When you see, "The God, all in all" (1 Cor 15:28), it means that this is a quote from the New Testament letter called First Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 28. If you see "2 Cor" it would mean the second letter of the Corinthians. If you see "2 Cor 11:4" it would mean we quoted from the second letter of the Corinthians, the 11th chapter, and the 4th verse. But sometimes you will see a documentation such as "(1 Pet 2:4)" after a sentence that has no quotes. This kind of documentation is used in order to support the previous sentence or sentences, or to point out other similar or related views of the previous sentence or sentences, or to add new light to the previous sentence or sentences.
When you see reference to "NM7" it means more information can be found in New Mind and Christianity, Part 7.
When you see reference to "nm7" this means more information can be found in paragraph 7 of the New Mind and Christianity.
NM = New Mind and Christianity (aka, New Mind
GP = God Papers (aka: God: God is the Becoming-One)
PR = Prophecy Papers (aka: Prophecy)
CP = Chronology Papers (aka:Chronology Of the World)
cf or cf. = confer or compare
p. or pp. = page or pages
w/ = with
This book pertains to the first-century beliefs or 'doctrines' of the followers of Yehoshua Masiah, otherwise know today as Jesus Christ and thus are called "Christians." Yehoshua Masiah is Christ's Hebrew name. The followers of Yehoshua Masiah were the believers who existed before the bureaucrats took over the Church. The bureaucrats went out and lied, killed and sinned in Christ's name: thus maligning the name Christianity and the name Jesus Christ. Therefore in this book when we speak of Christians we are referring to those who follow the real Christ, not the imposters who took over the Church in the decades following His resurrection.
We are also not going to refer to Christ - the Messiah - in this book by his Hebrew name, since today most know him by Jesus Christ, and most popular Bibles use this name. In my opinion it would be too confusing and counterproductive if we used his Hebrew name. Names of other famous people today are also misspelled and mispronounced from how they were spelled and pronounced in their own times.
What this book attempts to do is to simplify the Christian beliefs found in the Bible, not by studying the so-called fathers of the Church, but by analyzing the very words of the Bible. If the Bible was inspired by God, then the truth will be found there, not in theological essays written by the so-called 'fathers' of the Church. If the Bible was not inspired, then how can anyone ascertain anything relevant to Christianity? The only father of the Church is Yehoshua not Augustine or others. Paul was an apostle, not a father. "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). "There is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live (1 Cor 8:6).
What do real Christians believe in? Who are Christians? What is the Church? How can we tell if we are real Christians? What 'reward' do Christians receive? Why be a Follower? Can anyone be a Follower? Who is saved, or is everyone saved? Is there a hell, a heaven? Immortality? Is there an end to the world? What hope do we have? What is the meaning of life? Is there evil? What is evil?
This book is an accumulation of over 40 years of study by one man interested in finding the truth.
May Grace Abound to All, Walter R. Dolen
Love is patient, kind, forgiving, full of joy and goodness, faithful, hopeful, gentle, not jealous, not arrogant, not unbecoming; love shuns evil and seeks good. Love is the new law and is what Christianity must be in order to be Christ's church. In this book we go into great detail about this. However, others only see the negativity of religion. Mark Twain (1) was disillusioned with Christianity and religion because he only saw the paradoxes and the hell-damnation of religiosity. So he wrote the following in a book not published until after his death:
"A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell." [Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, Chap. 11]
This perception of the inexplicable paradoxes and negativity found in religion, or the emphasis upon such, is one-sided and unfair, for such negativity was superseded by Christ's teaching on Love.
Jesus Christ, for whom Christianity is named, changed the way some perceived God. Unfortunately, Jesus' teaching was taken over by those who didn't understand and they changed Christ's teachings of forgiveness and love into the teachings of hell and damnation. Because of this, we are forced to review in detail the doctrines of Christianity because the negativity of the world has been interjected into religion, not only Christianity, but all religion. This projects something about man's mind in this age, which we call the old mind. But Christ announced a new mind, a new spirit, and a new commandment - the commandment of love. Originally this book was called the New Mind Papers because the new mind was the mind of love, not hate. We think our new title for this book more reflects and projects the real essence of Christianity, as taught by Jesus Christ. This book is comprehensive: we cover all the important doctrines found in the Bible about Christianity and attempt to negate the misguided teachings of religiosity.
Before we start examining Christianity, let me give you some of the premises for my belief.
Law. The evolutionary theory always starts with, and assumes, the eternal existence of laws like those of mass, energy, motion, gravity, conservation, chemical bonding and so forth. Laws, in and of themselves, are systematic order and project intelligence and power outside of the law itself. The genetic code of life found in DNA also projects high intelligence and power. How can the code of DNA evolve or any law such as gravity or chemical bonding evolve? How can any code or law itself have any power? What gives a code power? I am speaking about the code itself, the order of the elements within the code. How can the arrangement of the code itself have power? The apparent connection between the code and its effect on a body or plant projects, or strongly suggests some kind of force or power behind the law. The code itself doesn't do anything, just as the letters in this book don't do anything by themselves. If you change the arrangement of the letters of the code or a word, it has a different result or may not have any. A seed grows into a certain kind of flower, not because of the code per se, but because of the power behind the code. The basic laws of the universe must have come from somewhere and the power behind these laws must have some connection to the law. Evolution has yet to explain the source of the power behind the universal laws. Science can only describe gravity (through mathematical formulas) and partially describe the code of life, but it has no idea how the power of gravity works or how or where the code of DNA gets its power. I believe that God, as described in the God Papers, is the creator and power behind all universal laws. And I believe it is more naive to believe in a cosmic soup theory (evolution) than in a powerful God, although I agree that common descriptions of God are naive and do not explain the paradoxes pertaining to God.
Beginning. Radioactivity and laws of thermodynamics indicate there was no eternity of matter and it corollary: there was a beginning of matter. If matter always existed, without a starting point, then the "life" period of the radioactive elements would have long ago run its course and the whole universe would be the same temperature (thermodynamic laws). The radioactive elements would have run down and there would not be any radioactive elements left; the whole universe should be the same temperature. Thus, there was a beginning of matter, and it wasn't that long ago, since there are still radioactive elements. The "science" of evolution cannot explain energy or matter or its source nor will it ever because it has no witnesses and has no real explanation for their beginning. A mathematical description of energy doesn't explain it, it only describes what it does in a quantitative manner in our solar system. God created matter and energy and in some way God is matter and God is energy as we attempt to explain in our book pertaining to God (God: God is the Becoming-One).
Life. The relative harmonic-symbiosis of the ecosystems, from the biochemical cell to the earth-sea-heavens, projects design. There is a co-operation, interaction and mutual dependence among life forms; one species cannot live well, or at all, without mutual-beneficial interaction of the whole: the flowers need the birds and insects for pollination in order to continue to exist and vis versa; the seed needs its DNA, the dirt with its nutriments, water and the power behind the DNA for it to grow. Our bodies need a heart, lungs, liver, intestines and so forth in order to exist: we need our whole factory of body parts and a compatible earth in order to live. The whole cannot live without the parts; the parts cannot exist without the whole. The theory of evolution maintains that life is arbitrary, for life came from a hit and miss adventure ("natural selection" or "mutation," etc.). If life is arbitrary, then the universe would be filled with the inferior products of this evolutionary process, and the inferior and half-made life-forms would greatly outnumber the surviving species. There should be fossils of the inferior products of the evolutionary process in all strata, in the rocks everywhere. In other words, the rejections of the evolutionary process should be polluting the universe. Where are the fossils of these inferior life-forms? For that matter, where are the masses of missing links in the evolutionary process? Where? Life came from God, not from the mindless soup of evolution.
The Proof. The big bang theory and other theories need to explain where the material and energy for the big bang theory came from. God, the all powerful Being, by definition, must have always been there, or else there is nothing and we are nothing and so this dialogue doesn't exist. Either the all powerful god of Evolution (mindless soup) was there at the beginning or the all powerful Being was there. Of course we cannot prove God by definition, but there is a way to settle this disagreement:
Three Tests to Give
Christianity, Judaism and Islam base their belief and knowledge of God on information found in the Bible. The non-believers think the Bible is too legendary and therefore cannot be the word of God. To the disbeliever the Bible is full of exaggerated stories orally passed on through generations.
The Bible is a historical document that includes poetry and a rich use of figures of speech. The Bible uses similes, "his eyes were as a flame of fire" (Rev 1:14). The Bible uses metaphors, "tell that fox" (Luke 13:32). The Bible uses metonyms, "if the house be worthy" (Mat 10:13). The Bible uses synecdoches, "all the world should be taxed" (Luke 2:1). The Bible uses personifications, "the earth mourns and fades away" (Isa 24:4). The Bible uses apostrophes, "O death, where is thy sting?" (1Cor 15:55) The Bible uses hyperboles, "the light of the sun shall be sevenfold" (Isa 30:26). The Bible uses allegories, "this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia."(Gal 4:24) The Bible uses parables, "behold, a sower went forth to sow" (Mat 13:3). The Bible also uses irony, riddles, and fables (1Kings 18:27; Rev 13:18; and Judg 9:8 ff & 2Kgs 14:9 ff). So we see that the Bible is rich in its use of language. (The serpent did not literally speak to Eve, only figuratively did the serpent speak to Eve.) Yes, the Bible does have a few fables, riddles and metaphorical serpents talking within its pages. The Israelis were creative writers. Figures of speech are used to draw attention and interest to the meaning of the words, and to aid in the remembrance of the text. A text of poetry is easier to remember than a boring academic document. The fact that the Bible used colorful word usage to convey its message does not mean it does not convey a truthful picture of history and important philosophical and theological messages from God. It may just as well mean that God used man's colorful ways of expression to convey his word so as to better brand the message into the mind of man. Figures of speech can also breed misunderstanding if the hearer/reader takes literally a story that was only meant to teach a lesson. Trees clapping their hands and snakes talking are metaphorical, not literal.
The Bible's history goes back thousands of years. Especially in the last hundred and seventy years, archeology has confirmed facts recorded in the Bible that previously had no other confirmation. In comparison to other ancient writings, the Bible is as accurate, if not more accurate than any other historical document in the world (See my Chronology Papers). Most ancient historians give a skewed view to make their ethnic group look better than they did in reality. Not so with the writers of the Bible. They wrote, not only of the glory, but of the foibles of their people.
The Bible is filled with specific place names, proper names, topographical descriptions, descriptions of ancient customs and nations, descriptions of ancient artifacts, temples, religions, and human behavior. Until the last couple of centuries the skeptics used to call many of the nations, cultures, and customs described in the Bible - myth, or just oral traditions that had lost their truth. But archaeological finds have helped to alleviate some of this skepticism.
The Bible has the oldest manuscripts of any large ancient document to attest to its ancient origins. The intra-cohesiveness of these old manuscripts helps to indicate that today's Bible may very well reflect truthfully the original documents. (2) But of course, we have no original documents for the Bible or any other ancient document, except those written on stone. Remember there were no copy machines when the manuscripts of the Bible were handed down. The copying of manuscripts was done by hand. Because it is almost impossible to copy a large document without some mistakes, there are some variations between the ancient manuscripts and today's, but most of these variations concern different spelling of words or omission of words or words or phrases that were added by scribes so as to clarify the meaning of the text.
Typical criticism: The Bible is a mythological book that contains orally transmitted myths that were passed down through generations until about the time of Ezra who compiled most of the Old Testament. Moses did not write five books of the Bible because for one thing, there were few in his day who could write: the Hebrews used oral tradition and/or he was illiterate and so could not write it.
First about Moses: I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it specifically says that Moses wrote every single word of the first five books of the Bible. Of course he compiled sections from other writings and placed them within his books. He may have had scribes helping him; Jeremiah had a scribe to help him. I don't see in the Bible where it states specifically who actually penned each book. I also don't see any proof that Moses did not know how to read or write, after all, he was brought up by the Pharaoh's daughter in the palace, so of course, he was taught to read and write. The general criticisms are sometimes petty, merely trying to find fault, and not giving the author the benefit of the doubt. While others' criticism seems to be mere scholarly exercises, although they do point out apparent paradoxes in the text and in its depiction of the Hebrew God. Books like Richard Simon's, A Critical History of the Old Testament [1682,English Trans., (archive.org)], seem to be anti-Hebrew in tone by attempting to prove that the caretakers of the Hebrew text made many mistakes in copying, while the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls is proof of the immense care they took in preserving the Hebrew Bible. To make his case Simon seems to point out every trivial criticism he could think of (the text repeats itself too many times, the text uses synonyms, it wasn't written in a style he appreciates or understands, laws are written with different words at different places within the text and so forth).
The general criticism is not that solid especially when we examine archaeological finds of the last few centuries. For example, the Ebla tablets, discovered in the 1970's prove that there was written text before Moses at least back to about 2250-2000 BC (see my Chronology Papers). In the 1975 season over 15,000 tablets were found, about 18,000 complete clay tablets were eventually found. The language of the tablets was Sumerian script and the Eblaite language, the earliest known Semitic language. Personal names, geographic names, lists of animals, professions, names of officials, vocabularies, sacrificial systems, rituals, proverbs, hymns, and so forth were found. Most of the tablets dealt with economic matters such as bills of sale, receipts, tariffs, contracts of sale, etc. Among the tablets were copies of treaties, one was between Asshur and Ebla. Asshur is mentioned in the 10th chapter of Genesis. The language of Ebla was Semitic and the closeness to Hebrew is striking. The vocabularies were the oldest found so far in history, about 500 years earlier than any previously known. There are tablets with case law on them. This proves that hundreds of years before Moses there was written law. Moses didn't invent law, he merely put it in a Hebrew form. What is unique about Moses's law is the patterns in it and its God. These tablets named the five cities of the plain mentioned in the book of Genesis of the Bible, proving these cities were not mythological. The tablets reflect the culture of the patriarchal period and even mention people's names that appear in the book of Genesis. (see Beld, Hallo, and Michalowski, The Tablets of Ebla: Concordance and Bibliography, 1984; Giovanni Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla, 1981; Clifford Wilson, Ebla Tablets, 1977; etc.)
Because these tablets were found in Syria near the modern city of Aleppo, apparently the information that ties these tablets to the Hebrews is being censored by Syria because of the fear of giving any credence to the Jews' rights to the ancient land of Israel.
There are three tests we can use to determine the reliability of the Bible. (1) Bibliographical Test: Not having the original documents of the Bible, how reliable are the copies we have? (2) Internal Evidence Test: Is the written record credible? (3) External Evidence Test: Does other historical material confirm or deny the material in the Bible?
How reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the interval of time between the original and the surviving copy? Concerning New Testament manuscripts there are about 22,000 copies of manuscripts with at least partial contents of the New Testament. The closest ancient work next to the Bible is the Homer's Iliad (700?? BC), but it only has about 643 manuscripts. Such works as Aristotle (c. 340 BC) have only about five manuscripts for any one of his works, the earliest copy is dated about 1100 AD, about 1400 years after he lived and wrote his work. The history of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) has just eight manuscripts and the earliest copy is from about 900 AD. Pliny the Younger's History has only 7 copies, the earliest copy from about 850 AD. Plato's work has only 7 copies, the earliest from about 900 AD. Livy's work has only 20 copies. Contrariwise the New Testament manuscripts are about 22,000 in number, with one of the earliest (John Ryland MSS) dating from about 130 AD, about a century after Christ. The Chester Beatty Papyri located in the Beatty Museum in Dublin has three manuscripts containing major parts of the New Testament. Two of these papyri manuscripts are dated in the second half of the third century (250-300 AD). But manuscript p46, which was originally dated about 200 AD has since been dated to 100 AD on paleographical grounds (Biblica 69:2 , pp. 248-257). "Paleography (literally, old writing) is the study of the manuscripts themselves rather than the text they contain. In attempting to date manuscripts, paleographers are especially concerned with the script, i.e., the style of the letters used. We have so many papyri from Egypt that a definite progression in the style of script from one period to the next can be seen" (Darrell Hannah, "New Testament Manuscripts," Bible Review, Feb. 1990, p. 7). [Some of this paragraph's info was taken from Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 800 pages, 1999.]
Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest Old Testament manuscript was dated about 900 AD. This was about a 1300-1400 year gap from when the Bible was completed. Because of the reverence for the scriptures, the Jewish community went to great lengths in making new copies of the Old Testament as accurate and perfect as humanly possible. "Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet ... These trivialities ... had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures..." (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1941). Because of this meticulous care of the Jewish caretakers of the Bible, it has been believed the Bible copies were highly accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped to confirm this belief.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are made up tens of thousands of inscribed fragments from over 900 texts. The texts can be divided into three groups: Biblical manuscripts (copies from the Hebrew Bible) make up about 40% of the total; Apocryphal texts, which make up about 30% of the total; and Sectarian manuscripts. They are dated from about 150 BC to 70AD. One complete scroll of the Old Testament book of Isaiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to Gleason Archer, the Isaiah scroll "proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text, but in 1QIsb [a partial text about 1/3 of Isaiah], (ca. 75 B.C.) the preserved text is almost letter for letter identical with the Leningrad Manuscript. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling" (Gleason Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament, 1994, p. 29).
When you analyze the Bible itself you must be fair. To use what some call Aristotle's dictum: (3) "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." You should not assume fraud or error unless you find contradictions of known fact.
"Giving "benefit of the doubt" until further evidence is uncovered and investigation undertaken is hardly incompatible with a healthy skepticism. Extreme incredulity is no more inherently virtuous or useful than extreme credulity. Indeed both represent a mindset not conducive to honest and fair examination of a particular claim....
It is no coincidence that atheists, and skeptics come down on the side of the burden of proof falling upon the document while Conservative Christian scholars come down on the side of the burden of proof falling to the critic.... the burden of proof issue often says more about the person examining a particular text than about the text itself. It often reveals the presuppositions and philosophical assumptions of the contemporary historian.
"Those who accept the empirical claims of a historical text bear the burden of proof just as much as those who assert their falsehood; in the absence of such proof we should suspend judgment. Empirical uncertainty thus forms the middle ground between the claim that empirical claims are certainly true and the claim that empirical claims are certainly false." [Jeff Lowder] (4)
The biggest problem that the secular intellectuals find with scriptures is God and his supernaturalness. According to their system of thinking any supernaturalness is automatically thrown out. But at the same time the magic of evolution, the cosmic non-intelligent soup that by some miracle created the universe, is not thrown out. This is the result of a mindset. The writers of the New Testament were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-3; John 19:35; 1 John 1:3; 2 Peter 1:16; etc). They spoke to others who were eyewitnesses (Acts 2:22; 26:24-28; etc.). At first they did not believe in Christ's resurrection, and admitted this very thing in their writings (Mark 16:11; Luke 24:11, 25; John 20:24-29). But later they saw the resurrected Christ and believed (Luke 24:48; John 20:19-20; Acts 1:8; 2:24,32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 26:16; 1 Cor 15:4-9, 15; 1 John 1:2). Later many of them died because of this belief (Acts 7:58-60; 9:1; Rev 6:11; Heb 11:35-12:1). Tradition has it that 11 of the apostles were martyred for their belief. If it was all a lie, if they made it up, why did they allow themselves to die for it? Even when they lived they gained nothing materially from their belief. They must therefore have believed it because they saw the things they wrote about.
Sir William Ramsay, one of the great archaeologists, is another witness to the Bible's accuracy:
"He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writing of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and his attitude toward the Book of Acts began to change. He was forced to conclude that 'Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.'" (J. McDowell, He Walked Among Us, p. 110)
More could be said on the internal evidence, but we will let other books speak on this matter (see book lists below).
Does other historical material confirm or deny the testimony in the Bible? For one thing the names and descriptions of kings, cities, geography, customs, events, wars, and so forth are well attested and confirmed by secular findings such as archeology. In our Chronology Papers we give some evidence of this. The books in the book list below as well as the evidence and books referenced within these books also attest to this. Joseph P. Free, in his Archaeology and Bible History, said "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts" (p.1). Read the many books available on this subject.
The following short list of books will help you in your search:
Type and Antitype
Visible Projects Invisible
Look to the Higher Meaning
For God speaks once, yet twice, though people do not perceive it (Job 33:14)
Before I found this way or method of reading the Bible, the book was like an enigma to me as it was and is to many others. The method has to do with the duality of meaning in the Bible: one a physical meaning; one a spiritual meaning. All of the sections in this book, God, and most of my other religious writings project and rely on the duality of the Bible in order to explain it's higher meaning. If there is a secret in understanding the Bible, it is the duality of the Bible - the type and antitype of the Bible. There are events and words in the Bible that have dual meanings. One meaning is the physical meaning; the other meaning is the spiritual meaning. The physical meaning is the typical rendition. The spiritual meaning is the antitypical rendition. Of course I wasn't the first to see this duality, many other writers, including Paul of the New Testament, have pointed to this duality. If there is a secret to reading the Bible, this is it.
The duality of the Bible consists of "types" and "antitypes." A "type" is an event, person, thing, or symbol in the Bible that represents some Spiritual Truth. The Spiritual Truth is the antitype of the type. For example, in the Old Testament it describes the Passover lamb. In the New Testament it tells us the True or Real Passover lamb is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 5:7). The Old Testament's Passover lamb is a type of the New Testament's Passover lamb, which is Jesus Christ (see "God's Appointed Times" paper [NM16]). The Old Testament's Passover foreshadowed the New Testament's Passover.
Paul of the New Testament, in his letter called Hebrews, tried to explain the duality of the Bible. He didn't use the word "duality" when he tried to explain it, but nevertheless he was explaining the duality of the Bible. Paul in Hebrews speaks of a "sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: 'See to it that you make everything [in the tabernacle] according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.'" (Hebrews 8:5; Ex 25:9, 40) Paul is saying that the tabernacle that Moses built was a pattern of the tabernacle in heaven. What does this mean?
When you see the word "heaven" used in the Bible, you can think of it as spiritual, for both "heaven" and "spiritual" are used interchangeably in the Bible (compare "heaven" and "spiritual" in 1 Cor 15:44-49). Thus Paul is saying that Moses made his tabernacle (the physical one) according to the pattern of the heavenly or spiritual tabernacle.
Paul explains that Christ didn't go into the physical tabernacle, but the "true tabernacle" or the "more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made," "for Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; He entered heaven itself [the spiritual dimension itself], now to appear for us in God's presence" (Hebrews 8:2; 9:11, 24). The physical tabernacle built by Moses was merely a copy of the Real or True tabernacle. Paul tells us that "the law [much of the Old Testament is called the law] is only a shadow of the good things that are coming -- not the realities themselves" (Heb 10:1). The law and things of the Old Testament were merely shadows of the good things, the real things, to come. The Old Testament and the things in it are only the types of the antitypes. The antitype being the Real and True -- the Spiritual fulfillment of the type. Paul tells us that the things written in the Old Testament were types or examples for us, that is, types or examples for us Christians (1 Cor 10:11).
Paul tells us that the invisible qualities of God can be understood by the things that God has made. (Rom 1:19-20) And in our papers you will see how many aspects of this world, like males and females, which God made, are types of the antitype. Marriage, being born, women, water, stars, and so forth all have a higher meaning: they all have a Spiritual meaning; they are all types of the Real or True, which is the antitype. For example, "stars" are representative of angels (see Rev 1:20). And even "water" foreshadows the Spirit (John 7:38-39)
The two sexes use the same language and understand the same language in slightly different ways. The same words or sentences have different meanings to each sex (Male/Female Language, by Mary Ritchie Key, 1996) because of their biosocial differences (see my Sex Difference book). Just as women and men can get two different meanings from the same words (a sex/gender difference), people also understand the Bible in two different ways: its physical and its Spiritual meaning. In all my books pertaining to the Bible I manifest this and attempt to explain this phenomenon.
Even New Testament rituals like water baptism are types of the antitypes. Water baptism represents spiritual baptism. (see "Baptism Paper" [NM4]) All of the Bible projects its duality through its language of type and antitype. This includes the Old as well as the New Testament. Even the physical creation is representative of a higher or spiritual meaning (Rom 1:20). The physical creation (the type) is representative of the spiritual creation (the antitype). For example the days of the week are seven. The week was instituted right after the creation (see Genesis, chapter 1). But this week is a type. It represents the antitypical week. The Bible gives a few hints that to God a day is like a 1000 years or a 1000 years like a day (2 Pet 3:8; Ps 90:4). Therefore in the duality of the Bible, the physical week (seven days of the week: the type) is representative of the Spiritual 7,000 year week (the antitype). Even such things as "salt" and "light" have higher or antitypical meaning (Matt 5:13-16). "Clean" and "unclean" have a higher meaning (Matt 15:2,11,15-20). "Yeast" has a higher meaning (Matt 16:5-12).
We are to look for the higher meanings or Spiritual meaning of scripture vis a vis merely the earthly things (Col 3:1-2; Phil 3:19-20; 1 Cor 15:44-49). In my study I found that the typical and antitypical meanings are a check onto each other and helps to verify the accuracy of the Bible's transmission from the original text to us.
Brain Cell Problem
We are born into a world of traditions. The traditions that we are born into have sets of rules, written and non-written. We are taught or influenced by our parents, teachers, environment, mind(s), the language(s) we speak, and our biology to believe in certain things and act in certain ways. From this we form a belief system, or mindset. A "mindset" is a perceptual set. Through this set we perceive the world. A mindset acts like a filter. It filters out any mental conceptions or realities that do not fit our mindset.
The word "liberal" means something different to a liberal than to a conservative. The word "communist" means something different to a communist than to a capitalist. The word "Catholic" means something different to a Catholic than to a Protestant. The word "evolution" means something different to an evolutionist than to a creationist. A peaceful countryside, where a nuclear plant is planned, means something different to environmentalists than to the owner or builder of the nuclear plant.
A person who does not know anything about the game of baseball who overhears someone talking about Smith "stealing" second base, may think that Smith committed a crime. As our knowledge and background filters our perception of the words, "Smith stole second base," so too with almost everything else. Words sometimes have different meaning to different people; words often times have shades of different meaning to different people.
One of the biggest examples of a mindset was the geocentric theory in which the earth was the center of the universe. The geocentric theory is the idea that the earth is the center of the universe while the sun, moon, planets, and stars made a complete revolution around the earth each day. This theory was represented well by Claudius Ptolemy. Claudius Ptolemy's work commonly known as the Almagest was actually called "Mathematical Systematic Treatise" in the Greek version because it was a mathematical system. Ptolemy believed that mathematics was the highest form of science:
"that only mathematics can provide sure and unshakeable knowledge to its devotees, provided one approaches it rigorously. For its kind of proof proceeds by indisputable methods, namely arithmetic and geometry" (G.J. Toomer, Ptolemy's Almagest, p 36).
Today the public makes light of the Almagest by thinking of it as some naive theological or church backed doctrine. But instead it was the most scientific work of its day containing abundant mathematical proof with tables and charts, with premises from Greek philosophy, not church doctrine. "One of the most influential scientific works in history, and a masterpiece of technical exposition in its own right" (G.J. Toomer, p. vii). Yes, today the geocentric theory seems preposterous, since after all, we know that the earth is not the center of the universe, and in fact that the earth makes one revolution around the sun each year. We believe this even though it appears (empirical evidence) from our eyesight that the sun, planets, and stars revolve around the earth each day.
"His name was Claudius Ptolemaeus ... he lived from approximately A.D. 100 to approximately A.D. 175, and that he worked in Alexandria, the principal city of Greco-Roman Egypt, which possessed, among other advantages, what was probably still the best library in the ancient world.... As is implied by its Greek name, ... , 'mathematical systematic treatise,' the Almagest is a complete exposition of mathematical astronomy as the Greeks understood the term" (Toomer, p. 1). By the "fourth century (and probably much earlier), when Pappus wrote a commentary on it, the Almagest had become the standard textbook on astronomy which it was to remain for more than a thousand years.... It was dominant to an extent and for a length of time which is unsurpassed by any scientific work except Euclid's Elements.... " (Toomer p. 2-3)
"Ptolemy called his principal work on astronomy the Great System (Megale Syntaxis tes Astronomias, later known as Almagest from the Arabic translation). This somewhat arrogant title was fully justified, for he had examined every problem in astronomy, and solved every one with Euclidean precision. Ptolemy created the first complete scientific system -- a structure so vast and coherent that not even the comprehensive mind of an Aristotle could have conceived it, let alone worked it out.
"Toward the solution of the chief problem, the apparently irregular velocities of the planets, he made a crucial discovery. Ptolemy drew an overlapping circle near Apollonius' circle.... The second circles came to be known as Ptolemy's epicycles. From the center of the epicycle the motion around Apollonius' eccentric circle appeared to be uniform. The system was extremely complicated, but it worked; Ptolemy could use it to calculate any future position of Mars... Ptolemy could justly boast that he had laid the keystone of Greek astronomy.... Mathematically speaking, this was true; henceforth, everything was calculable.... The planets now traveled in loops, that is to say, around an imaginary point that for unknown reasons itself revolved around the Earth...." (Rudolf Thiel, And There was Light, trans. by Richard and Clara Winston, pp. 49-51).
Graphic by Walter R. Dolen
Ptolemy's system had the earth as the center with the stars, moon, planets, and even the sun circling the earth each day. Ptolemy used the wrong and illusionary concept of epicycles to explain the apparent movement of the planets in the night. He further used mathematics to predict the future movement of planets. His system worked to a remarkable degree. It had a mathematical system to back it up. His book was well written and seemed quite logical. After all even today the planet, sun, moon, and stars do apparently circle the earth. Ptolemy system made sense out of wandering stars (planets). It predicted future positions of planets. It was the great system. It lasted for almost 1500 years. Apparently it was the perfect system. It was backed by mathematics. It was apparently backed by observation. But it was wrong. How wrong can you be to think that the massive sun circles the earth each day? But because of the prevailing mindset Ptolemy remained king. A mindset can be very compelling. It rules all. Since 1984 English readers have been able to read Ptolemy's work, as translated by G.J. Toomer, Ptolemy's Almagest. In this translation you can see the apparent logic to the whole work. You can see the massive amount of tables, observations, and mathematics to back Ptolemy's theory.
How can a work so logical, based on so many observations, and backed up by mathematics be wrong? It was wrong because it was based on some faulty thinking (the enormous sun going around the smaller earth would have to move at an unbelievable rate), because Ptolemy was a charlatan that cheated on his mathematical figures and cheated on his observations (Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy), and because he had a mindset that told him that all heavenly objects were perfect and god-like, they moved in perfect circles, he thus placed epicycles into his system:
"The heaven is spherical in shape, and moves as a sphere; the earth too is sensibly spherical in shape ... in position it lies in the middle of the heavens very much like its center.... [Toomer, p.38] The following considerations also lead us to the concept of the sphericity of the heavens....[ p. 39] We think that the mathematician's task and goal ought to be to show all the heavenly phenomena being reproduced by uniform circular motions.." (p. 140).
Ptolemy got his mindset about the orbits having to be perfect circular orbits from the Greeks such as Aristotle:
"There must be some substance which is eternal and immutable.... But motion cannot be either generated or destroyed, for it always existed.... But there is no continuous motion except that which is spatial, and of spatial motion only that which is circular... There are other spatial motions - those of the planets - which are eternal (because a body which moves in a circle is eternal...).... for the nature of the heavenly bodies is eternal (Aristotle, Metaphysics Book XII [Loeb Classical Lib. No. 287], pp. 141 & 155).
Ptolemy was so overly influenced by the Grecian philosophy that he fabricated a mathematical system to help prove his preposterous belief: "We think that the mathematician's task and goal ought to be to show all the heavenly phenomena being reproduced by uniform circular motions." (Toomer, p. 140)
Today math is used extensively to "prove" likewise absurd theories. They do not appear preposterous to most today only because of today's mindsets which filter reality. Mathematics are wrongly used today in the scientific age. Today mathematics are blinding otherwise intelligent people into believing in paradoxical and nonsensical theories on the cosmos, physics, and biology. Today much of what is called science exists inside of a mindset.
The main problem with a mindset occurs when you try to communicate with someone with a different mindset. Sometimes it is almost impossible. A Catholic trying to convert a Protestant has a terrible time trying to communicate his point of view, and vice versa. Many times even trying to communicate your different point of view will be met with a harsh reaction and sometimes even a violent reaction. Why?
One book tried to explain this. Daniel Cohen, in a 1982 book, called Re:Thinking, put it this way:
"Once a pattern -- an idea or belief -- becomes fixed in our neurological pathways, it is extremely hard to alter it. The more basic the belief, the more we refer to it in our thoughts, the more well worn is that particular neural pathway -- and thus the harder it is to change the idea, even when it is wrong" (p. 70).
"Our memories and beliefs are stored in our brains in the form of nerve cell patterns. When you argue with someone you are pitting your nerve cell patterns against his. The beliefs and opinions you hold are not the result of some abstract intellectual process. They are the result of your total life experience. But your opponent's beliefs and opinions are the same. For both of you, changing these deeply held beliefs is hard and painful." (p. 118).
With our mindset we see only what our mindset allows us to see. It acts
like a filter and filters out any pattern not belonging to the sets of rules we
have etched in our brain cells.