (immortal, but not eternal) Earth god and sky goddess eventually gave birth to Isis and Osiris, names better known to our generation, but Egyptian mythology (with such features as the Earth god lying on his side to form mountains) did not survive as a serious explanation of the beginnings of the world. According to an account of PHOENICIAN creation mythology dating at least as far back as the first century a.d., there was first chaos; then from a cosmic egg, creation of the universe began. MAYAN creation stories begin with sky and sea, and then the creation god Kukulkan (whose pyramid, incidentally, may be seen at the Mexico Pavilion in EPCOT) speaks the word ‘Earth,’ and the Earth rises from the sea. Following this, the thoughts of Kukulkan create mountains, trees, birds, jaguars, and snakes; finally, humans are created (first, out of mud; second, out of wood; third, as monkeys; and finally, as full-fledged humans). Vying with GENESIS as the oldest creation account is the BABYLONIAN creation myth. The Babylonian account we have is developed from SUMERIAN myths, in the 12th century b.c. According to this account, god/s did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Instead, sweet and bitter waters comingled and created many gods. Then, one god born of two others, Marduk, eventually defeated and killed the bitter waters, Tiamat, in a colossal struggle. Earth was created, followed by the moon, then the Sun. Finally, humans descended from the gods. GREEK creation mythology began with chaos, a watery state ruled by Oceanus, and as in the Babylonian account, reproductive activity on the part of the gods and goddesses produced the Greek gods. Poseidon, one of the great Greek gods (known by the ROMANS as Neptune), is featured in a fountain statue in the Italy exhibit in the ‘World Showcase’ at EPCOT.”

We may further reduce the number of possible “god suspects” who could be the God of Logic if we assume that the God who created the universe in a logical (LOGOS) fashion, and who is characterized by the ability to communicate (LOGOS), and who fashioned human beings with the capacity for using both types of LOGOS, and presumably, was therefore willing and motivated to communicate with them through LOGOS, would be a God who made himself or herself known to ancient cultures and would still be known to contemporary cultures. We may, therefore eliminate virtually all of the aforementioned gods and religions as “dead religions.” Turning then, only to CONTEMPORARILY VIABLE GODS, we may consider the following list: SHINTOISM and the JAPANESE GODS: Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, The Shichifukujin, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, and Hotei. Shintoism is a modern-day religion for an estimated four million Japanese, but most Japanese only identify as Shintoist while not practicing any religious discipline in the religion. In China, BUDDHISM, while it is a spiritual exercise, is not considered to have any true “god” associated with it. HINDUISM, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities, is the “dominant religion of the Indian subcontinent.” It has no specified number of gods, but is popularly credited with having 330 million gods. To this list of ancient-but-contemporarily-viable-gods, it is necessary to add the ONE SINGLE GOD who is acknowledged as God by the world’s three major world religions—JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, and ISLAM. That one God recognized by all three of these religions is the God of Abraham.

From this list, we may eliminate Buddhism, since it has no “god” associated with it. We may eliminate Shintoism, since it now appears to be primarily just a cultural practice, not a strongly held religion. If the God of Logic (LOGOS) is defined as organizing all of the universe “logically,” we may also eliminate Hinduism, which seems to be a hodge-podge of deities from other cultures and individual preferences. Logically, then, we conclude—along with the world’s three greatest religions--that the God of Logic IS the God of Abraham. Whodunnit? Similar to solving the Game of Clue—that Colonel Mustard killed Mr. Boddy in the Kitchen with the Knife—we may conclude logically that “the God of Abraham created a Logical Universe and Logical Humans within that Logical Universe by means of the Agency of Communication/Spoken Word/LOGOS. If this is our conclusion, the next question becomes: “Which of the three major world religions best introduces us to the God of Abraham?” We’ll consider that in the next post.