Rotten to the core II

On making new gods.

The more I think about it the more it seems that the terms atheist and atheism are misnomers.Those who like to call themselves atheists are simply atheists in the same sense that we all are i.e they do not believe in the gods of their neighbours.But it is clear that they have made gods out of chance,necessity and matter,and saints and prophets of prominent advocates of their religion.

 The accompanying video looks at the issue of photosynthesis.A process perfected by the the very first lifeforms on this planet,but as yet beyond the capability of our greatest technologists.

   

  

Read God's word the Holy Bible daily

Read the 2013 revision of the New World translation of the holy Scriptures

On the third horseman.

Revelation6:6NKJV"And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying,"a quart of wheat for a denarius,and three quarts of barley for a denarius;and do not harm the oil and the wine."

I found this Commentary on the issue of world hunger to be  interesting reading.

Why so much hunger?

What can we do about it?
To answer these questions we must unlearn much of what we have been taught.
Only by freeing ourselves from the grip of widely held myths can we grasp the roots of hunger and see what we can do to end it.

Myth 1

Not Enough Food to Go Around
Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products.

Myth 2

Nature's to Blame for Famine
Reality: It's too easy to blame nature. Human-made forces are making people increasingly vulnerable to nature's vagaries. Food is always available for those who can afford it—starvation during hard times hits only the poorest. Millions live on the brink of disaster in south Asia, Africa and elsewhere, because they are deprived of land by a powerful few, trapped in the unremitting grip of debt, or miserably paid. Natural events rarely explain deaths; they are simply the final push over the brink. Human institutions and policies determine who eats and who starves during hard times. Likewise, in America many homeless die from the cold every winter, yet ultimate responsibility doesn't lie with the weather. The real culprits are an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunities, and a society that places economic efficiency over compassion.

Myth 3

Too Many People
Reality: Birth rates are falling rapidly worldwide as remaining regions of the Third World begin the demographic transition—when birth rates drop in response to an earlier decline in death rates. Although rapid population growth remains a serious concern in many countries, nowhere does population density explain hunger. For every Bangladesh, a densely populated and hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or Bolivia, where abundant food resources coexist with hunger. Costa Rica, with only half of Honduras' cropped acres per person, boasts a life expectancy—one indicator of nutrition —11 years longer than that of Honduras and close to that of developed countries. Rapid population growth is not the root cause of hunger. Like hunger itself, it results from underlying inequities that deprive people, especially poor women, of economic opportunity and security. Rapid population growth and hunger are endemic to societies where land ownership, jobs, education, health care, and old age security are beyond the reach of most people. Those Third World societies with dramatically successful early and rapid reductions of population growth rates-China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Cuba and the Indian state of Kerala-prove that the lives of the poor, especially poor women, must improve before they can choose to have fewer children.

Myth 4

The Environment vs. More Food?
Reality: We should be alarmed that an environmental crisis is undercutting our food-production resources, but a tradeoff between our environment and the world's need for food is not inevitable. Efforts to feed the hungry are not causing the environmental crisis. Large corporations are mainly responsible for deforestation-creating and profiting from developed-country consumer demand for tropical hardwoods and exotic or out-of-season food items. Most pesticides used in the Third World are applied to export crops, playing little role in feeding the hungry, while in the U.S. they are used to give a blemish-free cosmetic appearance to produce, with no improvement in nutritional value.
Alternatives exist now and many more are possible. The success of organic farmers in the U.S. gives a glimpse of the possibilities. Cuba's recent success in overcoming a food crisis through self-reliance and sustainable, virtually pesticide-free agriculture is another good example. Indeed, environmentally sound agricultural alternatives can be more productive than environmentally destructive ones.

Myth 5

The Green Revolution is the Answer
Reality: The production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth. Thanks to the new seeds, million of tons more grain a year are being harvested. But focusing narrowly on increasing production cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly concentrated distribution of economic power that determines who can buy the additional food. That's why in several of the biggest Green Revolution successes—India, Mexico, and the Philippines—grain production and in some cases, exports, have climbed, while hunger has persisted and the long-term productive capacity of the soil is degraded. Now we must fight the prospect of a 'New Green Revolution' based on biotechnology, which threatens to further accentuate inequality.

Myth 6

We Need Large Farms
Reality: Large landowners who control most of the best land often leave much of it idle. Unjust farming systems leave farmland in the hands of the most inefficient producers. By contrast, small farmers typically achieve at least four to five times greater output per acre, in part because they work their land more intensively and use integrated, and often more sustainable, production systems. Without secure tenure, the many millions of tenant farmers in the Third World have little incentive to invest in land improvements, to rotate crops, or to leave land fallow for the sake of long-term soil fertility. Future food production is undermined. On the other hand, redistribution of land can favor production. Comprehensive land reform has markedly increased production in countries as diverse as Japan, Zimbabwe, and Taiwan. A World Bank study of northeast Brazil estimates that redistributing farmland into smaller holdings would raise output an astonishing 80 percent.

Myth 7

The Free Market Can End Hunger
Reality: Unfortunately, such a "market-is-good, government-is-bad" formula can never help address the causes of hunger. Such a dogmatic stance misleads us that a society can opt for one or the other, when in fact every economy on earth combines the market and government in allocating resources and distributing goods. The market's marvelous efficiencies can only work to eliminate hunger, however, when purchasing power is widely dispersed.
So all those who believe in the usefulness of the market and the necessity of ending hunger must concentrate on promoting not the market, but the consumers! In this task, government has a vital role to play in countering the tendency toward economic concentration, through genuine tax, credit, and land reforms to disperse buying power toward the poor. Recent trends toward privatization and de-regulation are most definitely not the answer.

Myth 8

Free Trade is the Answer
Reality: The trade promotion formula has proven an abject failure at alleviating hunger. In most Third World countries exports have boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened. While soybean exports boomed in Brazil-to feed Japanese and European livestock-hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population. Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad. Export crop production squeezes out basic food production. Pro-trade policies like NAFTA and GATT pit working people in different countries against each other in a 'race to the bottom,' where the basis of competition is who will work for less, without adequate health coverage or minimum environmental standards. Mexico and the U.S. are a case in point: since NAFTA we have had a net loss of 250,000 jobs here, while Mexico has lost 2 million, and hunger is on the rise in both countries.

Myth 9

Too Hungry to Fight for Their Rights
Reality: Bombarded with images of poor people as weak and hungry, we lose sight of the obvious: for those with few resources, mere survival requires tremendous effort. If the poor were truly passive, few of them could even survive. Around the world, from the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, to the farmers' movement in India, wherever people are suffering needlessly, movements for change are underway. People will feed themselves, if allowed to do so. It's not our job to 'set things right' for others. Our responsibility is to remove the obstacles in their paths, obstacles often created by large corporations and U.S. government, World Bank and IMF policies.

Myth 10

More U.S. Aid Will Help the Hungry
Reality: Most U.S. aid works directly against the hungry. Foreign aid can only reinforce, not change, the status quo. Where governments answer only to elites, our aid not only fails to reach hungry people, it shores up the very forces working against them. Our aid is used to impose free trade and free market policies, to promote exports at the expense of food production, and to provide the armaments that repressive governments use to stay in power. Even emergency, or humanitarian aid, which makes up only five percent of the total, often ends up enriching American grain companies while failing to reach the hungry, and it can dangerously undercut local food production in the recipient country. It would be better to use our foreign aid budget for unconditional debt relief, as it is the foreign debt burden that forces most Third World countries to cut back on basic health, education and anti-poverty
programs.

Myth 11

We Benefit From Their Poverty
Reality: The biggest threat to the well-being of the vast majority of Americans is not the advancement but the continued deprivation of the hungry. Low wages-both abroad and in inner cities at home-may mean cheaper bananas, shirts, computers and fast food for most Americans, but in other ways we pay heavily for hunger and poverty. Enforced poverty in the Third World jeopardizes U.S. jobs, wages and working conditions as corporations seek cheaper labor abroad. In a global economy, what American workers have achieved in employment, wage levels, and working conditions can be protected only when working people in every country are freed from economic desperation.
Here at home, policies like welfare reform throw more people into the job market than can be absorbed-at below minimum wage levels in the case of 'workfare'-which puts downward pressure on the wages of those on higher rungs of the employment ladder. The growing numbers of 'working poor' are those who have part- or full-time low wage jobs yet cannot afford adequate nutrition or housing for their families. Educating ourselves about the common interests most Americans share with the poor in the Third World and at home allows us to be compassionate without sliding into pity. In working to clear the way for the poor to free themselves from economic oppression, we free ourselves as well.

Myth 12

Curtail Freedom to End Hunger?
Reality: There is no theoretical or practical reason why freedom, taken to mean civil liberties, should be incompatible with ending hunger. Surveying the globe, we see no correlation between hunger and civil liberties. However, one narrow definition of freedom-the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth-producing property and the right to use that property however one sees fit-is in fundamental conflict with ending hunger. By contrast, a definition of freedom more consistent with our nation's dominant founding vision holds that economic security for all is the guarantor of our liberty. Such an understanding of freedom is essential to ending hunger.

Drinking from a poisoned cup.

Revelation17:4NJB"The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and glittered with gold and jewels and pearls,and she was holding a winecup filled with the disgusting filth of her prostitution.
 James4:4NJB"Adulterers!Do you not realise that love for the world is hatred for God?Anyone who chooses the world for a friend is constituted an enemy of God."


Washington (CNN) - American Catholics overwhelmingly support newly installed Pope Francis, according to a poll released Friday, and agree with his statements that the church should focus less on contentious social issues.
Nearly seven in 10 American Catholics say the church has become too focused on same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraceptives, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released Friday.
What's more, 60% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, a number that continues to be larger than support from all American adults. Thirty-one percent of American Catholics said they do not support same-sex marriage.
This number is consistent with other polls, like a Public Religion Research Institute poll in 2012 that found 59% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage.
Despite the support among American Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church maintains rigorous opposition to same-sex marriage. But in a recent wide-ranging interview with America Magazine, the pope brushed off critics who have said he should be more vocal in trumpeting the church's position on abortion and same-sex marriage.
In the interview, Francis said if the church fails to find a "new balance" between its spiritual and political missions, its moral foundation will "fall like a house of cards."
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," he told his Jesuit interviewer. "I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that."
But the pope said the church's teachings on those issues are clear, and he clearly believes in those teachings, so what else is there to say?
"It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time," Francis said.
The poll also found 36% of American Catholics say abortion should be legal in most cases, compared to 34% of all Americans.
“On the two issues that have prompted some pulpit thundering, same-sex marriage and abortion, Catholics are right in line, or even a little ahead, of their non-Catholic neighbors,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
While the poll shows support for Francis' statement on social issues, American Catholics appear to disagree with the pope on the ordination of female priests.
According to the survey, 60% of American Catholics support women priests, while 30% are against it.
Earlier this year, Francis emphatically closed the door on women's ordination, telling an audience that the "door is closed" to that possibility.
In his recent interview, Francis reiterated this statement but said that does not mean the church should see women as secondary or inferior.
"Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed," the pope said. "The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role."
Overall, American Catholics are roundly supportive of the new pope, with a whopping 89% saying they have either a very favorable or favorable view of Francis. Only 4% say they have an unfavorable view.
Quinnipiac interviewed 392 Catholics by telephone from September 23-29. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points.

The Good News II

The voice of the sentinels.

The search for a simple beginning to life.

It's been one dead end after another,the accompanying video gives just a small glimpse as to why it's likely to be more of the same in the future.

The Sahidic Coptic's Insight on the proper translation of John1:1

Read article here.

Know your enemy

Read the watchtower society's article here

SATAN

[Resister].

In many places in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word sa·tan′ appears without the definite article. Used in this way, it applies in its first appearance to the angel that stood in the road to resist Balaam as he set out with the objective of cursing the Israelites. (Nu 22:22, 32) In other instances it refers to individuals as resisters of other men. (1Sa 29:4; 2Sa 19:21, 22; 1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25) But it is used with the definite article ha to refer to Satan the Devil, the chief Adversary of God. (Job 1:6, ftn; Job 2:1-7; Zec 3:1, 2) In the Greek Scriptures the word sa·ta·nas′ applies to Satan the Devil in nearly all of its occurrences and is usually accompanied by the definite article ho.

Origin. The Scriptures indicate that the creature known as Satan did not always have that name. Rather, this descriptive name was given to him because of his taking a course of opposition and resistance to God. The name he had before this is not given. God is the only Creator, and ‘his activity is perfect,’ with no injustice or unrighteousness. (De 32:4) Therefore, the one becoming Satan was, when created, a perfect, righteous creature of God. He is a spirit person, for he appeared in heaven in the presence of God. (Job chaps 1, 2; Re 12:9) Jesus Christ said of him: “That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him.” (Joh 8:44; 1Jo 3:8) Jesus here shows that Satan was once in the truth, but forsook it. Beginning with his first overt act in turning Adam and Eve away from God, he was a manslayer, for he thereby brought about the death of Adam and Eve, which, in turn, brought sin and death to their offspring. (Ro 5:12) Throughout the Scriptures the qualities and actions attributed to him could be attributed only to a person, not to an abstract principle of evil. It is clear that the Jews, and Jesus and his disciples, knew that Satan existed as a person.

So, from a righteous, perfect start, this spirit person deviated into sin and degradation. The process bringing this about is described by James when he writes: “Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.” (Jas 1:14, 15) In the course that Satan took, there seems to be, in some respects, a parallel with that of the king of Tyre as described in Ezekiel 28:11-19.—See PERFECTION(The first sinner and the king of Tyre).

The Scriptural account, therefore, makes it plain that it was Satan who spoke through the medium of a serpent, seducing Eve into disobedience to God’s command. In turn, Eve induced Adam to take the same rebellious course. (Ge 3:1-7; 2Co 11:3) As a consequence of Satan’s use of the serpent, the Bible gives Satan the title “Serpent,” which came to signify “deceiver”; he also became “the Tempter” (Mt 4:3) and a liar, “the father of the lie.”—Joh 8:44; Re 12:9.

Issue of Sovereignty Raised. When Satan approached Eve (through the speech of the serpent), he actually challenged the rightfulness and righteousness of Jehovah’s sovereignty. He intimated that God was unrightfully withholding something from the woman; he also declared that God was a liar in saying that she would die if she ate the forbidden fruit. Additionally, Satan made her believe she would be free and independent of God, becoming like God. By this means this wicked spirit creature raised himself higher than God in Eve’s eyes, and Satan became her god, even though Eve, at the time, apparently did not know the identity of the one misleading her. By his action he brought man and woman under his leadership and control, standing up as a rival god in opposition to Jehovah.—Ge 3:1-7.

The Bible, in lifting the veil to give a glimpse into heavenly affairs, reveals that Satan later as a rival god appeared before Jehovah in heaven, challenging Jehovah to His face, saying that he could turn God’s servant Job, and by implication any servant of God, away from Him. He charged God, in effect, with unrighteously giving Job everything, along with full protection, so that he, Satan, could not test Job and show what was really in his heart, which, Satan intimated, was bad. He implied that Job served God primarily for selfish considerations. Satan made this point of his argument clear when he said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh and see whether he will not curse you to your very face.”—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; see SOVEREIGNTY.

In this special case, Jehovah allowed Satan to bring calamity upon Job by not interfering when Satan brought about a raid from Sabean marauders as well as destruction of flocks and shepherds by what Job’s messenger called “the very fire of God” from the heavens; whether this was lightning or other fire is not stated. Satan also brought a raid by three bands of Chaldeans, as well as a windstorm. These things caused the death of all of Job’s children and destroyed his property. Finally, Satan inflicted a loathsome disease upon Job himself.—Job 1:13-19; 2:7, 8.

These things reveal the might and power of the spirit creature Satan, as well as his vicious, murderous attitude.

It is important to note, however, that Satan recognized his impotence in the face of God’s express command, for he did not challenge God’s power and authority when God restricted him from taking Job’s life.—Job 2:6.

Continued Opposition to God. By his challenge of God and his charging God’s servants with lack of integrity, Satan lived up to his title “Devil,” meaning “Slanderer,” which title he deserved for having slandered Jehovah God in the garden of Eden.

Joined by other wicked demons. Before the Flood of Noah’s day, it appears that other angels of God left their proper habitation in the heavens, as well as their assigned positions there. Materializing human bodies, they came to dwell on earth, marrying women and producing offspring called Nephilim. (Ge 6:1-4; 1Pe 3:19, 20; 2Pe 2:4; Jude 6; seeNEPHILIM; SON[S] OF GOD.) These angels, having left God’s service, came under the control of Satan. Hence Satan is called “the ruler of the demons.” In one instance, when Jesus expelled demons from a man, the Pharisees accused him of doing so by the power of “Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.” That they had reference to Satan is shown by Jesus’ answer: “If Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself.”—Mt 12:22-27.

The apostle Paul associates Satan with “the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places,” and he speaks of them as “the world rulers of this darkness.” (Eph 6:11, 12) As a governing force in the invisible realm immediately about the earth, Satan is “the ruler of the authority of the air.” (Eph 2:2) In Revelation he is shown to be the one “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Re 12:9) The apostle John said that “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1Jo 5:19) He is therefore “the ruler of this world.” (Joh 12:31) That is why James wrote that “the friendship with the world is enmity with God.”—Jas 4:4.

His Fight to Destroy the “Seed.” Satan made early efforts to block the promise of the “seed” to come through Abraham. (Ge 12:7) He evidently tried to get Sarah contaminated so that she would be unfit to bear the seed; but God protected her. (Ge 20:1-18) He did everything possible to destroy the ones whom God chose as Abraham’s seed, the nation of Israel, by inducing them to sin and by bringing other nations against them, as Bible history shows throughout. A high point in Satan’s ambitious attempts in his fight against God, and what appeared to Satan to be success, was reached when the king of the Third World Power of Bible history, Babylon, took Jerusalem, overturning the rulership of King Zedekiah of the line of David, and destroyed the temple of Jehovah, desolating Jerusalem and Judah.—Eze 21:25-27.

As an instrument of Satan, the ruling dynasty of Babylon, initially headed by Nebuchadnezzar, held Israel in exile for 68 years, until Babylon’s overthrow. Babylon had no intention of ever releasing its captives and so reflected Satan’s own boastful, ambitious attempts as a rival god opposed to the Universal Sovereign Jehovah. The Babylonian kings, worshiping their idol god Marduk, the goddess Ishtar, and a host of others, were actually worshipers of the demons and, as part of the world alienated from Jehovah, were under Satan’s domination.—Ps 96:5; 1Co 10:20; Eph 2:12; Col 1:21.

Satan filled the king of Babylon with the ambition to have complete domination over the earth, even over “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23) and “the stars of God,” the kings of the line of David sitting on the throne at Mount Moriah (by extension, Zion). This “king,” that is, the dynasty of Babylon, ‘lifted himself up’ in his own heart and was in his own eyes and in the eyes of his admirers a “shining one,” a “son of the dawn.” (In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel′, “shining one.” Heh·lel′ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term describing the boastful position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.) (Isa 14:4-21) Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, its “king” reflected Satan’s own ambitious desire. Again, Jehovah came to the salvation of his people by restoring them to their land, until the real Seed of promise should come.—Ezr 1:1-6.

Efforts to cause Jesus to stumble. Satan, no doubt identifying Jesus as the Son of God and the one who was prophesied to bruise him in the head (Ge 3:15), did everything he could to destroy Jesus. But, when announcing the conception of Jesus to Mary, the angel Gabriel told her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” (Lu 1:35) Jehovah safeguarded his Son. The efforts to destroy Jesus when an infant were unsuccessful. (Mt 2:1-15) God continued to protect Jesus during his youth. After his baptism, Satan approached Jesus in the wilderness with three different strong temptations, thoroughly testing him on the issue of devotion to Jehovah. In one of his appeals Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, claiming them to be his own. Jesus did not contradict this claim. Nonetheless, Jesus refused to contemplate even for the briefest instant of time any “shortcut” to kingship, nor did he consider for an instant the doing of anything merely to please himself. His immediate reply to Satan was, “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” At this, “the Devil . . . retired from him until another convenient time.” (Mt 4:1-11; Lu 4:13) This illustrates the truth of James’ words later written: “Oppose the Devil, and he will flee from you.”—Jas 4:7.

Jesus was ever alert to the danger of Satan’s machinations and to the fact that Satan desired to cause his destruction by getting him to entertain a thought contrary to Jehovah’s will. This was demonstrated when Peter, on one occasion, though with good intentions, was actually throwing temptation in his way. Jesus had spoken of the suffering and death he was to undergo. “At this Peter took him aside and commenced rebuking him, saying: ‘Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this destiny at all.’ But, turning his back, he said to Peter: ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.’”—Mt 16:21-23.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry he was in danger; Satan used human agents to oppose Jesus, trying either to cause him to stumble or to kill him. At one time the people were about to seize Jesus to make him king. But he would not consider such a thing; he would accept kingship only in God’s time and way. (Joh 6:15) On another occasion those of his own hometown attempted to kill him. (Lu 4:22-30) He was constantly harassed by those whom Satan used to try to trap him. (Mt 22:15) But in all of Satan’s efforts, he failed to cause Jesus to sin in the slightest thought or deed. Satan was thoroughly proved to be a liar, and he failed in his challenge of God’s sovereignty and the integrity of God’s servants. As Jesus said, shortly before his death: “Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out”—completely discredited. (Joh 12:31) Satan had a grip on all mankind through sin. But, knowing that Satan would soon bring about his death, Jesus, after celebrating his last Passover with his disciples, could say: “The ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me.”—Joh 14:30.

A few hours later, Satan succeeded in having Jesus put to death, first getting control of one of Jesus’ apostles, then using the Jewish leaders and the Roman World Power to execute Jesus in a painful and ignominious manner. (Lu 22:3; Joh 13:26, 27; chaps 18, 19)Here Satan acted as “the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil.” (Heb 2:14; Lu 22:53) But in this Satan failed to promote his cause; he only unwillingly fulfilled prophecy, which required that Jesus die as a sacrifice. The death of Jesus in blamelessness provided the ransom price for humankind, and by his death (and subsequent resurrection by God) Jesus could now help sinful humankind to escape from the grip of Satan, for, as it is written, Jesus became blood and flesh “that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; and that he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives.”—Heb 2:14, 15.

Continues to fight Christians. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Satan continued to wage a bitter fight against Christ’s followers. The accounts in the book of Acts and in the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures furnish numerous proofs of this. Paul said that he had been given “a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping” him. (2Co 12:7) And as in the case with Eve, Satan disguised his real nature and purposes by “transforming himself into an angel of light,” and he had agents, ministers who “also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.” (2Co 11:14, 15) Examples of these were the false apostles who fought against Paul (2Co 11:13) and those in Ephesus ‘who said they themselves were Jews, and yet they were not but were a synagogue of Satan.’ (Re 2:9) Satan never ceased in making accusations “day and night” against Christians, challenging their integrity, as he did Job’s. (Re 12:10; Lu 22:31) But Christians have “a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one,” who appears before the person of God in their behalf.—1Jo 2:1.

His Abyssing and Final Destruction. At the time of Satan’s act in causing Eve and then Adam to rebel against God, God said to the serpent (actually speaking to Satan, since a mere beast could not understand the issues involved): “Dust is what you will eat all the days of your life. And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.” (Ge 3:14, 15) Here God made it known that Satan, cast outside God’s holy organization, would have no life-sustaining hope but would ‘eat dust,’ as it were, until he died. The “seed” eventually was to bruise him in the head, which would signify a death wound. When Christ was on earth, the demons identified him as the One who was to hurl them into the “abyss,” evidently a condition of restraint that in the parallel account is spoken of as “torment.”—Mt 8:29; Lu 8:30, 31; see TORMENT.

In the book of Revelation, we find described the last days of Satan and his end. Revelation reports that at the time of Christ’s taking Kingdom power, Satan is hurled down out of heaven to the earth, no longer having access to the heavens, as he did in the days of Job and for centuries thereafter. (Re 12:7-12) After this defeat Satan has only a “short period of time,” during which he makes war with “the remaining ones of [the woman’s] seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus.” In his efforts to devour the remaining ones of the woman’s seed, he is called “the dragon,” a swallower or crusher. (Re 12:16, 17; compare Jer 51:34, where Jeremiah speaks for Jerusalem and Judah, saying: “Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon . . . has swallowed me down like a big snake [or, “a dragon,” ftn].”) In the earlier description of his fight against the woman and his efforts to devour her man child, he is pictured as “a great fiery-colored dragon.”—Re 12:3.

Revelation’s 20th chapter Re 20 describes Satan’s being bound and abyssed for a thousand years, at the hands of a great angel—doubtless Jesus Christ, who has the key of the abyss and who is the “seed” to bruise Satan’s head.—Compare Re 1:18; see ABYSS.

Satan’s final effort culminates in permanent defeat. The prophecy says that he is to be let loose for “a little while” as soon as Christ’s Thousand Year Reign is ended and that he will lead rebellious persons in another attack upon God’s sovereignty; but he is hurled (along with his demons) into the lake of fire and sulfur, everlasting destruction.—Re 20:1-3, 7-10; compare Mt 25:41; see LAKE OF FIRE.

What is meant by ‘handing a person over to Satan for destruction of the flesh’?

In instructing the congregation at Corinth as to the action to take toward a member of the congregation who had wickedly been committing incest with the wife of his father, the apostle Paul wrote: “Hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” (1Co 5:5) This was a command to expel the man from the congregation, cutting off all fellowship with him. (1Co 5:13) Turning him over to Satan would put him out of the congregation and into the world over which Satan is the god and ruler. Like “a little leaven” in “the whole lump” of dough, this man was “the flesh,” or fleshly element inside the congregation; and by removing this incestuous man, the spiritually minded congregation would destroy “the flesh” from the midst of it. (1Co 5:6, 7) Similarly, Paul handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan, because they had thrust aside faith and a good conscience and had experienced shipwreck concerning their faith.—1Ti 1:20.

Later, the incestuous man in Corinth apparently repented from his wrongdoing and cleaned up, prompting the apostle Paul to recommend his being received back into the congregation. In exhorting them to forgiveness, he gave as one of the reasons, “that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.” (2Co 2:11) In the first instance, Satan had brought the congregation into a bad condition in which they had to be reproved by the apostle, for they were too lenient, in fact, were letting the wicked man carry on his practice without regard for the reproach it brought, being “puffed up” in allowing it. (1Co 5:2) But on the other hand, if they now swung to the other extreme and refused forgiveness to the repentant one, Satan would be overreaching them in another direction, namely, that he could take advantage of their becoming hard and unforgiving. Through God’s Word, Christians are enlightened to realize Satan’s existence, his power, his designs and purposes, and his manner of operation, so that they can fight this spiritual foe with the spiritual weapons God provides.—Eph 6:13-17.

On Jehovah's Sabbath

The accompanying is a copy of the Watchtower society's article found in the publication 'insight on the scriptures'

 

 

 

A day set apart by God for rest from regular labors; the Sabbath was given by Jehovah as a sign between him and the sons of Israel. (Ex 31:16, 17) The Hebrew expression yohm hash·shab·bath′ is drawn from the verb sha·vath′, meaning “rest, cease.” (Ge 2:2; 8:22) In Greek, he he·me′ra tou sab·ba′tou means “sabbath day.”

The history of a weekly 24-hour sabbath observance begins with the nation of Israel in the wilderness in the second month after their Exodus from Egypt in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 16:1) Jehovah had told Moses that the miraculous provision of the manna would be double on the sixth day. When this proved true, the chieftains of the assembly reported the matter to Moses and then the arrangement for the weekly Sabbath was announced. (Ex 16:22, 23) That Israel was obligated from that time forward is shown by Jehovah’s words at Exodus 16:28, 29.

The weekly Sabbath was made an integral part of a system of sabbaths when the Law covenant was formally inaugurated at Mount Sinai a short time later. (Ex 19:1; 20:8-10; 24:5-8) This sabbatical system was composed of many types of sabbaths: the 7th day, the 7th year, the 50th year (Jubilee year), Nisan 14 (Passover), Nisan 15, Nisan 21, Sivan 6 (Pentecost), Ethanim 1, Ethanim 10 (Atonement Day), Ethanim 15, and Ethanim 22.

That the Sabbath was not enjoined upon any of God’s servants until after the Exodus is evident from the testimony of Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 and Exodus 31:16, 17: “It was not with our forefathers that Jehovah concluded this covenant, but with us.” “The sons of Israel must keep the sabbath . . . during their generations. . . . Between me and the sons of Israel it is a sign to time indefinite.” If Israel had already been observing the Sabbath, it could not have served as a reminder of their deliverance from Egypt by Jehovah, as shown at Deuteronomy 5:15. The fact that some of the Israelites went out to pick up manna on the seventh day, in spite of direct instruction to the contrary, indicates that Sabbath observance was something new. (Ex 16:11-30) That there was uncertainty in handling the case of the first recorded Sabbath breaker after the Law had been given at Sinai also shows that the Sabbath had only recently been instituted. (Nu 15:32-36) While in Egypt the Israelites, being slaves, could not have kept the Sabbath even if they had been under such law at the time. Pharaoh complained that Moses was interfering even when he asked for a three-day period to make a sacrifice to God. How much more so if the Israelites had tried to rest one day out of every seven. (Ex 5:1-5) While it is true that the patriarchs apparently measured time in a week of seven days, there is no evidence that any distinction was made as to the seventh day. Seven was prominent, however, as a number that often denoted completeness. (Ge 4:15, 23, 24; 21:28-32) The Hebrew word “swear” (sha·vaʽ′) is evidently from the same root as the word meaning “seven.”

The Sabbath was celebrated as a sacred day (De 5:12), a day of rest and rejoicing for all—Israelites, servants, alien residents, and animals—ceasing from all labors. (Isa 58:13, 14; Ho 2:11; Ex 20:10; 34:21; De 5:12-15; Jer 17:21, 24) A special burnt offering, along with grain and drink offerings, was made, in addition to the regular daily “constant burnt offering.” (Nu 28:9, 10) The showbread was renewed in the sanctuary, and a new division of priests took up their duties. (Le 24:5-9; 1Ch 9:32; 2Ch 23:4) Priestly duties were not curtailed on the Sabbath (Mt 12:5), and infants were even circumcised on the Sabbath if that happened to be their eighth day of life. In later times the Jews had a saying, “There is no sabbath in the sanctuary,” meaning that the priestly duties went right on.—Joh 7:22; Le 12:2, 3; The Temple, by A. Edersheim, 1874, p. 152.

According to rabbinic sources, in the time when Jesus was on earth three trumpet blasts at about the ninth hour, or three o’clock, on Friday afternoon announced the Sabbath day’s approach. At this, all work and business were to cease, the Sabbath lamp was lit, and festive garments were put on. Then three more blasts indicated that Sabbath had actually begun. The outgoing division of priests offered the morning sacrifice on the Sabbath and the incoming division offered the evening sacrifice, both spending Sabbath in the sanctuary. Each one of the divisions would give to the high priest half of its portion of the bread. It was eaten during the Sabbath in the temple itself by the priests who were in a state of cleanness. The heads of the families of the incoming divisions determined by lot which of the families were to serve on each special day of their week of ministry and who were to discharge the priestly functions on the Sabbath.—Le 24:8, 9; Mr 2:26, 27; The Temple, pp. 151, 152, 156-158.

There was a distinction in requirements for the regular weekly Sabbath and the Sabbaths or “holy conventions” that were connected with the festivals. (Le 23:2) Generally speaking, the weekly Sabbath was more restrictive; no work, laborious or otherwise, could be done (except in the sanctuary). Even gathering wood or lighting a fire was prohibited. (Nu 15:32-36; Ex 35:3) Travel was also restricted, this apparently being based on Exodus 16:29. The Day of Atonement was likewise a time of rest from all sorts of work. (Le 16:29-31; 23:28-31) However, on the holy convention days of the festivals no laborious work, trade, or business activities could be engaged in, but cooking, festival preparations, and so forth, were allowed.—Ex 12:16; Le 23:7, 8, 21, 35, 36.

Sometimes two legal Sabbaths would fall on the same 24-hour period, and this was called a “great” Sabbath, such as when Nisan 15 (a sabbath day) coincided with the regular Sabbath.—Joh 19:31.

Benefits and Importance of the Sabbath. The desisting from all labor and observing other God-given Sabbath requirements not only gave rest to the body but, more important, provided opportunity for the individual to demonstrate his faith and obedience through Sabbath observance. It gave parents the opportunity to inculcate God’s laws and commandments in the minds and hearts of their children. (De 6:4-9) The Sabbath was customarily occupied with taking in knowledge of God and attending to spiritual needs, as is indicated by the reply of the Shunammite woman’s husband when she requested permission to go to see Elisha, the man of God: “Why are you going to him today? It is not a new moon nor a sabbath.” (2Ki 4:22, 23) And the Levites who were scattered throughout the land doubtless took advantage of the Sabbath to teach the Law to the people of Israel.—De 33:8, 10; Le 10:11.

It was important for individual Israelites to remember to keep the Sabbath because violation was regarded as rebellion against Jehovah and was punished by death. (Ex 31:14, 15; Nu 15:32-36) The same principle applied to the nation. Their observing the entire sabbath system, days and years, in a wholehearted way was a vital factor to their continued existence as a nation on their God-given land. Their failure to honor the Sabbath laws contributed largely to their downfall and the desolation of the land of Judah for 70 years to make up for the Sabbaths violated.—Le 26:31-35; 2Ch 36:20, 21.

Rabbinic Sabbath Restrictions. The Sabbath was originally intended to be a joyous, spiritually upbuilding time. But in their zeal to distinguish themselves from the Gentiles as much as possible, the Jewish religious leaders, especially after the return from Babylonian exile, gradually made it a burdensome thing by greatly increasing the Sabbath restrictions to 39, with innumerable lesser restrictions. These, when compiled, filled two large volumes. For example, catching a flea was forbidden as hunting. A sufferer could not be given relief unless death threatened. A bone could not be set, nor a sprain bandaged. The true purpose of the Sabbath was made void by these Jewish religious leaders, for they made the people slaves to tradition, instead of having the Sabbath serve men to the honor of God. (Mt 15:3, 6; 23:2-4; Mr 2:27) When Jesus’ disciples picked grain and rubbed it in their hands to eat, they evidently were accused on two counts, namely, harvesting and threshing on the Sabbath. (Lu 6:1, 2) The rabbis had a saying: “The sins of everyone who strictly observes every law of the Sabbath, though he be an idol worshiper, are forgiven.”

Not Enjoined on Christians. Jesus, being a Jew under the Law, observed the Sabbath as God’s Word (not the Pharisees) directed. He knew it was lawful to do fine things on the Sabbath. (Mt 12:12) However, the inspired Christian writings state that “Christ is the end of the Law” (Ro 10:4), which results in Christians’ being “discharged from the Law.” (Ro 7:6) Neither Jesus nor his disciples made any distinction between so-called moral and ceremonial laws. They quoted from the other parts of the Law as well as from the Ten Commandments and considered all of it equally binding on those under the Law. (Mt 5:21-48; 22:37-40; Ro 13:8-10; Jas 2:10, 11) The Scriptures plainly state that Christ’s sacrifice “abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and that God “blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees . . . and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.” It was the complete Mosaic Law that was “abolished,” “blotted out,” taken “out of the way.” (Eph 2:13-15; Col 2:13, 14) Consequently, the whole system of Sabbaths, be they days or years, was brought to its end with the rest of the Law by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. This explains why Christians can esteem “one day as all others,” whether it be a sabbath or any other day, with no fear of judgment by another. (Ro 14:4-6; Col 2:16) Paul made the following expression concerning those scrupulously observing “days and months and seasons and years”: “I fear for you, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting you.”—Ga 4:10, 11.

After Jesus’ death, his apostles at no time commanded Sabbath observance. The Sabbath was not included as a Christian requirement at Acts 15:28, 29, or later. Nor did they institute a new sabbath, a “day of the Lord.” Even though Jesus was resurrected on the day now called Sunday, nowhere does the Bible indicate that this day of his resurrection should be commemorated as a “new” sabbath or in any other way. First Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7 have been appealed to by some as a basis for observing Sunday as a sabbath. However, the former text merely indicates that Paul instructed Christians to lay aside in their homes for their needy brothers at Jerusalem a certain amount each first day of the week. The money was not to be turned in at their place of meeting but was to be retained until Paul’s arrival. As for the latter text, it was only logical that Paul would meet with the brothers in Troas on the first day of the week, since he was leaving the very next day.

From the foregoing it is clear that literal observance of Sabbath days and years was not a part of first-century Christianity. It was not until 321 C.E. that Constantine decreed Sunday (Latin: dies Solis, an old title associated with astrology and sun worship, not Sabbatum [Sabbath] or dies Domini [Lord’s day]) to be a day of rest for all but the farmers.

Entering Into God’s Rest. According to Genesis 2:2, 3, following the sixth creative day, or period, God “proceeded to rest on the seventh day,” desisting from creative works with respect to the earth, as described in Genesis chapter 1.

The apostle Paul shows in Hebrews, chapters 3 and 4, that the Jews in the wilderness failed to enter into God’s rest, or sabbath, because of disobedience and lack of faith. (Heb 3:18, 19; Ps 95:7-11; Nu 14:28-35) Those who did enter the Promised Land under Joshua experienced a rest, but not the full rest to be enjoyed under the Messiah. It was only typical, or a shadow of the reality. (Jos 21:44; Heb 4:8; 10:1) However, Paul explains, “there remains a sabbath resting for the people of God.” (Heb 4:9) Those who are obedient and exercise faith in Christ thereby enjoy “a sabbath resting” from their “own works,” works by means of which they formerly sought to prove themselves righteous. (Compare Ro 10:3.) Thus Paul shows that God’s sabbath, or rest, was still continuing in his day and Christians were entering into it, indicating that God’s rest day is thousands of years long.—Heb 4:3, 6, 10.

“Lord of the Sabbath.” While on earth, Jesus Christ referred to himself as “Lord of the sabbath.” (Mt 12:8) The literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was “a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.” (Col 2:16, 17) In connection with those “things to come,” there is a sabbath of which Jesus is to be the Lord. As Lord of lords, Christ will rule all the earth for a thousand years. (Re 19:16; 20:6) During his earthly ministry, Jesus performed some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath. (Lu 13:10-13; Joh 5:5-9; 9:1-14) This evidently shows the kind of relief that he will bring as he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule, which thus will be like a period of sabbath rest for the earth and mankind.—Re 21:1-4.

• Copyright © 2013 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved.