Reasons People Give for Believing in Santa Claus

I thought this would be fun, and once I started I didn’t want to stop. As it turns out, it has become quite the helpful exercise:

1. You can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

2. We give gifts on Christmas. This practice had to come from somewhere outside ourselves!

3. So many other people on the planet all practice this, that shows the existence of Santa has some truth to it!

4. I feel the Christmas Spirit each December and you can’t explain that to me outside of a universe with a Santa Claus in it.

5. If we could see Santa Claus pouring gifts down chimneys or flying by in his sleigh, that would ruin the whole effect.

6. Mankind should give Santa Claus cookies because he first gave us presents.

7. There are just too many examples of families who are not well-to-do somehow managing to get their child a gift for Christmas. That gift had to come from somewhere and I just don’t think a non-Santa worldview can explain that.

8. Santa is the most benevolent and cheery being you can think of, so he must exist.

9. I feel Santa Claus’s presence in my day-to-day life.

10. I write Santa Claus letters and I believe he answers my requests (from time to time).

11. Santa Claus revealed himself to us through his human representation on earth, Scott Calvin, in the film series called Santa Clause. The popular scholarly opinion of the day is that this is a fictional work or simply an allegory (because impossible things purportedly take place in the narrative), but I believe that this film is the truth, that these miraculous happenings are proof of its trustworthiness, and that it illustrates the need in the human condition for a Santa Claus.

12. Humanity cannot treat one another well without an example to show us how. / Santa Claus’s standard for naughty and nice lists is the only way we could have systems of morality.

13. Humans are naturally inclined to believe in Santa Claus: it’s built into our make-up.

14. I have had contact with one of his elves.

15. There’s no harm in telling your child that Santa Claus is real.

16. Some version of Santa Claus has been in human history for a very long time; this points to one true Santa Claus that all the other versions (St. Nicolas, Kris Kringle) acknowledge and seek to understand.

17. Believing in Santa Claus is what works for me and it’s been in my family for generations and it’s how I’ll instruct my family!

18. There has to be some source for abstract qualities like love. I believe this source is Santa Claus.

19. Santa Claus and Christmastime give me purpose in life. Your life has no purpose and never can or will since you don’t believe in Santa Claus.

20. Santa Claus is our source of knowing what good is, as he is responsible for all the good in the world.

21. Santa Claus holds our universe together. Without him fulfilling this function, everything in nature would fall apart.

22. I can’t: love my kids/wife, raise my children, or do another part of my life to which I attach extremely personal emotions unless I love Santa Claus first.

23. My parents believe(d) in Santa Claus and taught me to. Are you saying they aren’t trustworthy?!

24. I believe Santa Claus currently rules over a kingdom we cannot see in the North Pole from whence he controls all of the contents in this universe, and one day he will reappear before our eyes to become the sole ruler over all the people that inhabit this planet. This is a day I cannot wait for!

25. People who don’t believe in Santa are evil / eat puppies / cuss at infants / commit atrocities, etc.

26. Believing in Santa Claus is better than not believing in Santa Claus, because if he’s real then I’ll get presents, and if he’s not then I have nothing to lose by believing.

27. Belief in unproven/unprovable entities is good in itself.

The Value of a Vote

I have argued in the past that a single, centralized federal government is begging for unlawful increases in power, and can never be changed by voting as a result of its massive size; a single citizen’s vote cannot count toward anything. What this eventually boils down to is that she has absolutely no sovereignty over her own life, nor any say in her government. “We should just shrink it,” I used to argue, “to a smaller size… for example, since our states are somewhat like the size of whole, sovereign countries in Europe, we could just make states sovereign and have the people of Texas deciding what Texas does, rather than being a part of the decision concerning what happens to residents of Maine and Oregon.”

In light of these thoughts of mine, I want to give you some perspective on voting, and how much your vote counts.

We will use me as an example, in the scenario that the United State makes voting compulsory, as it is in Australia and Malta (I hope my math is right on all of these!):

When I vote in a federal election, I am 1 of roughly 307,006,550 people.

My vote in a federal election is worth: 0.000000325% of the vote. That’s about equal to being one of the seconds in a period of 9 years, 8 months, and 12 days. That means, approximately, that that first second on October 18, 2000 is you, and just right now (June 30, 2010), was the last second of the amount you are part of.

Okay so that’s way too big to mean much, so we should have just states govern themselves! Then I would vote for the happenings of my state and it would be fairer since there would be way fewer people voting on stuff they don’t know about (namely, how to run my state when they live in Alaska)… right?

When I vote in a state election (Georgia), I am 1 of roughly 9,829,211 people.

My vote in a state election is worth: 0.00001% of the vote. That means you’re close to one ten-millionth of the population (by the way, a meter is one ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole… an atom is about one ten-millionth of a millimeter across).

Wow, I didn’t know I was that insignificant, even in a state election… I really don’t have any say, even over what the governor and the state legislator do? I always thought that was really small! …All right, fine, let’s go even smaller, what I thought was microscopically small: local government.

When I vote in my home county’s election (surely, I get a lot of say in this!), I am 1 of roughly 789,499 people.

My vote in a county election is worth: 0.00012% of the vote. That’s one one-millionth (1.2E-6). A micrometer is one one-millionth of a meter… which means a hundred of you are the width of a strand of human hair (100 μm wide). You and seven of your friends count as the diameter of a red blood cell (8 μm), setting winning 100% of the vote at a whole meter.

Wow, so I can’t even influence my county’s government that much? That’s such a tiny portion of the vote!! That’s hardly anything at all! What am I even voting for?

Now, now. We could make each city sovereign, where only the people within that city vote for what they want. Since our example guy lives in a pretty small city (about 11,000 people), let’s see how much his one vote means in the scheme of things for voting for the mayor. I’m sure it makes a difference.

When I vote in my home city’s election, I am 1 of about 11,307 people.

My vote in a city election is worth: 0.008% of the vote. “Wow! That’s pretty sizable!” you might say; but remember, we have been comparing to your molecular droplet in the ocean of others voting for things that you don’t want to be law, but that still apply to you and can send you to jail.

Even at such a “small” level, you’re still only about seven seconds in a whole day of other people.

“Then,” you might be saying, “that’s why it’s so important that I get a lot of other people to vote the way I do, so the country goes in the right direction [meaning, the way I want it to]!”

All right! Sounds good, let’s do it. Suppose I do some serious campaigning or bribing or threatening and everyone in my city votes for, say, a third party candidate that no one knows about but us. That’s still only .0036% of the vote, which means my entire city and I together are only about 10 feet high, compared to the line called the Kármán line, which defines the boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space.

Well that’s not very high at all… that’s hardly anything compared to the whole distance, huh?

But let’s be crazy! Somehow voting has got to be the best way to govern ourselves! Let’s think outside the box and imagine that, somehow, you have managed to get the whole state of Georgia to vote for a certain presidential candidate! Wow, wouldn’t that be crazy! What a huge number of people that is, isn’t it? Certainly a lot; imagine that they all went in and ticked the right guy. What progress!

If everyone in Georgia voted for the same candidate, that is worth 3.2% of the vote. Everyone living in my entire state voting for one guy would still only be an inch toward the yard that is the election.

You may conclude from this, as I have, and as 43.2% of Americans of voting age did in the 2008 election (which was the biggest voter turnout since 1968!), that it’s probably just not worth it to cast my single little vote. After all, how much is my say really even worth?

Even in the most recent voter turnout, which was about 56.8% of Americans of voting age, as a single one of them, the difference you make is only .00000075% of the vote… making you still only about the width of a hemoglobin molecule in the distance between the floor and the top of a doorknob. In other words, you’ve gone about the width of a human finger (21 mm) in the entire length of Interstate 95, which stretches from Houlton, Maine, to Miami, Florida (about 3 megameters). You’re the weight of an adult lion against the collective weight of the entire human population of earth.

So at least, I guess, we can be happy that not everyone votes!

After all, it means you’re worth (a microscopically tiny amount) more.

But, in all likelihood, I’ll keep voting, since even though it’s not true to any extent that we can reasonably measure microscopically, it’s nice to think that when the results are announced, you’re a part of them.

A Question of When: The Temple Veil

Again, prompted by an article by Mr. Daniel Florien, I will examine the question, “When did the temple veil rip?“

The Claim

That Mark, Matthew and Luke give different times of the tearing of the temple veil, and thus contradict each other — Mark says after Jesus dies, Matthew says during or after, and Luke says before.

The Examination

The Three Accounts — Different?

Here are the quoted verses, including the portions emphasized by Mr. Florien:

Mark:

“Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.” (Mark 15:37-38, NRSV)

(This “and” (και) must mean to Mr. Florien an explicit ‘after,’ when in fact the two events are not given a straightforward time relation, which would indicate they happened simultaneously or possibly that the second happened directly after, for example, as a result of the first.)

Matthew:

“Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.” (Matthew 27:50-51, NRSV)

(The NRSV does indeed read “at that moment,” but this is a superfluous addition to the original Greek, which reads ιδου — which is not at all a measure of time, but rather it is a verb in the imperative, meaning behold or lo. Young’s Literal, which was more painstaking in its care not to add anything, does not add this “at this moment,” which is not in the Bible. What is there, ιδου, suggests a simultaneous occurrence or one that is a direct result (he died and behold! this happened). So far, so same.)

Luke:

“It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last.” (Luke 23:44-46, NRSV)

(Again, this “then,” which does appear in the NRSV, is not in the Greek. The actual Bible says “and” (και) again, just like it did in Mark. His telling the events in a different order is not problematic, especially if the two events happened simultaneously. More on the “how did they know” below.)

Now, the following are from Young’s Literal Translation:

Mark 15:37-38. ³⁷And Jesus having uttered a loud cry, yielded the spirit, ³⁸and the veil of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to bottom,

Matthew 27:50-51. ⁵⁰And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit; ⁵¹and lo, the vail of the sanctuary was rent in two from top unto bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks were rent,

Luke 23:44-46. ⁴⁴And it was, as it were, the sixth hour, and darkness came over all the land till the ninth hour, ⁴⁵and the sun was darkened, and the vail of the sanctuary was rent in the midst, ⁴⁶and having cried with a loud voice, Jesus said, `Father, to Thy hands I commit my spirit;’ and these things having said, he breathed forth the spirit.

It is hoped that after looking, everyone will see the difference between the Literal Translation of the Greek and the NRSV that Mr. Florien is dismissing, as well as see the lack of a difference between the gospel stories.

How would they know?

Florien then asks how the gospel writers would have known the time the veil tore in two, since they didn’t have watches, there was no video, and the veil wasn’t near Jesus.

One possibility is that, since the temple sanctuary was a very sacred and very important place to the Jews, the area behind the veil the holiest, for it to be rent in two would be sensational to them; it would be the talk of the town, at least for a while (until the veil gets replaced, at the very least). They would have learned about it from all over; the people, for a while, would be talking about the day the temple tore in half and what time it was and what they were doing when it happened. It would not be difficult at all for the apostles to realize that it happened at the same time their Teacher died. Also, the strangeness of its tearing from top to bottom and, as Mr. Florien says, its being 4-inches thick and just ripping, would add to the sensation.

He says it didn’t happen at all

Because the first written mention of the veil ripping in two is in the Bible, and no Jewish or Roman sources mention it, Mr. Florien dismisses the possibility of its occurrence.

Conclusion

The translation which Mr. Florien criticizes for being inconsistent is a mistranslation. The accounts in the Greek say the same thing on this matter — it is the NRSV, not the Bible, which contains the “at this moment” and the “then” which have caused him to come to the conclusion of a contradiction in the timing of an event. The basis of his argument is an erroneous English translation; what he is criticizing is extra-Biblical, not written by the Evangelists.

A Question of When: Date & Time of the Crucifixion

Introduction

Prompted by an article written by Mr. Daniel Florien, I am considering the question “When was Jesus crucified?“

In the following writing I hope to answer this challenge by attempting to use the original Greek texts of the writers of the gospels in setting out to satisfactorily prove that the Bible is authoritative and non-contradictory on this matter, as in all matters; I say “attempting to use” because my source is, obviously, not personal knowledge or fluency in Koine Greek, but rather the assistance of a very helpful and profoundly indexed comparative Biblical Greek text website.

Again, all English translation quotations are pulled from YLT, Young’s Literal Translation. It is in the public domain.

When did Jesus die?

The Claim

The claim made by Mr. Florien is that Mark and John give different times of Jesus’s death (in fact, different days): that Mark says it was “on the day after the Passover Meal” (Mark 14:12, Mark 15:1, 25) and John says it was “on the day before the Passover Meal” (John 19:14). For these he quotes from the NRSV.

He then quotes a book called Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, by Bart Ehrman, saying it is the best explanation he has heard: namely, that John, knowingly falsifying the historical accuracy of his account, changed it on purpose to score a theological point — namely, to verify his message, unique among the gospels, of Jesus as Lamb of God.

The Examination

It is necessary to look at what the Bible says about these events and their timing in order to clear up any contradiction Mr. Florien believes to have found therein. The following quotes are from the YLT (from BibleGateway.com) and from the Greek, which was obtained from Great Treasures.

Mark’s Account

¹²And the first day of the unleavened food, when they were killing the passover, his disciples say to him, `Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the passover?’ [...] ¹And immediately, in the morning, the chief priests having made a consultation, with the elders, and scribes, and the whole sanhedrim, having bound Jesus, did lead away, and delivered [him] to Pilate; [...] ²⁵and it was the third hour, and they crucified him;

(Mark 14:12, Mark 15:1, 25, YLT)

Strictly from the YLT we can see it is a bit different from the NRSV, which for 15:25 gives “It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.”

And as for the Greek:

Mark 14:12. Καὶ τῇ πρώ¦τῃ ἡ¦μέ¦ρᾳτῶν ἀ¦ζύ¦μων, ὅ¦τε

τὸπά¦σχα ἔ¦θυ¦ον,λέ¦γου¦σιν αὐ¦τῷ οἱμα¦θη¦ταὶ αὐ¦τοῦ·

ποῦθέ¦λεις ἀ¦πελ¦θόν¦τεςἑ¦τοι¦μά¦σω¦μεν ἵ¦ναφά¦γῃς τὸ πά¦σχα;

Mark 15:1. Καὶ εὐ¦θὺς πρω¦ῒσυμ¦βού¦λι¦ονἑ¦τοι¦μά¦σαν¦τες οἱἀρ¦χι¦ε¦ρεῖς

με¦τὰ τῶνπρε¦σβυ¦τέ¦ρων καὶ τῶνγραμ¦μα¦τέ¦ων καὶ

ὅ¦λοντὸ συ¦νέ¦δρι¦ον,δή¦σαν¦τες τὸν Ἰ¦η¦σοῦνἀ¦πή¦νεγ¦καν

καὶπα¦ρέ¦δω¦καν Πει¦λά¦τῳ.

Mark 15:25. ἦν δὲ ὥ¦ρα τρί¦τη καὶἐ¦σταύ¦ρω¦σαν αὐ¦τόν.

Looking at the Greek, the clear lines of importance are those concerning the day and time of the action and the action itself.

Day and Time

Day

και ευθυς πρωι συμβοωυλιον ετοιμασαντες οι αρχιερεις μετα των πρεσβυτερων και των γραμματεων και ολον το σθνεδριον, δησαντες τον Ιησουν απηνεγκαν και παρεδωκαν Πειλατω.

Mark 15:1

(the portions parsed below are bolded in the quote)

/and/ /immediately, directly/ /at-morn/, [...] /the-nom./ /chief-priests-nom./ /with/ [...all the others that the YLT lists...] /having-bound (δέω)/ /the-acc./ /Jesus-acc./ /they-carried-away (ἀποφέρω)/ /and/ /they-did-betray;hand-over/ /Pilate-dat./

This after our nearest mention of the day, which is quite nearby: Mark 14:12:

και τη πρωτη ημερα των αζυμων, οτε το λασχα εθυον, λεγουσιν αυτω οι μαθηται αυτου που θελεις απελθοντες ετοιμασωμεν ινα φαγης το πασχα;

Mark 14:12

/and/ /the-dat./ /first-dat./ /day-dat./ /the-gen./ /unleavened-gen.-pl.-adj./, /when/ /the-acc.-s./ /passover (pascha)/ /they-were-killing;sacrificing (θύω) 3rdp.-impf.-act.-indic./ [...]

which roughly becomes ‘and to the first day of the unleaveneds, when they were killing the pascha,’

The events of the rest of Mark 14 are the Last Supper and Jesus’s capture, which took place the night before what Mark tells us is the morning of the day Jesus was crucified.

Mark indeed does set the day before the events of the crucifixion as the first day of the unleavened (when Jesus’s pupils — μαθηται, mathetai, a fascinating word — were killing the pascha).

By the way, Luke 22:1 attests to Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened being the same thing (“And the feast of the unleavened food was coming nigh, that is called Passover,”). The tradition of eating the Passover Seder is observed on the first night of the Passover week.

Time

ην ((én) [...] he, she, or it was.) δε ωρα τριτη (de, conjunction of antithesis, particle transitioning to something new; (h)ora, instant, season, hour; trité, third.)

The translation of ωρα is given the following definitions: “instant,” “any definite point in time,” “a certain definite time or season,” “a day,” “a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun, Jn. 11:9.” This last mentioned practice is what led modern translators to say 9:00am, for sunrise is at 6:00am, and three hours thence would indeed be 9:00am; therefore, Florien seems to be right about the time mentioned in this passage.

Action

και (kai, and.) εσταυρωσαν (estaurosan, [3d pl aorist active indic] they staked, from root σταυρόω, stauron, to stake, to drive stakes) αυτον (auton, [3d sing acc] him).

The action which takes place at this hour is clearly the staking of Jesus (to qualify, as against his death or any other occurrence).

Conclusion from Mark

Mark says that the staking of Jesus took place at the third hour after sunset (Mark 15:25) — making it 9am (John 11:9) — on the day after the first day of the unleavened (Mark 15:1, following 14:12 and the subsequent events).

John’s Account

First, our literal English translation:

¹⁴and it was the preparation of the passover, and as it were the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews, `Lo, your king!’

(John 19:14, YLT)

And, the Greek:

John 19:14. ἦν δὲπα¦ρα¦σκευ¦ὴ τοῦ πά¦σχα, ὥ¦ρα ἦνὡς ἕκ¦τη. καὶ λέ¦γειτοῖς Ἰ¦ου¦δαί¦οις·ἴ¦δε ὁ βα¦σι¦λεὺςὑ¦μῶν.

John’s account is disconcerting for Mr. Florien, because, as he says:

…in Mark, Jesus was nailed to a cross at 9am the day after the Preparation of the Passover. In John, Pilate is about to send Jesus to his death at 12pm on the day of the Preparation for the Passover.

Those timelines just don’t add up. At least one is false; both cannot be true.

(“When Was Jesus Crucified?”, by Daniel Florien)

Should he be disconcerted? Let’s examine it. First things first, the Greek and the parsing.

ην δε παρασκευη του πασχα, ωρα ην ως εκτη. και λεγει τοις Ιουδαιοις ιδε ο βασιλευς υμον

John 19:14

/it-was/ /”now”-conj./ /making-ready-at-hand;preparation-sing./ /the-gen./ /passover (pascha)/, /hour/time/ /it-was/ /as;(with numerals=about)/ /sixth/. /and/ /he-lays (λέγω)/ /the-dat.-m.-pl./ /Jewish-adj.-dat.-pl./ /behold-2nd-sing.-aorist-active-imper. (εἴδω)/ /the-nom.-s.-m./ /king;ruler (βασιλεύς)/ /your-pron.-2nd.-pl.-gen./

which essentially becomes: it was now the preparation of the pascha, the hour was about sixth. and he [Pilate] lays/relates to the Jewish behold the ruler of ye.

Conclusion from John

This verse says during the preparation of the pascha, at about the sixth hour, — 12 noon — Pilate, who is standing next to Jesus, lays (says) to the Jewish, behold the ruler of ye.

Cursory glance at Matthew and Luke

By “cursory,” I mean only at Young’s Literal Translation, and not at the original Greek.

Matthew says the crucifixion took place the day after Jesus ate Passover with his disciples. Matthew 26:17 says “on the first [day] of the unleavened food came the disciples near to Jesus, saying [...];” Matthew 26:20 says evening came; then the Last Supper happens; then v.30, they go to the Mount of Olives, then v.36 to Gethsemane; the cock crows marking a new day and Peter’s lie; Matthew 27:1 says morning comes, making this the day after they eat Passover together; it does not give a time of Jesus being staked to the cross. Verses cited here.

Luke says the crucifixion took place the day after Jesus ate Passover with his disciples. Luke 22:7 says “And the day of the unleavened food came, in which it was behoving the passover to be sacrificed;” Verses cited here.

Further Deliberations

Time?

As for the time of day: Mark says that at 9:00am Jesus was staked, and John says that at noon Jesus was paraded by Pilate as “the king of ye.”

In short, the Bible says Jesus was crucified at two different times; there is no way around this. Which of the two given times is true? As Mr. Florien rightly said, “Both cannot be true.”

Ως — an important word.

Well, John writes in the original Greek the word ως (related to ωσει hōsei 5616), both of which are defined as “as if,” “as though,” “something like,” or “as it were” — “as it were” is what how Young literally translated it. This word that describes John’s time-of-day is not one of clarity or certainty — it probably holds a symbolic meaning, such as that it seemed like noon, meaning the sun was so hot that it felt directly overhead, even though it was earlier in the morning.

Even if that interpretation is unsuitable, and it does indeed mean ‘about noon,’ the way it is translated in these verses, it still remains anything but an expression of certainty and should not be taken as one.

Conclusion

They were referring to the same day, because of both its relation in time to other events and changes in the Passover…

Now, here’s why I think Mark and John are talking about the same day:

1. In relation to the other events (Jesus eating the Last Supper/Seder with his disciples the night before the crucifixion), and the number of days in between it and other events, it is clear that the two writers are referring to the same occurrences and mean the same day.

2. Because “as early as the 1st century, it was commonly held among Pharisees that the Feast of the Unleavened Bread started the day following the Passover feast, and lasted seven days:”

“The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first “partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them,

(Antiquities of the Jews Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5).”

(all from the Wikipedia page about Passover)

Therefore, Passover Feast (Last Supper) and then day one of the Unleavened Bread. Probably, by the time John was writing his gospel, which was years after Mark wrote his, this change in the definition of the Passover Week had come; this could be one reason that the uncertainty is there as to which day.

…and the same time, because of our misconceptions of John’s use of the word ως/ωσει, or purposeful differences in time, to match with different audiences or for a different purpose than history.

Because of faulty, or more gently, less concise/accurate/creative English translations* read only about, with no sense of the meaning “as it were” or “something like,” this passage is assumed to be saying “around the sixth hour.” I’m convinced that, after examining the original text and the meaning of that word in plenty of other places in the Bible — “as though” — John simply meant that it was as though it were noon.

Another possible explanation, if the first one isn’t sufficient for you, could be that the authors use different time, such as the New American Standard Bible and the God’s Word Translation suggest*, with the purpose, perhaps, of appealing to a different audience — Matthew (Jews), Mark (probably Romans), Luke (Theophilus and, perhaps, all Gentiles), John (Gentile, Christian audience). The source of these probable audiences, Ken Palmer, also says in the same writing that Mark used Roman time rather than Hebrew; this is something to consider.

The third and most liberal explanation I heard/read offered is that the time of John’s gospel is different because of a lack of interest on John’s part of maintaining exact accuracy in the time of day; either John preferred to write “about theology, not history” (as this Dennis Bratcher article argues) or he did it on purpose to make Passover coincide with Jesus’s death, and show the Lamb of God picture more clearly to his readers. This is the explanation that Mr. Florien said was the best he ever heard; I disagree here, as I think the Greek word and the separate audience are both stronger. Nevertheless, it is an explanation that has been offered for the seeming contradiction here.

*KJV, NIV, NLT, CEV, ESV, NCV: “about,” NASB: “about,” with a footnote reading “perhaps 6 am,” GWT: “about six o’clock in the morning.”

All quoted material, unless otherwise noted or attributed, are taken from Short Definitions, New Testament. ©2008 Great Treasures. This is a new, electronic by-Greek-word edition of Bullinger’s lexicon, adding: massive reorganization into “By Greek Word” ordering (the original was organized “By English Word”); transliterations; reference (Strong’s) numbers; and Unicode Greek characters. All rights reserved worldwide.

A Partial Examination of the Biblical Requirements of Salvation

In this partial examination of the generally recognize requirements for salvation in the New Testament (and one passage in the Old), “be saved/achieve salvation/be given salvation,” etc., “inherit/see/share in/take part in the kingdom/reign of God/heaven,” etc., “being/being called a child/son of God,” etc., and “sins forgiven” are taken as synonymous.

Also, several strictly metaphorical or allegorical instances which Christianity as perceived by the author has designated to be intending the doctrine of salvation in their meaning are included, but labeled as such (ex: Revelation 3:20, which the author is not convinced means much about salvation without the added separate interpretation).

I use Young’s Literal Translation, because I am convinced it is the nearest to the original writings that the English language has come to date. On such topics as the centuries of mistaken translation concerning the word “Hell,” as well as “devil,” the YLT provides a much truer picture to the original words, with the added benefit of being in the Public Domain.

Promptings for references were taken from this list of requirements.

Matthew
Requirement	Source	Result	Explicit/Implicit?
Be poor in spirit (separately interpreted spiritually needy).	Matthew 5:3	“…theirs is the reign of the heavens.”	Explicit
Be a peacemaker.	Matthew 5:9	“…they shall be called Sons of God.”	Explicit — they shall be called his child when they do this.
Be persecuted for righteousness’s sake.	Matthew 5:10	“…theirs is the reign of the heavens.”	Implicit — they could already share in/have the reign of the heavens before this happens.
Get insulted (reproached), mistreated (persecuted), and have lies told about you (evil things said about you) because of Jesus.	Matthew 5:11-12	“…because your reward [is] great in the heavens, because thus they did persecute the prophets who were before you.”	Implicit — the end of the verse seems to suggest they will already be in Heaven, but will just have great reward there.
Doing and teaching (these) commands (Jesus had just referred to the law)	Matthew 5:19	Being called great in the reign of the heavens.	Implicit — it appears that this only applies to people already involved in the reign of the heavens, as it only refers to reward.
Be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.	Matthew 5:20	Without doing so, “…ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.”	Explicit — “unless” X, “ye may not enter.”
“Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you”	Matthew 5:44-45	“…that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens…”	Implicit
Don’t do your kindness before men, to be seen by them.	Matthew 6:1	If you do, you don’t get a reward from your Father who [is] in the heavens	Implicit — this does not necessarily mean the reward is life. It could mean that doing acts of kindness in the sight of others is the reward, which takes place of a spiritual one that is given for when kind acts are not publicized. It could also mean that the motivation needs to be other than being seen doing kindness.
Judge not.	Matthew 7:1-2	You won’t be judged.	Wrong — this passage is not referring directly to the afterlife, but rather, using verse 2 as a guide to context, as just one half of a larger teaching: When you judge someone, the standard you use must and is used equally against you as well. There is no mention of the heavens or God’s family, etc., in this teaching; it seems to relate to mortal life
Just ask for it.	Matthew 7:7-8	It will be given to you.	Metaphorical — Jesus isn’t necessarily talking about the doctrine of salvation here.
Do the will of Jesus’s Father who is in the heavens	Matthew 7:21	You can come into the reign of the heavens.	Explicit
Have endured to the end (of? Presumably the end of your being “hated by all because of [Jesus's] name.”)	Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13	You shall be saved/rescued/delivered.	Explicit
Give a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple to one of these little ones	Matthew 10:42	You may not lose your reward	Wrong — this reward is not necessarily speaking of an afterlife. This must be thought of with that bias in order to interpret it that way. Compare Mark 9:41 below
Be turned and become as the children	Matthew 18:3	Unless you do so, you may not enter into the reign of the heavens	Explicit
Obey a couple commandments and sell all you have to the poor and follow Jesus.	Matthew 19:17-22	You shall be perfect and shall enter into the life and will have treasure in heaven	Explicit — with slightly different requirements and results from the same story in a different gospel. Compare Luke 18:18-23 below.
Don’t be rich.	Matthew 19:23-24	It makes entry into the reign of the heavens harder for you	Implicit — all Jesus is saying here is that it is only with difficulty that a rich man can enter in the reign of God.
Leave your house, or brother(s), or sister(s), or father(s), or mother(s), or wife, or children, or fields, for Jesus’s name’s sake.	Matthew 19:29	Receive 100 times what you had in all that, plus inherit life age-during.	Explicit
Be invited by God and be worthy of his choosing.	Matthew 22:1-14	Unclear result. Verse 14 “…for many are called (κλη¦τοὶ: called, invited, welcome, chosen) and few chosen (ἐ¦κλεκ¦τοί: chosen out, preferred, selected)” is responsible for great disagreement on salvation doctrines.	Metaphorical — whle this parable does begin with Jesus likening it to the reign of the heavens, the specific meaning of the parable is uncertain. The interpretations one can take from it solidly are that the king is God, the son is Jesus, and that he cast the servants out because, although they were all (good and bad alike) invited/called by the king, and one man in this instance was not wearing the clothing of the marriage-feast and was kicked out.
Mark
Don’t be ashamed of Jesus and his words (in this adulterous and sinful generation).	Mark 8:38	If you do, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of you	Wrong — it can be true that the Son of Man be ashamed of you and that it have no bearing or relation to the afterlife. Also, the word “generation” here (γενεά, (genea), birth, race/descent/offspring/progeny, but also meaning the age occupied by a generation or “the whole multitude of men living at the same time,” [Long Definitions, New Testament. ©2007 Great Treasures.] from this root we get the word genealogy) has more meanings than the reader of English translations assumes; regardless, this by no means appears to be directed at all of humanity for the rest of time.
Give a cup of cold water to those who are Christ’s	Mark 9:41	You may not lose your reward	Wrong — this passage is not specifically dealing with afterlife. Compare Matthew 10:42 above.
	Mark 10:29-30		see Matthew 19:29 above
	Mark 13:13		see Matthew 10:22 above
Believe and be baptized.	Mark 16:16	You will be saved.	Explicit — the question of baptism as a true requirement arises from its absence in the inverse, when Jesus says, “he who hath not believed shall be condemned.” Belief seems to be the main point he wants to stress.
Luke
Don’t be rich.	Luke 6:24	—	Metaphorical — “comfort” (παράκλησις) does not literally mean heaven or afterlife, but rather could refer to the physical riches, as well as the idea that because they have physical reward already, the afterlife award would not need to be as great to compensate. Also, the lack of a result here makes it far from explicit.
Love God and your neighbor, whom Jesus describes in a parable as the Samaritan.	Luke 10:25-37	“Thou shalt live.”	Explicit
Nothing	Luke 13:20-21	“And again he said, `To what shall I liken the reign of God? It is like leaven, which a woman, having taken, did hide in three measures of meal, till that all was leavened.’	Implicit — is the woman God? The leaven is likened to the reign of God, but what is the leavening (the effect of the reign of God)? Are the three measures (sata) of meal humanity? Why three? The entire mixture is leavened; if the mixture is humanity, this means that all receive of the reign of God at the behest of God.
Strive to go in through the straight gate because many will seek to go in and will be unable.	Luke 13:23-24	Unclear result (Possibly a chance at getting in?)	Implicit — it is a response to the question “Are the people saved few?”
Obey a couple of the commandments, sell all you have for distribution among the poor, and follow Jesus.	Luke 18:18-23	This is how to inherit life age-during.	Explicit — but different requirements and results from the same story in a different gospel. Compare Matthew 19:17-22 above.
	Luke 18:29-30		see Matthew 19:29 above
John
Be born from above.	John 3:3	If you don’t, you are not able to see the reign of God.	Explicit
Be born of water and the Spirit.	John 3:5	“If any one may not be born of water and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God.”	Explicit
Believe in the Son of God	John 3:16	You won’t perish, but have life age-during.	Explicit
Believe in the Son	John 3:36	Have life age-during.	Explicit
Hear the word of Jesus and believe the one who sent him.	John 5:24	Have life age-during, do not come to judgment, but pass out of death into life	Explicit
Be given by the Father and come to the Son	John 6:37	Don’t be cast without by Jesus.	Implicit — this does not refer to the afterlife/reign/heavens outright. Once again, the assumption that Jesus means cast out of the afterlife is ungrounded. This word translated “cast out” (ἐκ¦βά¦λω, ekbalo) is the same word used when Jesus healed people of the demons afflicting them and when he drove out the moneychangers from the temple. It is not inherently metaphysical.
Behold the son and believe in him	John 6:40	Have life age-during	Explicit
Be drawn (ἑλ¦κύ¦σῃ: dragged, impelled) by God first.	John 6:44	You are then able to come unto Jesus.	Implicit — God’s drawing you is defined here as a prerequisite, with Jesus saying no man can come to him unless his Father who sent him draws that man; however, he does not say the other requirements, only that the option is only open to you once you are drawn by the Father who sent him.
Believe in Jesus	John 6:47	Have life age-during	Explicit
Eat of the bread that out of the heaven is coming down.	John 6:50	You will not die.	Implicit — the meaning of his bread analogy is cleared up in John 6:55, but the means by which we do so is not. The option of literal physical consumption was at least open to those present during this speech, despite the oddity of the option.
Eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood. Otherwise you have no life in you.	John 6:53-54, 57-58	“hath life age-during, and I will raise him up at the last day”	Explicit
Come in through Jesus the parabolic door, as a parabolic sheep.	John 10:7-10	You will be saved; you will also come in, go out, and find pasture through Jesus, who is like a door.	Implicit — this isolated verse (verse 9) is an obvious continuation of the sheep analogy, including the oft-left-out bits about going out of the door as well as entering, and about the benefit of finding pasture.
Hate your life on this earth	John 12:25	Keep it for age-during	Explicit
Acts
“and it shall be, every one — whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord…”	Acts 2:21 and surrounding verses	“…he shall be saved.”	Implicit — the surrounding verses are crucial, because they point to future events (at the time the speech was given). One finds that verse 21 is simply another prophecy in a list of them about a certain time, wherein “whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, he shall be saved.”
Unspecified action toward no other name but Jesus of Nazareth only.	Acts 4:12	“Salvation,” perhaps specifically the beggar from Acts 3, saved from his paralysis? There is no mention here of sin or of heaven(s), only a physical healing using Jesus’s name.	Given Peter’s clearer speech in Acts 3, it is explicit — “there is no other name…in which it behoveth us to be saved.”
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…”	Acts 16:30-32	You and your house will be saved (from?)	Implicit — Given modern Christianity’s terms, it is explicit. However, the passage itself does not denote that from which he is saved. It is probably safe to assume the jailer means what he has heard them saying/singing in prison, but our assumptions are not in the Bible.
Romans
Be a doer of the law	Romans 2:6, Romans 2:13	Be declared righteous	Wrong — be declared righteous when? Not necessarily after death.
Be known ahead of time (προ¦έ¦γνω) by God and be marked out beforehand (προ¦ώ¦ρι¦σεν) by God.	Romans 8:29-30	Will be/are(?) called (ἐ¦κά¦λε¦σεν: could mean either vocation or designation), freed from your guilt and declared righteous (ἐ¦δι¦καί¦ω¦σεν), be thought of, considered important/given honor in the mind of God (ἐ¦δόξ¦α¦σεν).	Wrong — these verses are an explanation of the reason behind Romans 8:28, in essence putting a ‘because’ to the unspoken question “Why is it that, ‘to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose’?” Their relation to salvation or afterlife was supplied after the fact.
Be chosen by God before you have done right or wrong.	Romans 9:11	It’s up to God to choose your destiny for the afterlife.	Wrong — this verse is an explanation of what happened concerning God’s message to Rebecca about Jacob and Esau. The choice of God is what fulfills his purpose. There is no mention of the afterlife, the kingdom, the heavens, nothing of the kind; there is mention only of God’s purpose being enacted by his own choice and not by man’s works: there is no mention of that being an eternal (age-during) purpose. After all, this (Romans 9:12) refers to what happened in Esau and Jacob’s mortal lifetimes; Esau sold his birthright and thus served Jacob during his life on this planet.
Confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead	Romans 10:9	“Thou shalt be saved.”	Explicit
	Romans 10:13		see Acts 2:21 above
Be part of Israel.	Romans 11:26	Then you will be saved, since all Israel will be saved.	Explicit — here Paul is quoting Isaiah 59:20-21.
1 Corinthians
Believe (in/about what?)	1 Corinthians 1:21	God sees fit to save people through the foolishness of the preaching	Misplaced — God saves believing people through the preaching, meaning their belief came first.
If you practice whoredom, deliver yourself up to the Adversary for the destruction of the flesh.	1 Corinthians 5:15	That the spirit be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus	Explicit
Don’t separate from a spouse that is unbelieving.	1 Corinthians 7:12-14	An unbelieving wife/husband is sanctified in the believing husband/wife; otherwise the kids are unclean.	Explicit
Ephesians
Be chosen (predestinated) by God	Ephesians 1:3-7	Be adopted as one of God’s family.	Wrong — the result of this choice of God is unrelated to the afterlife in this and similar passages. Here it is that God gives blessings to humanity based on his choice to do so, with verse 4 showing that mankind was considered holy and unblemished before him before the foundation (κα¦τα¦βο¦λῆς, katabolis: a casting down, an establishment with intended continuation) of the world (κό¦σμου, kosmon from kosmos: a word we have caused to mean the universe, but originally just means order, ornament, decoration, arrangement). However the teaching in Ephesians 5-7 begs clarification: God chose beforehand (before what? mainstream Christianity for some reason (tradition of past church doctrine) hastily assumes before the act of creation itself) to make mankind lovely (χά¦ρι¦τος, v. 6 “accepted”), and since Jesus bore the wages/weight of sin for humanity (which is θάνατος: death, the natural end of life, Romans 6:23), it now has redemption (payment of a ransom, v. 7) from this penalty, since Jesus’s death paid for the sin of all mankind (1 Timothy 4:10), as opposed to only those believing.
2 Thessalonians
Love the truth / Accept the love of the truth / Receive the love of the truth. / Don’t believe the truth.	2 Thessalonians 2:10-12	It is part of being saved.	Explicit
1 Timothy
Through the child-bearing, and if they (Adam and the woman) remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.	1 Timothy 2:14-15	The woman shall be rescued/saved (contextually, from transgression)	Explicit
Nothing	1 Timothy 4:10	God is the Savior of all mankind	Explicit
Be careful what you do and teach, and continue doing both	1 Timothy 4:16	You will save yourself and the people who hear you teach.	Explicit
Titus
God our Savior giving you a bathing of regeneration and a renewing of the Holy Spirit.	Titus 3:5	You are saved.	Implicit — this passage is in the past tense, and it is unclear who “we” and “our” mean. The author is of the persuasion that “we” and “our” refer to all humanity.
James
Don’t be rich.	James 5:1	Miseries come upon rich people.	Wrong — this verse is wrongly cited as relating to the afterlife. The great miseries that come upon rich people is that they made the mistake of making treasure in the last days (v. 3) and as a result their riches (gold and silver) have rotted (v. 2).
1, 2, and 3 John
Love.	1 John 4:7	You are born of God and you know God, since God is love.	Explicit — doubly so, because it says the reverse is true, i.e. X is Y, not X is not Y.
Jude and Revelation
Hear the voice of “the Amen, the witness — the faithful and true — the chief of the creation of God” (probably Jesus, judging solely by his knowledge of all their deeds, the conditions of their spiritual hearts and his reference to God as “my Father”) and open the door.	Revelation 3:20	He will come in unto you, and will sup with you, and you with him.	Metaphorical — this verse is often cited as a description of the rather recent Christian teaching of Jesus entering the new believer’s spiritual heart through a door in it on which he is knocking but awaiting entry by its occupant, a teaching which echoes an Arminian doctrine of the placement of the onus of salvation on the human. The author is unconvinced that this is referring to salvation from sin or from death.
Be a virgin.	Revelation 14:4-5	Be bought from among mankind, be unblemished before the throne of God	Wrong — these verses do not in any way say virginity is a requirement. The word translated as “were bought” here is ἠ¦γο¦ράσ¦θη¦σαν, from the root ἀγοράζω (agorazo): to be in the marketplace, to attend it, to have use of it. This seems to paint the idea of being open to God’s choosing, as opposed to the ideas of not being in the market or of being purchased. This word “bought” is the same as the famous “Ye are bought with a price” passage, as well as the question of Philip just before the feeding of the 5,000: “Whence shall we buy bread, that these people may eat?”
Do God’s commands; don’t be a dog, a sorcerer, a whoremonger, a murderer, an idolater, or someone who is loving and is doing a lie, because these are without.	Revelation 22:14-15	The authority shall be yours unto the tree of the life, and by the gates you may enter into the city.	Metaphorical — the object of this description is uncertain. What gate? Dogs? What’s the tree of life? What gates? What city?
Some of the Old Testament
Turn back from the wickedness you have done, do judgment and righteousness.	Ezekiel 18:27	You will save your soul.	Explicit

Those marked Wrong were, in the author’s view, wrongly attributed to teachings about the post-thanatos state of humanity. Those marked Implicit make a suggestion at afterlife teaching, while Explicit verses are clearly referring to an afterlife teaching. Those marked Metaphorical are passages on which one should suspend judgment, because of the opacity of the allegory.

The purpose of this exercise was to go back through this (admittedly partial) list and ask if these requirements are, indeed, the ones widely recognized as the essentials of the faith; it is assumed the belief system would hold in highest regarded the words said by Jesus Christ about the religion for which he is named.

Tentative Conclusion

In order to achieve eternal bliss, as they say, you definitely need to:

Be a poor in spirit or spiritually needy^{(Matt. 5:3)} peacemaker^{(Matt. 5:9)} who is part of Israel^{(Rom. 11:26)}, who hates his life on this earth^{(John 12:25)} and eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the Son of man^{(John 6:53-54, 57-58)}, more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees^{(Matt. 5:20)}, who does the will of Jesus’s Father (who is in the heavens)^{(Matt. 7:21)}, be turned and become as the children^{(Matt. 18:3)}, obey a couple commandments and sell all you have for distribution among the poor and follow Jesus^{(Matt. 19:17-22, Luke 18:18-23)}, leave your house, brother, sister, father, mother, wife, children or fields for the sake of Jesus’s name^{(Matt. 19:29)} (although don’t separate from a spouse who is disbelieving^{(1 Cor. 7:12-14)}), receive the love of the truth^{(2 Thess. 2:10-12)}, hear the word of Jesus^{(John 5:24)}, behold the Son^{(John 6:40)}, believe (the one who sent Jesus)^{(John 5:24)}, in Jesus^{(John 6:47)}, on the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Son^{(John 3:36)}, in the Son of God^{(John 3:16)}, in your heart that God raised Jesus out of the dead^{(Rom. 10:9)}, and just plain believe^{(Mark 16:16)}), obey Jesus^{(Heb. 5:9)}, be baptized^{(Mark 16:16)}, love God and your neighbor (whom Jesus describes as a Samaritan)^{(Luke 10:25-37)}, just plain love^{(1 John 4:7)}, confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth^{(Rom. 10:9)}, be born from above^{(John 3:3)}, of water and Spirit^{(John 3:5)}, if you ever practice(d) whoredom, deliver yourself up to the Adversary (or “Satan”) for the destruction of the flesh^{(1 Cor. 5:1-5)}, turn back from the wickedness you have done and do judgment and righteousness^{(Ezek. 18:27)}, if you’re a woman, through childbearing so long as you and the child’s father continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety^{(1 Tim. 2:14-15)}, and have endured to the end.^{(Matt. 10:22, 24:13)}

Or, since God is the Savior of all mankind, don’t worry about any of that^{(1 Tim. 4:10)}, or just do an unspecified action (possibly nothing) toward no other name but Jesus of Nazareth’s only, as it is the means of salvation^{(Acts 4:12)}.

(Read all these verses together (in two parts): First half, Second half)

What could be simpler than that?

And those are just the explicit ones.

A Response to Jonathan Dolhenty’s “Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?”

A response to “Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?” by Jonathan Dolhenty.

The reason for Peikoff’s insistence that Objectivism is not a form of philosophical materialism is well explained in the paragraphs following the very page Mr. Dolhenty cites, found in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I quote from it here:

This does not mean that Objectivists are materialists.
Materialists . . . champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is either a myth or a useless byproduct of brain or other motions. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of man’s faculty of cognition and therefore of all knowledge.
Ayn Rand describes materialists as ‘mystics of muscle‘ — ‘mystics’ because, like idealists, they reject the faculty of reason. Man, they hold, is essentially a body without a mind.
— (OPAR, p. 33, emphasis added)

Seely’s definition of modern materialism seems to exclude Peikoff’s main objection to the philosophy: the abnegation of consciousness as “unnatural” or as “unscientific on the grounds that it cannot be defined” (OPAR p. 34). Peikoff then contends that “there is no valid reason to reject consciousness or to struggle to reduce it to matter; not if such reduction means the attempt to define it out of existence” (OPAR p. 35). Dolhenty’s description of materialism, “which believes all reality is material and only material,” is more like Peikoff’s than Seely’s is.

Dolhenty is correct in his identification of the philosophy of Objectivism as non-idealist. However, his description of one of its potential categories, “moderate Realism,” as accepting of a “nonmaterial or immaterial reality” is facetious, evidently an attempt to corner Peikoff later in the article to include the possibility of some sort of God-figure. Objectivism is, indeed, not Idealism, and for the reason above, not Materialism; it then could be (circumlocutorily) described as a “moderate Realism.” There is also a need to mention Dolhenty’s straw man, which takes the form of a fictional Peikoff who answers in a way he imagines, to which he then responds.

The allowance for — or rather, acknowledgement of — consciousness in Objectivism is not an allowance for nonmaterial reality which cannot be perceived by either introspection or extrospection. Both means are accepted in the Objectivist philosophy; the former for the perception of material entities (to use Peikoff’s example, the eye), the latter for the perception of consciousness.

Peikoff goes on to call the acceptance of consciousness and the mind, which separates his philosophy from materialism, the acceptance of reason. In any case, the sought-after grounds on which Objectivism distinguishes itself from materialism are made clear in the subsequent paragraphs of Peikoff’s treatise.