Tag Archives: questions

Aliens Cannot Disagree With the Bible

The cultural tide is turning right now. The United States agencies are beginning releasing government files on UFOs, UAPs, and potential extraterrestrial life. More unexplained incidents that cannot be classified as modern human technology will soon enter the public conversation. Many people — even Christians — will feel unsettled.

Satan, who holds the whole world in his sway (1 John 5:19), will not miss this moment. His endgame has always been to attack the exclusive lordship of Jesus Christ. Expect a new rhetoric to spread: “Jesus was an alien — one of several powerful star lords from across the galaxy.” Then will come claims of a new “star lord” or ascended being arriving with fresh revelations for humanity. Its the same game the same trick, over and over. We know how the evil one works.

This is not new revelation. It is ancient idolatry wearing a sci-fi costume.

We already have documented cases of people (see creation.com) — many of them atheists or agnostics — experiencing what they call alien abductions. In their final desperation they cried out, “Jesus, help me!” and the experience stopped instantly. Some of those people later became Christians. Why would beings from another planet respect and flee at the name of a Jesus Christ? The answer is obvious: because they are not extraterrestrials. They are demonic entities.

Most reported experiences come from degraded minds, fear, drugs, or advanced human technology. But a genuine subset is demonic. As Paul wrote, when people sacrifice to idols they are actually sacrificing to demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). When men give themselves over to the obsession of seeking “higher beings,” “star people,” or alien contact, they are not innocently curious. They are ramming a bulldozer through the front door of their soul and exposing themselves completely to demonic harassment.

Remember Moses and Pharaoh’s magicians. Those pagan sorcerers performed real supernatural acts — their staffs really became snakes. The Bible says so. The power was genuine, but limited, demonic, and ultimately powerless before the true God. The same limit applies today. Demonic manifestations can produce lights in the sky, fast-moving objects, and strange encounters — but they collapse before the name and authority of Jesus Christ, because He has already triumphed over them (Colossians 2:15).

Demons love this game. Show the stupid humans some shiny lights and unnatural motion and they chase the distraction instead of the Creator. Satan is playing with humans like a human plays with a cat using a laser pointer.

The Theological Reality

Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist somewhere? Theologically it is possible — God could have created it. But it is highly, highly unlikely, and even if it did exist it would have zero relevance to us. Why? Because Scripture declares that all things are summed up in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:10). Humanity, created in God’s image and redeemed by the blood of the eternal Son, is the pinnacle of creation. The incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection happened here, for us. Unless the Bible itself tells us something is summed up in Christ or has direct bearing on His redemptive work, it is ultimately irrelevant to the Christian life and worldview.

Jesus is not “one of the star lords.” He is the Logos — the eternal Reason and Creator through whom all things were made and in whom all things hold together (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17). Any narrative that reduces Him to one being among many is already false on its face.

The Real Refutation: Presuppositional Collapse

But here is where the discussion becomes simple — almost boringly straightforward for anyone who understands biblical apologetics.

The same fatal flaw that destroys every anti-Christian worldview destroys the entire alien/star-lord mythology before it can even get off the ground.

All things necessary for intelligence only converge in the Christian worldview. Knowledge, logic, categories of thought.

When the mind looks at a scene — whether lights in the sky, supposed alien craft, or claims of new spiritual teachers — it does more than receive raw impressions. It interprets using concepts such as contradiction, identity, difference, number, relation, time, and cause (etc.). All these concepts are necessary in order to have intelligence about anything.  A first principle that does not give us knowledge and justify these, does not make intelligence possible. Starting points such as empiricism and materialism, and naturalism, or any worldview with any reliance on empiricism at all cannot justify these things that we must have in order to think and say something with meaning.

First, the categories of thought that make intelligence itself possible. To even formulate or argue this theory, one must employ fundamental categories: identity and difference (distinguishing “Jesus” from other supposed lords), cause and effect (claiming His name causes the entities to flee), unity and plurality (a cosmic hierarchy of multiple powers), substance and attribute, time, relation, and number. These are not learned from experience—whether from abduction reports, UFO videos, or ancient astronaut theories. They are the logical preconditions for any meaningful experience whatsoever.

How could anyone “learn” causality by observing sequences of alleged alien events unless he already assumed that every event must have a cause? The empiricist pushing “evidence-based” alien-Jesus speculation is caught in hopeless circularity: he uses the category of cause to justify the category of cause. The rationalist who tries to reason his way to a polytheistic star-lord federation without biblical revelation fares no better—his innate ideas float in mid-air with no ontological anchor. Only the biblical God, whose mind is the source of all rational order, provides that foundation.

Second, science—the great idol of modern unbelief. Every interpretation of “aliens traveling interstellar distances,” “consistent abduction patterns,” or “Jesus operating within discoverable cosmic rules” secretly assumes the uniformity of nature: that the future will resemble the past, and that the laws observed today will hold tomorrow across the universe. Yet no amount of past observation can guarantee future uniformity on naturalistic, evolutionary, or multi-lord grounds. David Hume saw the problem centuries ago and despaired. Bertrand Russell admitted that science rests on a “postulate” it cannot prove.

The unbeliever nevertheless proceeds as if induction is reliable. Why? Because he is stealing from the Bible—which declares he is wrong and that only its revelation is true. Scripture alone grounds the uniformity of nature in the faithful providence of the one sovereign Creator (Colossians 1:17). Your “Star lords” theory offers no such guarantee; it secretly borrows rationality from the very worldview it attacks.

Third, the fatal flaw in probability arguments. When unbelievers say the biblical resurrection or miracles are “highly improbable” if Jesus were merely an advanced extraterrestrial, or that a hierarchy of Star lords is “more likely given the size of the universe,” they commit a devastating epistemological error. To calculate any probability, one must know the complete denominator—the full, overarching set of all relevant possibilities. Finite humans do not and cannot possess that exhaustive knowledge. If they somehow already knew the denominator, they would possess knowledge far greater than what their observations provide, rendering the entire appeal to probability irrelevant. Their calculations are therefore not science but prejudice dressed up as numbers.

Fourth, the active interpreting mind. When the mind looks at a report of strange lights, beings, or an abduction that halts at the name of Jesus, it does more than receive raw impressions. It actively interprets the scene using concepts such as identity, difference, number, relation, time, and cause—categories that are logically prior to experience, not derived from it. A child tracking a ball flying through the air already employs time and continuity to follow its motion from one moment to the next. Without these, there is no “motion,” no “through the air,” no coherent sequence—only a disconnected blur of sensations that cannot even be called a blur. When the same mind declares that “the name of Jesus stopped the entity,” it invokes causality and relation. To recognize any pattern at all—let alone a cosmic federation of Star lords—requires identity through time and rules for connecting one case with another. The alien theory cannot account for why these interpretations correspond to reality rather than demonic deception or hallucination. Only revelation from the God who created both the mind and the world in perfect correspondence provides that.

In the end, this entire hypothesis saws off the branch it sits on. It depends at every point on the Christian worldview for its intelligibility while reducing the eternal Creator and Ruler of heaven and earth (Acts 17:24) to one creature among many. It is self-refuting speculative philosophy of the worst kind.”[1]

Logic: Where does the unbeliever (or the new-age star-lord enthusiast) get the laws of logic he uses to argue for aliens or against the exclusivity of Christ? From the eternal Logos — the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:1; Colossians 2:3), in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He is not one “star lord” among many. He is the eternal Reason by which all things were created and by which all things hold together.

Science itself — the great hope of those searching for extraterrestrial life — fares no better on non-Christian grounds. Every search for aliens assumes induction: that the future will resemble the past and that laws observed here apply universally. Naturalism cannot justify this. Only the God of Scripture, who faithfully sustains creation, can. The person who says, “Aliens prove the Bible is incomplete or that Jesus is just one being among many” has already stolen the very tools that only the Christian worldview can account for. On his own assumptions, logic is just brain chemistry, categories of thought are evolutionary byproducts or social constructs, and knowledge is impossible. Yet he continues to use them as if they were universal and necessary.

He is like the man who says, “I disagree with the law of non-contradiction” while using that very law to disagree. Or the fish trying to prove the ocean doesn’t exist while swimming in it.

There is no possible world — real or imaginary — where a coherent argument against biblical Christianity can be made, whether from philosophy, science, or supposed alien revelation. All reasoning presupposes the Triune God of Scripture.

God’s revelation in the Bible is the first principle and necessary starting point for all knowledge. Subjects and predicates, logic, truth, and intelligence itself are defined by God’s mind, decree, and Word. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, all Scripture is God-breathed, equipping us for every good work — including the work of thinking clearly about lights in the sky and spiritual deceptions.

Jesus Christ is the Logos. The law of non-contradiction flows from God’s unchanging character. In Him all things consist. Any “new revelation” from a so-called star lord that contradicts the Bible is immediately exposed as false, because the Bible says it is true and all others are false. It needs no permission from human reason, government disclosures, or demonic manifestations.

Philosophy cannot disagree with the Bible. 

Science cannot disagree with the Bible. 

And supposed aliens or new star lords certainly cannot disagree with the Bible without using it. But the bible they are using says it alone is true and all others are false by logical exclusion (See Vincent Cheung. Captive to Reason pg. 44. 2005/2009.)

This is why apologetics is boring in a sense. All anti-Christinas have the same dumb human speculation and illogical superstition. Our apologetic is always the same: divine revelation. Thus our answer and attack is always the same.


[1]  Paraphrased summaries (adapted to present topic of aliens) and informed by Vincent Cheung’s ‘Paul and the Philosophers’ (2025) and his other works on biblical apologetics” See His works for more.”

Love Never fails – To Heal by Miraculous Power

Paul says this famous premise in 1 Corinthians 13. This love chapter is sandwich between the chapters on Paul’s teaching on the gifts of the Spirit. I remember Vincent Cheung saying something to the effect of, (as I paraphrase from memory) “if this chapter is read at a wedding, it is only proper to have a healing and miracle service afterwards, because that is the context of Paul’s teaching on love.” I agree.

It is odd that pastors and theologians who scream the loudest for “context” only do it on their few pet doctrines, but ignore it on everything else. The context for this doctrine of love is about God’s people having overwhelming spiritual power. Paul’s instruction is for God’s people, who have great power, is to use this great power in love, toward each other.

This next statement might be a shock for some, but it needs to be said. For those who do not have great heavenly powers of the baptism of the Spirit, Spiritual Gifts, Faith to move mountains, and are practiced in manifesting the Anointing Presence of God, this chapter of love is not applicable to them, or at the very least, it is mostly not applicable to them.

Paul starts the chapter by presupposing the audience does have faith to move mountains, give prophecies, speak in tongues, give to the poor and sacrifice themselves for each other. Those who do not fit the above presuppositions are those Paul is not addressing. He is addressing those who have spiritual power. This does not mean if you do not have spiritual power you are free from obeying God’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. What it does mean, is that for the Christian, love (like with the Sermon on the Mount) is elevated to a higher standard. There is no such thing as Christian love, that is not favoring others as yourself with healing, miracles and prophecies. A love that is without spiritual power is not a Christian love, by definition. Such a definition of love might the standards of non-Christians, but we are not non-Christians.

Jesus showed compassion and love over and over and over in the gospels, and it was always with the power of healing and miracles. Love without miraculous power is an anti-love, it is a love that Jesus does not know or lived. It is a love the apostles did not know or live. It is a love the New Testament church did not know or lived. Non-Christians live this type of love, but we are not non-Christians, unless you really are.

Love is to favor. Loving your neighbor is to favor them, the way you want to be favored. Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit for ministry, had power. When He saw a sick person, He favored them by using power to heal them and remove their suffering. This means, if I was sick and in pain, and I had power, I would favor myself by removing the sickness and pain from me. This is how Jesus favored those around them. This is how the apostle favored those around them. This is how the New Testament favored those around them.

Jesus commanded we pray in His name and get whatever we wish so that God is glorified, and we are filled with joy (John 14-16). Love others by praying for others to receive whatever you want for them, so that by Jesus giving this to them, God makes their joy full. Jesus was filled with the Sprit for ministry, and so commanded His followers to be baptized in the Spirit for power.

The gospels take the time to repeatedly show that Jesus demonstrated love and compassion by healing and using heavenly power to help people. Jesus then commands us to do the same. Then for extra measure Paul used the chapter on “love” in context of using spiritual power in church to help people. This is how the Bible defines Christian love. God’s love is not a powerless love. Before creation and after creation God’s love is not a powerless love. The Godman Jesus Christ, who the saints are imaged after, did not and does not love with a powerless love. The love that Jesus commanded the saints to use was not a command to have a powerless love.

God’s love is using power to favor others with help and salvation. Jesus’ love is using power to favor others with help and salvation. God commands us to love in the same way. We are to love the way God loves, which is to use heavenly power to favor others.

Remember when the Israelites went in to take the Promise Land? Do you remember that “they failed” to completely eradicate all the inhabitants? Did they fail or did God fail? God in the ultimate sense decrees everything; therefore, even their failure to obey His command to completely eradicate all inhabitants, was by God power and decree. However, the “failure” was theirs not God’s. “God’s command,” which is what “He wants for them,” is to completely take the Land and enjoy it. Both the moral accountability, and the failure to bring God’s desire for their good, was their failure and accountability.  God is not the objects He creates, thus, God’s command to man, does not categorically apply to Him, just as blue does not apply to the number 7. They failed to fully enjoy all the goodness of the Promise Land, because they failed to obey God. That failure is their accountability and responsibility, not God’s. That is, their failure is not God’s failure. The public failure of God’s people to fully enjoy what Almighty God promised, was on them.

The same with this phrase “love never fails.” If the saints are truly empowered and full of faith, the way “God commanded” them to be, then indeed “love never fails.” Love will see the need for a revelation, miracles, healing, truth or resurrection and because it has power to support all this favor surging in their hearts, then the blind see, the lame walk, the prisoner is set free, the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. However, if the saints are not in obedience to God’s command to have mountain moving faith and crowned with Spiritual power, so that they fail to love each other in miraculous power, then that accountability and responsibly is on them and not God’s definition of what love is. In such cases, God’s definition of love did not fail; rather, a person failed to obey God commandments, just like with the Israelites.

The Corinthians were prideful, however despite this, at least people were being healed and miracles were performed so that God’s people were favored with help and deliverances. If I were sick and in pain, I would pick a prideful Corinthian who has power to heal me, 1 million times over a so-called saint who was humble but lacked God’s power, and thus, lacked the ablity to love me by removing the pain. Neither, is a true definition of love, but the Corinthians were at least able to relieve suffering saints with the Spirit of God. That is, the Spirit of God did not leave the Corinthians, even though they had some selfish intentions. Paul corrected them and told them to seek even more power. The finger of God, was still moving to help those around them with power, despite some of their faults. However, without this power, then the finger of God does not break in with power, because the power is not there to begin with.

Let God’s people not repeat the mistakes that Israel committed in desert and Promise Land. Let us be filled with faith and the Spirit for heavenly power. Let us love like Jesus. Let us love by the definition revealed in the Scripture. Let us love like God. Let our favor be with power, so that “love never fails.” Let us favor our fellow saints as much or more than ourselves, and with this desire, let us be filled with faith and power. Let us fulfill our desire to help by wielding the power of God as our own, which is our rightful inheritance. Let our actions be the Finger of God that expands His Kingdom with love that never fails.

First Principles of a Worldview or First Spirits?

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

LSB Colossians 2:8

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon: (elementary principles),

4747 στοιχεῖον [stoicheion /stoy·khi·on/] n n. From a presumed derivative of the base of 4748; TDNT 7:670; TDNTA 1087; GK 5122; Seven occurrences; AV translates as “element” four times, “rudiment” twice, and “principle” once.

1 any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal. 1a the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds. 1b the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe. 1c the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside.
1d the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline. 1d1 i.e. of mathematics, Euclid’s geometry.[1]

In the verse, the word “philosophy” is actually used, not “spirits or angels.” In addition to philosophy being used by Paul, which is about philosophy, the context is about “traditions of men,” that are conclusions from “elementary principles.” In Philosophy 101 you learn that ethics (or in this case religious ethics as “traditions”) are a conclusion from the rudimentary principles of metaphysics(reality) and epistemology(knowledge). To talk about ethics, as Paul does here, coming from elementary foundational principles of a human system, is as philosophy as it gets.  In fact you can start any Intro to Philosophy book or college class with this statement, “Philosophy is the study of the fundamental principles, or ultimate questions about life.” The first two biggest questions are almost always about “starting point for knowledge,” and then the “starting point for reality.” With these two big fundamental principles laid down, then one can easily proceed to ultimate question about ethics.

The whole structure of this premise and those immediately around, is strong philosophy, or ultimate question language. Thus, “stoicheion,” due to context should mean what it normally means and not some other meaning, like “elementary spirits.” It means ultimate or rudimentary/first principles of a worldview. Think about the philosophy word, “epistemology.” It means, “first or starting principle of knowledge.”

Thus, the last part of the Strong’s Lexicon (1D) is best definition of this word, that fits the context of Paul’s premise. Paul is therefore, referring to the first and foundational principles of a humanly made worldview, and then the “traditions” men conclude from the first principles of their humanly devised worldview.

Paul is contrasting “human” versus “Christian” first principles, and then human conclusions from their humans first principles versus Christian ethics from its first principles.

Men have their own speculative statements of first principles of knowledge and reality, and from this they superstitiously conclude human traditions as their ethics. Their traditions are false, because their first principles of their worldview about reality and knowledge are false; and therefore, their traditions/conclusions are false.

Christians on the other hand, have Christ, who is hidden all the treasures of knowledge. The Scripture reveals the starting principles about knowledge(epistemology) and reality(metaphysics) to us, and from foundation, God reveals His commands(ethics) to us. Christians ethics are founded on reality and truth, whereas, non-christians ethics are founded on a delusion of reality and skepticism as knowledge.

[1] Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.