Anti-aging therapy and Christians

It seems that scientists are nearing an anti-aging drug.

Suppose that the scientists succeed. (I am not a biologist and don’t know all hardships on the way, but biologists seems to say that they are near this target.)

We, Christians, should take “the pill” and live 900 years like Methuselah?

Yes, we should:

(Deuteronomy 30:19) “… I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your descendants”.

It clearly tells us that we should choose life not death.

Should blessing happen always?

Some preachers say that because Christ already suffered for us, we should never suffer anymore.

Do I agree with this opinion?

My opinion on this question is twofold:

On the first hand, if we are in a trouble, there is always a way to lay it upon Christ and not to suffer ourselves.

On the second hand, we need to be like Christ and Christ suffered for benefit of others. (Even though it was not obvious that his sufferings benefit others.)

So, what? In every trouble (except of suffering of Christ himself) there is a better way without a trouble. But also when we are not in a trouble, there is a better way to suffer for others and receive an even greater blessing afterward as a reward in participating in suffering of Christ.

The example of Christ is intended to show that the greatest blessing happens after a trouble.

However, in every trouble I recommend to seek a way how to exit from it with help of God, not to remain in a trouble.

On the formula for trinity of God

Continuing this blog post:

It is clear that the set of all predicates true for God bijectively corresponds to the set of all predicates true for Christ (with some bijection F). (All properties of God “directly correspond” to properties of Christ, in mundane language.)

It could be taken as a formal definition of the “trinity” relations between God’s persons.

But later I notice the simple fact that every two objects X and Y correspond in this way to each other: the set of all predicates true for X bijectively corresponds to the set of all predicates true for Y (take the bijection F which exchanges X and Y values of the arguments of the predicates).

So my “theory” of trinity is found not to have sense.

Well, I believe it should have sense, but we need to restrict the set of allowed bijections F to functions which preserve the essence of properties of God. What is “the essence”? I do not know.

Lord of lords, and King of kings

Do you want Jesus to be your king and your lord?

(Rev. 17:14) “… he is Lord of lords, and King of kings…”

Thus for he to be your king, you yourself need to be a king!

To be a king means to control events around you. You should control events with prayer and word, in force of Holy Spirit, if you want to submit to Jesus. He isn’t a kind of regular persons, he is a king of kings!

Trinity, logically described

In this post I want to make clear my position on so called “trinity” of God. I am a mathematician and won’t write nonsense like “the Son is identical to the Father, but they are logically distinct”.

What I will formulate is nearly logically rigid, but not quite as I don’t specify in which logical framework I do the “accounting”. I assume that my accounting is logically correct, but I am not 100% sure that what I will formulate is logically consistent and “good” for describing God (isn’t appearing to compare God with lower things than Christ). I propose to check my theory, by formulating it in mathematical rigid and (dis)proving its logical consistency.

I do believe in Trinity. However I prefer another formulations (without pejorative using number “three” to describe God) like “Christ is full content of God”. See my book New Testament Commentary by a Mathematician for biblical (and thus without using here the number three) description of how Christ relates to God and what is Christ in his essence. In this post I however will describe it in regard of trinity, despite I do not like this word to describe God.

I will call two objects A and B “predicate-equivalent” if and only if there is a bijection f mapping all predicates P of one variable true for the argument A into all predicates Q of one variable true for the argument B, such that P(x) is true if and only if (f(P))(x) is true for every variable x and predicate P of one variable.

Hm, still unsure whether EVERY two objects are predicate-equivalent, so making this setting unsuitable for description of trinity of God. But I will put forth my preliminary thoughts in the hope we will reach more exact knowledge then.

I claim that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are pairwise predicate equivalent.

Note that the equivalence in the previous paragraph implies that there are other objects equivalent to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example such objects are the set {Father, Son, and Holy Spirit} and the triples (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and (Holy Spirit, Son, Father). I expect that however if we limit the set of objects to compare by predicate equivalence to “living persons” (whatever this may mean mathematically) then this set should have exactly three elements: {Father, Son, and Holy Spirit}.

In mathematics it seems to make sense to identify equivalent (predicate-equivalent in this case) objects to say they are one the same object. For example positive whole numbers can be identified with natural numbers. In the same sense we can (in some but not in all logical frameworks) identify Father and Son. The question whether the Son is identical to the Father is thus dependent on the used logical framework.

I have formulated some properties of Trinity nearly with mathematical rigid. Let us now study it from positions of mathematical logic. At first we need to make sure that not every two objects are predicate-equivalent.

My thoughts on this are very preliminary. I thought I know it well, but when attempted to formulate it to write in this blog post, I found that I do not yet understand this thing.

Death, resurrection, heaven

It seems that “soul” is a backup for human brain.

After death the human mind continues to function.

People are placed into a virtual reality (as in “The Matrix” movie) where they can move, speak, etc.

This is yet considered death, because after death people do not exist in physical reality.

This virtual reality is the source of “classic” heaven with white tunics and likewise.

However this virtual reality is linked with real heavens (that is stars, galaxies, etc.)

In this virtual reality people brains are replaced with a more powerful computer, which is so powerful that can deal with the devil’s DoS attack (“sin”). I claim that people cannot calculate by brains as computers because we are under devil’s DoS attack with his virus (sin). But in the heaven they can. (See the below mentioned book “New Testament Commentary by a Mathematician” for a biblical foundation for this.)

But Bible plainly teaches that dead will resurrect. To resurrect means to return into the physical reality. This will be made possible when the DoS attack of the devil will be overcome, so that people will again be able to properly operate with their brains.

This returning does not discharge people from the heaven:

(Mat. 22:30) “For in the resurrection they … are like God’s angels in heaven.” This means that each resurrected believer will have an angel which will serve as his “eyes” and “hands” in the heaven, that is he will be in the heaven in addition to being on the new Earth in resurrected (real) human flesh.

Note that human body stores information not only in the brain, but also in immune system (located mainly in the blood). This information will not be preserved in the backup: (1Cor. 15:50) “flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God”.

Read more of my revelations:

Why do we need commandments?


Consider a 14 years old teenager. How should he make decisions related to sex?

He doesn’t yet know sex and love. He is inexperienced. He cannot make decisions based on his own knowledge or experience.

He need somebody or something to guide him.

A thing which can help him is biblical commandments.

If he would already know all about sex and all about its consequences (not even any adult knows all!) he would not need the commandments. He would not need the Bible.

Commandments are for these who don’t know something.

When we mature, we no more need some commandments. I, for example, don’t need that Bible would teach me not to marry an unbeliever. It is quite natural for me the knowledge that I can’t make a good family with an unbeliever. I know this in my inner man and don’t need that Bible would teach me this.

There are two extremes:

Extreme 1

Extreme 1 is to reject commandments altogether (as for example atheists do).

This way you could deny the wisdom of God and try to behave based only on your limited mind without help of God. This is not a good way.

Extreme 2

Extreme 2 is to scrutinize to follow every commandment you know whether you understand it or not.

This is also not a good way. We should live by knowledge and faith (and love!) not by particular commandments.

This way is to make Bible a law for you, rather than a guide. This is also not good.

This extreme is caused by not knowing limits of applying biblical covenants to our life and trying to follow them in every tiny bit aspect of our life.

Failure to reject the law

We may set our mind not to fall into the extreme 2. But trying to do this in my old religion, I failed.

My failure was this way:

I understood that I should follow the spirit of Gospel not the commandments.

But how do I know the spirit of Gospel if not by studying particular commandments? This way I found no other way to follow my understanding of Gospel as to follow every commandment as a law.

Certainly, this way I often violated more important commandments trying to follow every tiny bit of the law I made for myself from Gospel.

The teaching of End of Gospel

The solution is to reject following Gospel as a law altogether.

We cannot reject following commandments of Gospel as a law one-by-one, rather we need to reject living by a law altogether.

For this we need understand where are the limits of Gospel as a whole are and that we need to reject being in the so called New Covenant with God altogether. We should become free persons rather than law-followers slaves.

We become no more slaves of God in this new stage.

Read my book End of Gospel about this.