In my last post (which has since been deleted), I quoted a science-fiction character as an example of the humor used in the sci-fi show.
Apparently, however, I somehow made it to adulthood and either failed to learn or have forgotten that a word he used in the quote is deemed by society as cursing/offensive language/vulgarity.
Not wishing to contribute to the overall vulgar nature of society at large, and having learned that this word does so, I have removed the post.
Apologies to any who were offended.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Some Notes on Divorce
In the gospel account by Matthew, we are given a picture in which Yahshua begins his ministry, and shortly thereafter having his credentials and teachings challenged by the then-reigning religious establishment. This is no different than what we do in the modern day when a new teacher comes along: we "test" him, probing him with questions to see where he stands on various issues.
We see this happening in Yahshua's ministry. The first eight chapters of Matthew tell us of Yahshua's background and early ministry. By chapter nine, he has attracted the attention of the religious leaders. Several times over the next few chapters he has run-ins with the Establishment.
Part of this friction was a normal, healthy examination of what the new guy had to say.
Yahshua was not the only popular rabbi in his culture. Rabbi Hillel was running his school in Jerusalem about the time Yahshua was born, and Rabbi Shammai had been born just a generation or two before that. Both of these rabbis were very influential on the thinking in Yahshua's day. These two schools had different interpretations of how divorce was to be handled.
According to http://www.ccel.us/place.ch2.html :
Yahshua's answer was that he agreed with the school of Shammai: "...whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (19:9 HCSB).
But rather than appealing to Shammai's interpretation of the Law, he went directly to the Biblical text itself (19:4ff HCSB):
His disciples were apparently fans of the Hillel doctrine, because they challenged Yahshua: "If it's like this, I'd rather stay single!" (19:10, paraphrased).
And Yahshua's response is sobering: "If you can live celibate, great. If not, then live by the rules."
If I'm understanding the account properly, Yahshua is not making a blanket statement that divorce is always wrong except in very narrowly-defined situations; he's saying that divorce needs a real reason, not a mamby-pamby excuse for a man to kick another human being out into the cold for his own selfish reasons.
Think about what would happen to such a "used" woman alone in that culture. How would she put food in her mouth? Where would she live? What self-respecting citizen would befriend her? Prostitution would be about the only solution she'd have. Yahshua implied this result earlier in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:32):
Would Yahshua be so strictly against divorce in the 21st Century Western world, in which women have much more independence than they did in his day? I'm not smart enough to say one way or the other, but I suspect he would, for two reasons:
1) God hates divorce - Malachi 2:16
2) Yahshua did not appeal to the results of divorce as a reason to avoid it, but rather to the original design of marriage. That appeal would still apply in all cultures, regardless of the results of divorce.
We see this happening in Yahshua's ministry. The first eight chapters of Matthew tell us of Yahshua's background and early ministry. By chapter nine, he has attracted the attention of the religious leaders. Several times over the next few chapters he has run-ins with the Establishment.
Part of this friction was a normal, healthy examination of what the new guy had to say.
Yahshua was not the only popular rabbi in his culture. Rabbi Hillel was running his school in Jerusalem about the time Yahshua was born, and Rabbi Shammai had been born just a generation or two before that. Both of these rabbis were very influential on the thinking in Yahshua's day. These two schools had different interpretations of how divorce was to be handled.
According to http://www.ccel.us/place.ch2.html :
A husband could take another wife or concubine without consulting his first wife, and she was expected not only to welcome them into her home but also to live in harmony with them. Only the husband had the right of divorce. Moses permitted divorce if the husband found "some indecency in her" (Deut. 24:1, NASB). There were two schools of interpretation over the meaning of Moses' divorce law. The school of Shammai held that "some indecency" meant unchastity. The followers of Hillel, however, maintained that a husband was justified in turning his wife out of house and home for any reason of displeasure, even if he chanced to find more pleasure in another woman! The only stipulation was that he had to give her the sum of money prescribed in the marriage contract, which served as a form of alimony and child support. If she violated any number of rules, however, such as allowing a man to speak to her in public, she would forfeit the money. In practice, a divorced woman rarely was paid anything.So when we get to Matthew 19 and find the Pharisees asking Yahshua his beliefs concerning divorce, they weren't necessarily trying to trick him in some way; rather, it appears to be an honest attempt to find out if this new rabbi agrees with the school of Hillel or the school of Shammai.
Yahshua's answer was that he agreed with the school of Shammai: "...whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (19:9 HCSB).
But rather than appealing to Shammai's interpretation of the Law, he went directly to the Biblical text itself (19:4ff HCSB):
Haven't you read," He replied, "that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female , 5 and He also said:When they pressed him further, asking why Moses then allowed divorce at all, Yahshua responded that it was because men are hard-hearted and always looking for the next skirt. He then answered more directly the question they had been asking, by revealing his belief that Shammai was correct, and Hillel wrong.For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh ?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate."
His disciples were apparently fans of the Hillel doctrine, because they challenged Yahshua: "If it's like this, I'd rather stay single!" (19:10, paraphrased).
And Yahshua's response is sobering: "If you can live celibate, great. If not, then live by the rules."
If I'm understanding the account properly, Yahshua is not making a blanket statement that divorce is always wrong except in very narrowly-defined situations; he's saying that divorce needs a real reason, not a mamby-pamby excuse for a man to kick another human being out into the cold for his own selfish reasons.
Think about what would happen to such a "used" woman alone in that culture. How would she put food in her mouth? Where would she live? What self-respecting citizen would befriend her? Prostitution would be about the only solution she'd have. Yahshua implied this result earlier in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:32):
[E]veryone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.In other words, a divorce for the sake of the husband's convenience taints everyone involved.
Would Yahshua be so strictly against divorce in the 21st Century Western world, in which women have much more independence than they did in his day? I'm not smart enough to say one way or the other, but I suspect he would, for two reasons:
1) God hates divorce - Malachi 2:16
2) Yahshua did not appeal to the results of divorce as a reason to avoid it, but rather to the original design of marriage. That appeal would still apply in all cultures, regardless of the results of divorce.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Christian Philosophy on a T-shirt
Some might disagree, but I believe the t-shirt I saw earlier today epitomizes the philosophy of Jesus. It said:
Comfort those who are disturbed.
Disturb those who are comfortable.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Recovered: Missing Dog
'Reo disappeared on the 30th from around South 20th and Sayles. Today NJ got a call reporting a dog matching his description at Eula. She drove out, and ... Praise Yah! ... 'Reo is on his way home.
He's tired and worn out, but otherwise in good shape.
Now, for the rest of the story ....
Last year, 'Reo broke his elbow. Of course, it was late at night when the only vet available was the expensive Emergency Clinic. Preliminary triage at the ER convinced us that with his age, and the severity of the break, and the general lifelessness he was showing, and his increasing blindness/deafness, the sensible thing to do would have been to put him down. The ER kept him sedated over night so we could get pictures and make better decisions in the light of day. Come morning, it was obvious that although he was suffering, he still had too much life in him to put him down; we decided to amputate.
But before doing that, we tried one more vet (Dearing, out near Buffalo Gap), and learned that the surgery to attempt a repair was only another hundred and fifty or so over the $400 or so it would take to amputate, so we elected to go with the surgery. Praise Yah, he came through surgery fine, and although he's still slightly crippled, it didn't stop him from traveling twenty miles in the past week.
Then 'Reo came to stay a night with me at my house. I forgot that I had put down some rat poison earlier in the week. And 'Reo, being the vacuum-cleaner he is, found it. Rat poison is an anti-coagulant (your grandpa might be taking rat-poison pills on a daily basis), and the dosage he took would have killed him over the course of a few days when his blood-clotting ability finally allowed him to bleed out (probably internally, where it wouldn't be noticed). Of course, this was late at night, when the only vet available was the expensive Emergency Clinic. But we took him in, and they induced vomiting, and put him on a regime of Vitamin K (an anti-anti-coagulant). Praise Yah, he came through fine.
Then about three weeks later, NJ left a 6-ounce package of cocao nibs where 'Reo could find them. She had been careful all his life to keep him from chocolate, but on this day, she just missed a detail. When she came home later, she realized he had eaten all the chocolate. As many of you know, chocolate is a poison to dogs. Of course ... this happened late at night when the only vet available was the expensive Emergency Clinic. But I did my usual searching of the Internet for all I could learn, and I tried various calculations to see if he could withstand the onslaught of the poison. By the time we had discovered that he had eaten the chocolate, about 12 hours had elapsed, and as far as I could tell from the research I did, there's really not an antidote other than to make him throw up, which by now was too late, so we withheld from taking him to the ER and I just prayed that he might survive. I was particularly concerned that NJ would feel guilty if he died. I told God that if 'Reo survived, I would only be able to conclude that it was God that healed him, because as far as I could tell, that amount of poison should have killed him.
About a week after that, I had decided that God had indeed delivered him from death, and I decided to wait one more day before emailing my friends so that I could publicly (to them) give credit to God for this positive answer to my prayers. It was that night that 'Reo went missing, and I just couldn't then bring myself to praise God to my friends when now it looked as if 'Reo might have disappeared forever.
NJ, with help from Don and Jenn and others, made fliers and handed them out and put up signs and contacted newspapers and online classifieds and vet offices and made daily trips to check on the "scraped-off-the-road" and "picked-up-strays" lists.
And then today, 20 miles from where he disappeared, this old, blind, deaf, crippled dog meets up with his owner, licks her face, and heads home with her.
Praise Yah!
UPDATE: He gained 9 pounds while living out in the street. That dog can find food anywhere.
He's tired and worn out, but otherwise in good shape.
Now, for the rest of the story ....
Last year, 'Reo broke his elbow. Of course, it was late at night when the only vet available was the expensive Emergency Clinic. Preliminary triage at the ER convinced us that with his age, and the severity of the break, and the general lifelessness he was showing, and his increasing blindness/deafness, the sensible thing to do would have been to put him down. The ER kept him sedated over night so we could get pictures and make better decisions in the light of day. Come morning, it was obvious that although he was suffering, he still had too much life in him to put him down; we decided to amputate.
But before doing that, we tried one more vet (Dearing, out near Buffalo Gap), and learned that the surgery to attempt a repair was only another hundred and fifty or so over the $400 or so it would take to amputate, so we elected to go with the surgery. Praise Yah, he came through surgery fine, and although he's still slightly crippled, it didn't stop him from traveling twenty miles in the past week.
Then 'Reo came to stay a night with me at my house. I forgot that I had put down some rat poison earlier in the week. And 'Reo, being the vacuum-cleaner he is, found it. Rat poison is an anti-coagulant (your grandpa might be taking rat-poison pills on a daily basis), and the dosage he took would have killed him over the course of a few days when his blood-clotting ability finally allowed him to bleed out (probably internally, where it wouldn't be noticed). Of course, this was late at night, when the only vet available was the expensive Emergency Clinic. But we took him in, and they induced vomiting, and put him on a regime of Vitamin K (an anti-anti-coagulant). Praise Yah, he came through fine.
Then about three weeks later, NJ left a 6-ounce package of cocao nibs where 'Reo could find them. She had been careful all his life to keep him from chocolate, but on this day, she just missed a detail. When she came home later, she realized he had eaten all the chocolate. As many of you know, chocolate is a poison to dogs. Of course ... this happened late at night when the only vet available was the expensive Emergency Clinic. But I did my usual searching of the Internet for all I could learn, and I tried various calculations to see if he could withstand the onslaught of the poison. By the time we had discovered that he had eaten the chocolate, about 12 hours had elapsed, and as far as I could tell from the research I did, there's really not an antidote other than to make him throw up, which by now was too late, so we withheld from taking him to the ER and I just prayed that he might survive. I was particularly concerned that NJ would feel guilty if he died. I told God that if 'Reo survived, I would only be able to conclude that it was God that healed him, because as far as I could tell, that amount of poison should have killed him.
About a week after that, I had decided that God had indeed delivered him from death, and I decided to wait one more day before emailing my friends so that I could publicly (to them) give credit to God for this positive answer to my prayers. It was that night that 'Reo went missing, and I just couldn't then bring myself to praise God to my friends when now it looked as if 'Reo might have disappeared forever.
NJ, with help from Don and Jenn and others, made fliers and handed them out and put up signs and contacted newspapers and online classifieds and vet offices and made daily trips to check on the "scraped-off-the-road" and "picked-up-strays" lists.
And then today, 20 miles from where he disappeared, this old, blind, deaf, crippled dog meets up with his owner, licks her face, and heads home with her.
Praise Yah!
UPDATE: He gained 9 pounds while living out in the street. That dog can find food anywhere.
The Unity of the Church
From a posting on the "Church_of_Christ" Yahoo! Group:
"Racoon" John Smith proclaimed at the 1832 Lexinton [sic] conference for unity, "While there is but one faith, there may be ten thousand opinions; and hence if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one in faith, and not in opinion."
Monday, January 05, 2009
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth
Let me first bring to remembrance our oft-stated claim that we adhere to the Bible, not to human-made tradition. It's important to keep in mind that even a "firm" doctrine which we've known and believed all our lives may turn out to be unBiblical. When that comes to light, we have to make a decision to retain the tradition anyway, or to let it go in favor of the Biblical view.
We've had a tradition, for centuries and centuries, that the Bible is divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the New. We even support this two-fold division by quoting 2 Tim 2:15, which says, "Study ..., rightly dividing the word of truth."
But this two-fold division is not the division known by the early church, and presented by Jesus. We know from historical/secular records that the Jews of Jesus' day divided their scriptures into a three-fold division, that of the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Kethuvim) (or the "Tanahk", a word formed (with vowels added) by taking the first letter of each of these divisions, TNK).
When the church was established, a fourth division was added to the Holy Scriptures, that being the inspired writings of the early church.
Jesus refers to the three-fold division of the Jewish scriptures, as well as making an oblique reference to the fourth, in Luke 24:44, where he mentions:
1. the Law
2. the Prophets
3. the Psalms (representing the Writings)
4. "my words"
Why does this matter?
1) Because that's the Biblical division. This should in and of itself be sufficient as a reason to recognize a four-fold division of the Bible rather than a two-fold division.
2) Because by lumping the three-fold division of the Jewish scriptures into a single unit, we then misunderstand the teachings concerning the "old covenant".
(2a)
The term "old covenant" is referenced in 2 Corinthians 3:14, where it is equated in the next verse to "Moses", and thus by implication to the Mosaic Covenant, aka the Law, aka the Torah. To extend this term to also refer to "the Prophets" and "the Writings" is to go beyond the text.
(2b)
The term "old covenant" is also referenced in Hebrews 8 and 9 where it speaks of the ritual components of the Torah of Moses. To extend the term to also include "the Prophets" and "the Writings" is to go beyond the text. This term is also explained by the writer of Hebrews as the covenant referred to by Jeremiah (see next point).
(2c)
Jeremiah defined the covenant which would be replaced by the new covenant, in Jer 31:31ff. In this passage, Jeremiah makes it clear that the old covenant which would be replaced by the new is the covenant which YHWH made with the Israelites at the time He brought them out of Egypt, aka the Mosaic Covenant.
(2d)
This means that the 39 books we know today as the "Old Testament" (aka TNK) have not been replaced by the New Testament. Only the T portion of the TNK (or more specifically, the Mosaic Covenant portion of the T portion) has been replaced by the new covenant. Or in other words, the portions of the Tanahk which are not part of the Mosaic covenant have not been replaced by the New Covenant, but are in fact, still in effect.
(2d1)
We see this is true by logic: we accept the rainbow of the Noahic covenant as still being in effect, trusting that God will not flood the earth again as he did in Noah's day. (If this covenant with the inhabitants of Earth is still in effect, we are still to multiply and be fruitful, and we should still execute murderers.)
(2d2)
We see this is true by the doctrine of Jesus, who based his teachings concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage on the validity of the Creation account. If that text is no longer in effect, then Jesus' teachings about marriage are no longer in effect; he did not create a new doctrine out of his own authority, but used the authority of the Creation text. Do away with that authority, and you do away with Jesus' doctrine.
(2d3)
We see this is true by the doctrine of Paul, who explicitly says in Galatians 3 that we are part of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the Mosaic covenant was added in as a temporary covenant, but that this temporary covenant did not nullify the first covenant. It was this temporary Mosaic covenant which was replaced by the new covenant.
(2d4)
We see this is true by the example of the Beroeans in Acts 17:10ff, who turned to the Tanakh as their authority in measuring the words of the apostles, and were praised as noble for doing so.
Conclusion:
We need to stop teaching people that the Bible is divided into two portions, the man-made division of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Instead, we need to make it clear that the old covenant which was replaced by the new was the Mosaic covenant, not the 39 books we refer to as "the Old Testament".
We've had a tradition, for centuries and centuries, that the Bible is divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the New. We even support this two-fold division by quoting 2 Tim 2:15, which says, "Study ..., rightly dividing the word of truth."
But this two-fold division is not the division known by the early church, and presented by Jesus. We know from historical/secular records that the Jews of Jesus' day divided their scriptures into a three-fold division, that of the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Kethuvim) (or the "Tanahk", a word formed (with vowels added) by taking the first letter of each of these divisions, TNK).
When the church was established, a fourth division was added to the Holy Scriptures, that being the inspired writings of the early church.
Jesus refers to the three-fold division of the Jewish scriptures, as well as making an oblique reference to the fourth, in Luke 24:44, where he mentions:
1. the Law
2. the Prophets
3. the Psalms (representing the Writings)
4. "my words"
Why does this matter?
1) Because that's the Biblical division. This should in and of itself be sufficient as a reason to recognize a four-fold division of the Bible rather than a two-fold division.
2) Because by lumping the three-fold division of the Jewish scriptures into a single unit, we then misunderstand the teachings concerning the "old covenant".
(2a)
The term "old covenant" is referenced in 2 Corinthians 3:14, where it is equated in the next verse to "Moses", and thus by implication to the Mosaic Covenant, aka the Law, aka the Torah. To extend this term to also refer to "the Prophets" and "the Writings" is to go beyond the text.
(2b)
The term "old covenant" is also referenced in Hebrews 8 and 9 where it speaks of the ritual components of the Torah of Moses. To extend the term to also include "the Prophets" and "the Writings" is to go beyond the text. This term is also explained by the writer of Hebrews as the covenant referred to by Jeremiah (see next point).
(2c)
Jeremiah defined the covenant which would be replaced by the new covenant, in Jer 31:31ff. In this passage, Jeremiah makes it clear that the old covenant which would be replaced by the new is the covenant which YHWH made with the Israelites at the time He brought them out of Egypt, aka the Mosaic Covenant.
(2d)
This means that the 39 books we know today as the "Old Testament" (aka TNK) have not been replaced by the New Testament. Only the T portion of the TNK (or more specifically, the Mosaic Covenant portion of the T portion) has been replaced by the new covenant. Or in other words, the portions of the Tanahk which are not part of the Mosaic covenant have not been replaced by the New Covenant, but are in fact, still in effect.
(2d1)
We see this is true by logic: we accept the rainbow of the Noahic covenant as still being in effect, trusting that God will not flood the earth again as he did in Noah's day. (If this covenant with the inhabitants of Earth is still in effect, we are still to multiply and be fruitful, and we should still execute murderers.)
(2d2)
We see this is true by the doctrine of Jesus, who based his teachings concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage on the validity of the Creation account. If that text is no longer in effect, then Jesus' teachings about marriage are no longer in effect; he did not create a new doctrine out of his own authority, but used the authority of the Creation text. Do away with that authority, and you do away with Jesus' doctrine.
(2d3)
We see this is true by the doctrine of Paul, who explicitly says in Galatians 3 that we are part of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the Mosaic covenant was added in as a temporary covenant, but that this temporary covenant did not nullify the first covenant. It was this temporary Mosaic covenant which was replaced by the new covenant.
(2d4)
We see this is true by the example of the Beroeans in Acts 17:10ff, who turned to the Tanakh as their authority in measuring the words of the apostles, and were praised as noble for doing so.
Conclusion:
We need to stop teaching people that the Bible is divided into two portions, the man-made division of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Instead, we need to make it clear that the old covenant which was replaced by the new was the Mosaic covenant, not the 39 books we refer to as "the Old Testament".
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Night with ebon pinion ...
"Night with ebon pinion / brooded o'er the vale...".
Beautifully poetic words, in a beautiful song. But how many people know what the phrase means? I do, because as a kid I looked up the words and managed to put it together into plain English (which I then penciled into my song book at church for future reference). But I daresay that many people have sung this phrase all their life and don't have a clue what it says.
Nothing wrong with beauty; nothing wrong with poetry. Until it gets in the way.
Beautifully poetic words, in a beautiful song. But how many people know what the phrase means? I do, because as a kid I looked up the words and managed to put it together into plain English (which I then penciled into my song book at church for future reference). But I daresay that many people have sung this phrase all their life and don't have a clue what it says.
Nothing wrong with beauty; nothing wrong with poetry. Until it gets in the way.
What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with my understanding. - 1 Cor 14:15
Friday, December 12, 2008
Three Proverbs
1. Two people can look at the same thing and see it differently.
2. A rich person is not the one who has the most, but is the one who needs the least.
3. You can't make anyone love you.
2. A rich person is not the one who has the most, but is the one who needs the least.
3. You can't make anyone love you.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Christians Against Christ
Michael Cecil writes in an online forum:
Christianity is a specific set of doctrines, not merely the claim that a person is following Jesus.
And, if it can be determined that there is a conflict in Doctrine between what Jesus taught and what Christian theology teaches, then Christianity becomes the manifestation of the denial of the Teaching of Jesus.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Saved By Love
Phil Comer writes:
Your salvation depends on how much you love God? Good luck with that. My salvation depends on how much He loves me.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Forgiving the Adulteress?
Every once in a while an epiphany hits you that's been staring in your face for thirty years.
In John 8, Jesus did not forgive the woman who was caught in adultery. Rather, he maneuvered her accusers into dropping their charges against her. Different thing entirely.
With no eyewitnesses to testify against her, there was no case, and she was acquitted (or rather, pardoned - she was guilty, after all).
Yet Jesus perceived that she really was guilty, so he did the only thing left for him to do: he told her to "Go, and sin no more."
The story wasn't about her being forgiven by God; it was about saving her life in the culture's legal environment. Jesus wasn't asking the accusers to forgive her; he was asking them to cool off enough from the mob mentality to make sure they really wanted to testify in a case that would lead to the death of a fellow human being who in retrospect wasn't any more sinful than they themselves were.
In John 8, Jesus did not forgive the woman who was caught in adultery. Rather, he maneuvered her accusers into dropping their charges against her. Different thing entirely.
With no eyewitnesses to testify against her, there was no case, and she was acquitted (or rather, pardoned - she was guilty, after all).
Yet Jesus perceived that she really was guilty, so he did the only thing left for him to do: he told her to "Go, and sin no more."
The story wasn't about her being forgiven by God; it was about saving her life in the culture's legal environment. Jesus wasn't asking the accusers to forgive her; he was asking them to cool off enough from the mob mentality to make sure they really wanted to testify in a case that would lead to the death of a fellow human being who in retrospect wasn't any more sinful than they themselves were.
A Wise Saying
MamaBear writes on Yahoo! Answers:
Things should be believed in because they are true, not the other way around.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Inside-Out
Now this is an interesting idea. It was in a post by mexangl716 on Yahoo! Answers:
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.I'm rather hesitant to buy into this idea, but it's certainly something to chew on.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. KJV
When we are alive on this earth, our bodies are the home of our souls. The body is on the outside with the soul on the inside. The above text seems to indicate (as least to me) that in the resurrection, our bodies will become in some way housed by our souls. The word translated "put on" appears more than 25 times in the New Testament, and almost always refers to the wearing or putting on of apparel.
Now note verse 53 -- this corruptible (our bodies) must put on (as clothing) incorruption (our souls), and this mortal (our bodies) must put on (as clothes) immortality (our souls).
Jewish Symbolism in the Feeding of the Crowds
Yeshua was an Easterner, not a Westerner, and his way of thinking was much less abstract than is ours; he taught in word-pictures rather than 3-point PowerPoint presentations. The two miracles recorded in the Gospel accounts of Yeshua feeding first a crowd of 5000, and then a crowd of 4000, were a word-picture to his followers, who tended to see symbolism in many aspects of their everyday lives.
The first miracle, involving the feeding of 5000 with five loaves and two fish, took place in a very Jewish place, near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). Beth, in Hebrew, means "house", and "sayid" means, essentially, "box lunch". They're about to eat at the Box Lunch Restaurant. (God loves wordplay, but we Gentiles miss out on so much of it.)
Numbers to the Jewish mindset nearly always have symbolic value. The number 5 would cause a Hebrew mind to conjure up ideas of God's grace and/or the Five Books of the Torah ("Pentateuch"), and 1000 (as in 5 x 1000) would suggest a very "completeness". Two would remind them of the two witnesses in Deuteronomy. The crossing over the sea into this desert just before the meal, at the Passover season, would have them thinking in terms of Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea and into the wilderness. The crowds were instructed to sit in groups of fifties and 100's, again reminiscent of the time Moses' father-in-law suggested that he appoint judges over the people in groups of 1000's, 100's, fifties, and tens. The twelve baskets of leftovers would trigger thoughts of the twelve tribes of Israel. The whole event would have the people thinking such thoughts as, "Is this the promised Prophet like Moses, feeding "manna" to us, the Messiah who will free us Israelites from our overlords?"
And then just a few days later, Yeshua is in a very Gentile place near the pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:21). Here he fed 4000 people with seven loaves of bread and a few fish, and collected seven baskets of leftovers. The number four represented the four-corners of the earth, or in Jewish-think, the gentile nations of the world, and the sevens represented a divine completeness. All-in-all, this event had the people thinking, "Man, this party sure seems to have a lot of Gentile elements to it." (The "few" fish, being unspecified, merely highlights the symbolism of the other numbers which are reported.)
Later, the Jewish mind which reflected back on these two events suddenly realized: "Jesus, the bread of life, born in "Bakery-ville" ("Beth" = house; lehem = bread; Bethlehem = "House of Bread"), is feeding both Jew and Gentile, bringing the two groups into one family, nurturing them with the complete Torah of God."
The first miracle, involving the feeding of 5000 with five loaves and two fish, took place in a very Jewish place, near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). Beth, in Hebrew, means "house", and "sayid" means, essentially, "box lunch". They're about to eat at the Box Lunch Restaurant. (God loves wordplay, but we Gentiles miss out on so much of it.)
Numbers to the Jewish mindset nearly always have symbolic value. The number 5 would cause a Hebrew mind to conjure up ideas of God's grace and/or the Five Books of the Torah ("Pentateuch"), and 1000 (as in 5 x 1000) would suggest a very "completeness". Two would remind them of the two witnesses in Deuteronomy. The crossing over the sea into this desert just before the meal, at the Passover season, would have them thinking in terms of Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea and into the wilderness. The crowds were instructed to sit in groups of fifties and 100's, again reminiscent of the time Moses' father-in-law suggested that he appoint judges over the people in groups of 1000's, 100's, fifties, and tens. The twelve baskets of leftovers would trigger thoughts of the twelve tribes of Israel. The whole event would have the people thinking such thoughts as, "Is this the promised Prophet like Moses, feeding "manna" to us, the Messiah who will free us Israelites from our overlords?"
And then just a few days later, Yeshua is in a very Gentile place near the pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:21). Here he fed 4000 people with seven loaves of bread and a few fish, and collected seven baskets of leftovers. The number four represented the four-corners of the earth, or in Jewish-think, the gentile nations of the world, and the sevens represented a divine completeness. All-in-all, this event had the people thinking, "Man, this party sure seems to have a lot of Gentile elements to it." (The "few" fish, being unspecified, merely highlights the symbolism of the other numbers which are reported.)
Later, the Jewish mind which reflected back on these two events suddenly realized: "Jesus, the bread of life, born in "Bakery-ville" ("Beth" = house; lehem = bread; Bethlehem = "House of Bread"), is feeding both Jew and Gentile, bringing the two groups into one family, nurturing them with the complete Torah of God."
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The US Began As Communists
Ever since the New World had been "discovered" by Columbus in 1492, Europe had been making colonization attempts. Spain was having more success than England, and it wasn't until 1609 that England managed to establish a permanent settlement that did not end in failure, Jamestown.
The Jamestown settlement was a business venture, not a religious one. It nearly failed several times throughout the early years, but a constant influx of people and supplies from England kept it alive long enough to finally get a firm footing.
In the meanwhile, back home in England, a group of people were trying to separate themselves from the official Church of England, the Anglican Church, in order to worship according to their own Calvinistic understandings. These purist separatists, or Puritans, looking for a place where they'd have more freedom to exercise their religious beliefs, moved to Holland. Although they found religious freedom there, their status as non-Dutch prevented them from having any economic success; they were also disturbed that their children were beginning to adopt Dutch ideas rather than the ideas of their own community. So they began looking for another place to go. Their wanderlust earned them the nickname Pilgrims, although they never referred to themselves as such.
The King of England, King James (yes, the same who gave us our King James Bible), gave these Puritan Pilgrims permission to settle in the New World, on the northern edge of the Jamestown settlement area (known as the Virginia Colony, up around the middle of New Jersey), but a storm forced their ship, the Mayflower, off-course, and they instead landed at Plymouth Rock, considerably further North up the coast (near Boston, Mass).
They elected to set up camp there, rather than try to move back down Southward to where they were supposed to be. Some of the settlers were not comfortable being out of the jurisdiction of an official government, so they created the Mayflower Compact, which established the first fully representative government in North America.
The biggest difference between Jamestown and the Plymouth colony was that Jamestown was primarily a business enterprise, whereas Plymouth was a religious enterprise. As such, Plymouth was pretty much left alone to tend to themselves.
According to this article, these first Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower, and who gave us our first Thanksgiving, were commies. They came over with the idealistic notion that communism was the God-ordained way of life. They spent their first years here with a communistic government, established by themselves.
They nearly died that first year, and had little material success thereafter. As the article says,
And yet now we continually elect politicians who are pushing for the same socialistic communism which Bradford terms a conceit of the ancients.
Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Welcome to the Recession.
The Jamestown settlement was a business venture, not a religious one. It nearly failed several times throughout the early years, but a constant influx of people and supplies from England kept it alive long enough to finally get a firm footing.
In the meanwhile, back home in England, a group of people were trying to separate themselves from the official Church of England, the Anglican Church, in order to worship according to their own Calvinistic understandings. These purist separatists, or Puritans, looking for a place where they'd have more freedom to exercise their religious beliefs, moved to Holland. Although they found religious freedom there, their status as non-Dutch prevented them from having any economic success; they were also disturbed that their children were beginning to adopt Dutch ideas rather than the ideas of their own community. So they began looking for another place to go. Their wanderlust earned them the nickname Pilgrims, although they never referred to themselves as such.
The King of England, King James (yes, the same who gave us our King James Bible), gave these Puritan Pilgrims permission to settle in the New World, on the northern edge of the Jamestown settlement area (known as the Virginia Colony, up around the middle of New Jersey), but a storm forced their ship, the Mayflower, off-course, and they instead landed at Plymouth Rock, considerably further North up the coast (near Boston, Mass).
They elected to set up camp there, rather than try to move back down Southward to where they were supposed to be. Some of the settlers were not comfortable being out of the jurisdiction of an official government, so they created the Mayflower Compact, which established the first fully representative government in North America.
The biggest difference between Jamestown and the Plymouth colony was that Jamestown was primarily a business enterprise, whereas Plymouth was a religious enterprise. As such, Plymouth was pretty much left alone to tend to themselves.
According to this article, these first Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower, and who gave us our first Thanksgiving, were commies. They came over with the idealistic notion that communism was the God-ordained way of life. They spent their first years here with a communistic government, established by themselves.
They nearly died that first year, and had little material success thereafter. As the article says,
[William] Bradford remained troubled by the colony's inability to prosper. He found the answer by studying the Bible and revisiting the notion of private property and incentivized hard work.The article further notes that Bradford wrote in 1623:
At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should [dispense with communism in favor of a more capitalistic economy].One of the most telling things which Bradford wrote about this change is this:
This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God.Rather interesting, that this great United States of America had already tried and rejected communism, finding it wanting, long before the threat of Communism raised its head in the 20th Century.
And yet now we continually elect politicians who are pushing for the same socialistic communism which Bradford terms a conceit of the ancients.
Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Welcome to the Recession.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Mary the Disciple
Dr N. T. Wright says:
Most of us grew up with the line that Martha was the active type and Mary the passive or contemplative type, and that Jesus is simply affirming the importance of both and even the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is undoubtedly part of the importance of the story, but far more obvious to any first-century reader, and to many readers in Turkey, the Middle East and many other parts of the world to this day would be the fact that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the male part of the house rather than being kept in the back rooms with the other women. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha; no doubt she was cross at being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind that was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social conventions. It is as though, in today’s world, you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I were to put up a camp bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear but unstated rules about whose space is which; so did they. And Mary has just flouted them. And Jesus declares that she is right to do so. She is ‘sitting at his feet’; a phrase which doesn’t mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. As is clear from the use of the phrase elsewhere in the NT (for instance, Paul with Gamaliel), to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning; and in that very practical world you wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind and heart, but in order to be a teacher, a rabbi, yourself.
Dark Knight - Bright Hope
I saw the latest Batman movie, Dark Knight, last night. I'm afraid I've gotten too old to suspend disbelief sufficiently anymore to really enjoy the popular movies (physics absurdities, etc).
Still, the film was an enjoyable, if somewhat long, 2 and a third hours.
But the ideas that infused into me, and stuck, are the following:
1) All of us have potential for good or for bad. Or perhaps more accurately, we all have good and bad within us.
2) When the best of us go bad, we go very bad. It's as if the strengths we have when we are good are then applied to evil when we turn. (Of course, the reverse is also true, case in point being Saul/Paul.)
3) Sometimes we turn bad very subtly, thinking we're doing good, never realizing we've become the bad guy, or sometimes realizing it, but self-justifying ourselves because "the end justifies the means". Even the best of us are subject to this failing. Along with this is the reminder that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
4) You must stand on principle. You can't be good 99% of the time and expect allowances for the "exceptions".
5) SPOILER ALERT - I was extremely proud of the prisoner. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean. If not, you will when you see the movie.
Still, the film was an enjoyable, if somewhat long, 2 and a third hours.
But the ideas that infused into me, and stuck, are the following:
1) All of us have potential for good or for bad. Or perhaps more accurately, we all have good and bad within us.
2) When the best of us go bad, we go very bad. It's as if the strengths we have when we are good are then applied to evil when we turn. (Of course, the reverse is also true, case in point being Saul/Paul.)
3) Sometimes we turn bad very subtly, thinking we're doing good, never realizing we've become the bad guy, or sometimes realizing it, but self-justifying ourselves because "the end justifies the means". Even the best of us are subject to this failing. Along with this is the reminder that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
4) You must stand on principle. You can't be good 99% of the time and expect allowances for the "exceptions".
5) SPOILER ALERT - I was extremely proud of the prisoner. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean. If not, you will when you see the movie.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Extend Your Life by 20%; Go to Church
From ScienceDaily:
A study published by researchers at Yeshiva University and its medical school, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, strongly suggests that regular attendance at religious services reduces the risk of death by approximately 20 percent.and
“Interestingly, the protection against mortality provided by religion cannot be entirely explained by expected factors that include enhanced social support of friends or family, lifestyle choices and reduced smoking and alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Schnall, who was lead author of the study. “There is something here that we don’t quite understand. It is always possible that some unknown or unmeasured factors confounded these results,” he added.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Was Matthew Originally Written in Hebrew?
This guy makes a good case that Matthew was written in Hebrew. It's a long video (2 hours) and covers much more than this one point, but highly recommended if you have an interest in understanding the teachings of Jesus. I'm exhausted and my brain hurts.
One of the evidences he produced is a quote from a disciple of John, Papias, who lived about 60-130 AD, who wrote in the early second century:
One of the evidences he produced is a quote from a disciple of John, Papias, who lived about 60-130 AD, who wrote in the early second century:
Matthew collected the words in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as best he could.Go watch the video; it's well worth it.
YHWH Exists!
According to http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/046.html, the literal rendering of Genesis 2:5 from Hebrew into English is:
וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי
לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה
The Name, YHWH is יְהוָה and the word "exist[ed]" (HYH) is יִהְיֶה . Looking closely at the Hebrew forms, you can see the very close similarity between the two.
Indeed, YHWH is the Great I AM [Existence Itself].
And all the shrubs of the field, not yet existed in the land, and all the herbs of the field, not yet sprouted, because YHWH Elohiym did not cause it to rain upon the land, and was without a human to serve the ground.If you're interested, here's the Hebrew:
וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי
לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה
The Name, YHWH is יְהוָה and the word "exist[ed]" (HYH) is יִהְיֶה . Looking closely at the Hebrew forms, you can see the very close similarity between the two.
Indeed, YHWH is the Great I AM [Existence Itself].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)