So this guy obviously has a different version of the bible to me.
That's all I want to say.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Luke 18:9-14
Continuing in my "not satisfied with the answers" strain of thought.
Another question, which the answerer received beforehand (so knew was coming), was this: If God is up in heaven, why do look down when we pray?
The answerer said first that he doesn't believe that God is only in heaven, but everywhere. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I was okay with him saying so. I might think about that some other time.
I think he put something in there about how if you do something wrong, and are going to your parents about it, you don't look them in the face. This was good and I wished he had continued in this strain. He didn't.
He finished by talking about how God is really really awesome and we're not so awesome. So it's just an admission of how awesome God is. But I don't think "not so awesome" really describes us at all.
I mean, we see lowered heads for prayer in the bible. Jesus talks about it a lot. So if something we practice goes back to the bible, is that not a good enough explanation for why we do it? And furthermore, isn't it a good opportunity to get kids looking to the bible for answers?
It reminds me of Jim's (excellent) sermon on Sunday. He talked about how he was looking for a sermon illustration on google and youtube, something like the story of Lot's wife. And then he was like--oh! the story of Lot's wife! I could use that as a sermon illustration! Who would have thought we could use scripture to illuminate scripture? (Unfortunately I think many missed that he was taking a stab...even at other things that had happened that night).
But anyway. Let's have a look at the bible.
Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
So--Jesus honours the act of looking down during prayer. But what does it mean? It's clear here that "it's because we're not so awesome" just doesn't cut it. When we look down, it is an admission that we are not worthy of God's attention. When we look down, it is an admission that we have rebelled against a holy God. When we look down, we are being humble and admitting what we are.
And if we admit that we are no good, God will exalt us in the end. Jesus didn't come to save the not so awesome but kinda awesome. Jesus came to save sinners, which is what we are.
I think I will make one more post about answers I was unsatisfied with--there was one about--oh, I can't even remember. If I do I will write it down.
It saddens me that the answerer did not even open a bible on Friday night.
I also want to post about what we looked at at bible study this week, so hopefully writing it here will make me commit to it. And I like writing about sermons too.
I'm also listening to a Japanese audio bible. Very exciting. But I don't really understand very much but an ocassional word... the reader saying the chapter and verse numbers... yeah.
Another question, which the answerer received beforehand (so knew was coming), was this: If God is up in heaven, why do look down when we pray?
The answerer said first that he doesn't believe that God is only in heaven, but everywhere. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I was okay with him saying so. I might think about that some other time.
I think he put something in there about how if you do something wrong, and are going to your parents about it, you don't look them in the face. This was good and I wished he had continued in this strain. He didn't.
He finished by talking about how God is really really awesome and we're not so awesome. So it's just an admission of how awesome God is. But I don't think "not so awesome" really describes us at all.
I mean, we see lowered heads for prayer in the bible. Jesus talks about it a lot. So if something we practice goes back to the bible, is that not a good enough explanation for why we do it? And furthermore, isn't it a good opportunity to get kids looking to the bible for answers?
It reminds me of Jim's (excellent) sermon on Sunday. He talked about how he was looking for a sermon illustration on google and youtube, something like the story of Lot's wife. And then he was like--oh! the story of Lot's wife! I could use that as a sermon illustration! Who would have thought we could use scripture to illuminate scripture? (Unfortunately I think many missed that he was taking a stab...even at other things that had happened that night).
But anyway. Let's have a look at the bible.
Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
So--Jesus honours the act of looking down during prayer. But what does it mean? It's clear here that "it's because we're not so awesome" just doesn't cut it. When we look down, it is an admission that we are not worthy of God's attention. When we look down, it is an admission that we have rebelled against a holy God. When we look down, we are being humble and admitting what we are.
And if we admit that we are no good, God will exalt us in the end. Jesus didn't come to save the not so awesome but kinda awesome. Jesus came to save sinners, which is what we are.
I think I will make one more post about answers I was unsatisfied with--there was one about--oh, I can't even remember. If I do I will write it down.
It saddens me that the answerer did not even open a bible on Friday night.
I also want to post about what we looked at at bible study this week, so hopefully writing it here will make me commit to it. And I like writing about sermons too.
I'm also listening to a Japanese audio bible. Very exciting. But I don't really understand very much but an ocassional word... the reader saying the chapter and verse numbers... yeah.
Monday, September 13, 2010
John 14:6
On Friday night, one of my girls asked a question along these lines:
So you all put your faith in this stuff but it just comes from a book. And it's good for you, but wouldn't it be the same--would it be okay if I put my faith in, like, good luck, or myself, for example? Wouldn't that still be as good for me?
And the answer she received dissatisfied me. It was something along these lines:
I don't think God is concerned with the little things. Lots of people do--I have friends who insist that when they're driving and need a parking spot, they pray, and oh hey! there's a parking spot. I'm not convinced. I think where prayer makes a different is in big life decisions. Like one of the biggest miracles in life is from people who don't know God, turning into people who do believe in God.
Youth: But has it actually changed your life?
Answerer: Well, no, not me. You see I was raised as a Christian.
Youth: Has it changed any of your lives? *looking around the room*
Answerer: No, I can deal with your questions. I have known a guy who by following God did fix his life. It fixed his family life. He was having problems, but when he became a Christian that got better. Look, I'm going to have to end this conversation here, and let some other people ask questions.
End recount.
I'm not omitting anything, I promise you. If anything, I fear that I have actually added some flow that was not there in the first place.
It seemed to me that the answerer did not deal with these questions. So, I decided to take it upon myself, here. (I do already talk to this youth regularly about her questions, so please don't think that I'm just sitting in the back seat.) I don't really want to deal with the just a book thing though. I did a lot of reading and researching such things about half way through the year and I am convinced that the bible is *not* just a book (sorry, Queensland stoner lawyer) and that it (its contents, at least) is worthy of faith.
Jesus says in John 14:6:
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Pretty big claim. If this is true, if there is no other way to the Father, then faith in good luck/yourself is pretty fruitless. Only faith in Jesus counts. He doesn't call himself "a" way--but "the" way.
But what if you don't care to be with the Father?
Well, there's a parable about this. Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man who was not wearing wedding clothes. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
Then the king told his attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
There are some absolutely encouraging things in here--for example, that all are invited to the banquet, good and bad. The king invites even the scum into his banquet, just as God the Father made a way into heaven for sinners, through Jesus. But there are scary things in here too.
The first is that those who outright reject God the father, who want nothing of his salvation, will be destroyed. There's not really anything more to it.
The second is that those who try to get into heaven through the wrong avenues don't make it, but are thrown out into suffering. The wrong avenues here are any avenues other than Jesus--so I guess that includes having faith in good luck or having faith in yourself, all that kind of thing. Jesus says that he is the only way.
These are pretty big claims the bible is making. Pretty big and pretty exclusive. If it's true, it's worth taking heed.
So then, the question of what you put your faith in is *not* a question of what you think works for you--but what you believe is true. I don't intend on this sounding Pascally wagery, so please forgive me for the brief slip.
If Jesus was a real person, and he was telling the truth when he said he was the only way, the consequences of choosing against him--choosing good luck or yourself, for example--are disastrous. If it's not true, it doesn't really matter.
But I just want to beg that when you choose what to believe, what to put your faith in, that it is not so arbitrary as what appeals to you/what you personally like. Please, search for truth. Even if you search through other religions--I am okay with that. But it's a big decision--so try and make it right.
So you all put your faith in this stuff but it just comes from a book. And it's good for you, but wouldn't it be the same--would it be okay if I put my faith in, like, good luck, or myself, for example? Wouldn't that still be as good for me?
And the answer she received dissatisfied me. It was something along these lines:
I don't think God is concerned with the little things. Lots of people do--I have friends who insist that when they're driving and need a parking spot, they pray, and oh hey! there's a parking spot. I'm not convinced. I think where prayer makes a different is in big life decisions. Like one of the biggest miracles in life is from people who don't know God, turning into people who do believe in God.
Youth: But has it actually changed your life?
Answerer: Well, no, not me. You see I was raised as a Christian.
Youth: Has it changed any of your lives? *looking around the room*
Answerer: No, I can deal with your questions. I have known a guy who by following God did fix his life. It fixed his family life. He was having problems, but when he became a Christian that got better. Look, I'm going to have to end this conversation here, and let some other people ask questions.
End recount.
I'm not omitting anything, I promise you. If anything, I fear that I have actually added some flow that was not there in the first place.
It seemed to me that the answerer did not deal with these questions. So, I decided to take it upon myself, here. (I do already talk to this youth regularly about her questions, so please don't think that I'm just sitting in the back seat.) I don't really want to deal with the just a book thing though. I did a lot of reading and researching such things about half way through the year and I am convinced that the bible is *not* just a book (sorry, Queensland stoner lawyer) and that it (its contents, at least) is worthy of faith.
Jesus says in John 14:6:
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Pretty big claim. If this is true, if there is no other way to the Father, then faith in good luck/yourself is pretty fruitless. Only faith in Jesus counts. He doesn't call himself "a" way--but "the" way.
But what if you don't care to be with the Father?
Well, there's a parable about this. Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man who was not wearing wedding clothes. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
Then the king told his attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
There are some absolutely encouraging things in here--for example, that all are invited to the banquet, good and bad. The king invites even the scum into his banquet, just as God the Father made a way into heaven for sinners, through Jesus. But there are scary things in here too.
The first is that those who outright reject God the father, who want nothing of his salvation, will be destroyed. There's not really anything more to it.
The second is that those who try to get into heaven through the wrong avenues don't make it, but are thrown out into suffering. The wrong avenues here are any avenues other than Jesus--so I guess that includes having faith in good luck or having faith in yourself, all that kind of thing. Jesus says that he is the only way.
These are pretty big claims the bible is making. Pretty big and pretty exclusive. If it's true, it's worth taking heed.
So then, the question of what you put your faith in is *not* a question of what you think works for you--but what you believe is true. I don't intend on this sounding Pascally wagery, so please forgive me for the brief slip.
If Jesus was a real person, and he was telling the truth when he said he was the only way, the consequences of choosing against him--choosing good luck or yourself, for example--are disastrous. If it's not true, it doesn't really matter.
But I just want to beg that when you choose what to believe, what to put your faith in, that it is not so arbitrary as what appeals to you/what you personally like. Please, search for truth. Even if you search through other religions--I am okay with that. But it's a big decision--so try and make it right.
Friday, August 27, 2010
1 Kings 19:1-8
Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, "May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them."
Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day's journey into the desert. He came to a broom tree, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, LORD," he said. "Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors." Then he lay down under the tree and fell asleep.
All at once an angel touched him and said, "Get up and eat." He looked around, and there by his head was a cake of bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and lay down again.
The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, "Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you." So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God...
When I read this passage this morning, I spent a while puzzling over why Elijah said he was no better than his ancestors. I was thinking "but the persecution is part of being a prophet, Elijah. You know God will reward you. Just because someone wants to kill you doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong, that just proves the badness of their heart...."
But, I think I figured it out. I think Elijah says he is no better than his ancestors... because he is ashamed of running away.
But here's the thing. We, as humans, get overwhelmed. Life is tough. Sometimes too tough for us to deal with. But God doesn't expect us to be superheroes or anything like that--we just need to rely on him.
In verses 5-8 we see God provide. The angel tells Elijah that this is too much for Elijah to do by himself - good thing he has God's help, ne?
I don't really feel a need to draw this back to personal experience. I think it's self-evident that we get overwhelmed sometimes. Soo... owari.
I don't know if my posts here will become more frequent, I must say. I'm studying for JLPT N2 in December (beyond my ability), as well as uni, so I'm rather pressed for time. But it's good to start the day with God and hopefully I can continue doing that at least.
Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day's journey into the desert. He came to a broom tree, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, LORD," he said. "Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors." Then he lay down under the tree and fell asleep.
All at once an angel touched him and said, "Get up and eat." He looked around, and there by his head was a cake of bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and lay down again.
The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, "Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you." So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God...
When I read this passage this morning, I spent a while puzzling over why Elijah said he was no better than his ancestors. I was thinking "but the persecution is part of being a prophet, Elijah. You know God will reward you. Just because someone wants to kill you doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong, that just proves the badness of their heart...."
But, I think I figured it out. I think Elijah says he is no better than his ancestors... because he is ashamed of running away.
But here's the thing. We, as humans, get overwhelmed. Life is tough. Sometimes too tough for us to deal with. But God doesn't expect us to be superheroes or anything like that--we just need to rely on him.
In verses 5-8 we see God provide. The angel tells Elijah that this is too much for Elijah to do by himself - good thing he has God's help, ne?
I don't really feel a need to draw this back to personal experience. I think it's self-evident that we get overwhelmed sometimes. Soo... owari.
I don't know if my posts here will become more frequent, I must say. I'm studying for JLPT N2 in December (beyond my ability), as well as uni, so I'm rather pressed for time. But it's good to start the day with God and hopefully I can continue doing that at least.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Romans 12:9
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
This week I have been reading Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. It's pretty dry and not very thought provoking, but I'm ploughing through. Sometimes it's interesting.
Reading the chapter on the problem of evil, I came across this little gem:
To love evil is to become evil, to succumb to it. But to hate evil is also to succumb to it. For it is practically impossible (1) to avoid Pharisaic self-righteousness and (2) to hate sins without hating sinners. Finally, (3) to hate at all is to become hard and dark and negative; even hating evil hardens us into haters (p.127).
I agree with premise (1) and (2) - almost. They are not practically impossible; they are just difficult. Point (3) though - I cannot agree with this.
That's why this blog entry is titled Roman 12:9--it commands us to hate evil. And God himself hates. It's just when we start falling into the traps of (1) and (2) that things go wrong.
The chapter also did not once mention Epicurus, though it used his point-by-point exploration of the problem of evil. It referenced a number of other authors who have talked about this exploration and I know, by reading, that at least one of them did mention Epicurus. And a quick search on Wikipedia showed Epicurus's name as the first to appear on the page for the problem of evil...
Other than these points, the handbook is... well, it's okay. I think the evil chapter was just a bit too hippy for me.
This week I have been reading Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. It's pretty dry and not very thought provoking, but I'm ploughing through. Sometimes it's interesting.
Reading the chapter on the problem of evil, I came across this little gem:
To love evil is to become evil, to succumb to it. But to hate evil is also to succumb to it. For it is practically impossible (1) to avoid Pharisaic self-righteousness and (2) to hate sins without hating sinners. Finally, (3) to hate at all is to become hard and dark and negative; even hating evil hardens us into haters (p.127).
I agree with premise (1) and (2) - almost. They are not practically impossible; they are just difficult. Point (3) though - I cannot agree with this.
That's why this blog entry is titled Roman 12:9--it commands us to hate evil. And God himself hates. It's just when we start falling into the traps of (1) and (2) that things go wrong.
The chapter also did not once mention Epicurus, though it used his point-by-point exploration of the problem of evil. It referenced a number of other authors who have talked about this exploration and I know, by reading, that at least one of them did mention Epicurus. And a quick search on Wikipedia showed Epicurus's name as the first to appear on the page for the problem of evil...
Other than these points, the handbook is... well, it's okay. I think the evil chapter was just a bit too hippy for me.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Luke 10:18
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven".
That line is starting to sound very Blade Runner to me. But moving on.
I've been thinking a lot lately about this one legend I knew. It started when a good friend was asking whether Satan is actually an angel - a good question. I don't know where that belief comes from. We can see from the verse above that he is from heaven, and he is a fallen being, but it's not angels alone that occupy heaven.
This legend I know goes something like this: God created Adam and Eve. And he said "hey my head angels, come check out what I did. Pretty cool huh. Now bow."
And Gabriel and Michael were all like "yay God! Your creation is awesome and we will bow to it!"
But Satan took offense at this abomination that was created after him, and refused to bow to it. Michael was all like "hey Satan maybe you should be careful... I mean, God told us to bow" and Satan was like "I don't care what God tells us to do!"
Hence the fall happened.
I don't know where I learnt this. It's a rough approximation of Islamic scripture, as I found out today - you can find out more about it here, here and here.
Like I said, I've been thinking about this passage a bit. Even more so with reading Luke 10:18, and Peter repeating it in his sermon on Sunday. The fact that it's of Islamic origin kinda makes my following musings farfetched, but bear with me. It's interesting.
Jesus was obviously around when Satan fell, yet the fall was pre-humanity (that is, Jesus's humanity). And we believe that God is all-knowing, right? So for Satan to refuse to bow down to created man - the form that Jesus would take upon himself - would be a refusal to bow down to God.
I think I would like to know about how Satan feels about Jesus. Because if the above scenario did touch on truth (unlikely; it has no founding outside the Qu'ran and I just came to conclusions myself) then it reveals one of the biggest mistakes in history. A lack of awareness of the things God has planned, a refusal to do his will, to trust him. I don't think an omniscient Satan makes sense. How could you know you were going to lose and still rebel? (Sounds a bit like Norse religion, ne?)
But that's as far as those musings get me. Interesting, nonetheless.
On a side note, seeing I've brought up Norse mythology--
Today one of my friends corrected someone in class for saying B.C. and A.D., as it is now officially (really? not sure. think it depends on the organisation really...) B.C.E. and C.E. for the purposes of avoiding religious slanting. But if we rename our dating system--should we not also rename the days of the week, lest we appear to be aligned with Norse gods? Thor's-day? Odin's-day?
What do you think?
That line is starting to sound very Blade Runner to me. But moving on.
I've been thinking a lot lately about this one legend I knew. It started when a good friend was asking whether Satan is actually an angel - a good question. I don't know where that belief comes from. We can see from the verse above that he is from heaven, and he is a fallen being, but it's not angels alone that occupy heaven.
This legend I know goes something like this: God created Adam and Eve. And he said "hey my head angels, come check out what I did. Pretty cool huh. Now bow."
And Gabriel and Michael were all like "yay God! Your creation is awesome and we will bow to it!"
But Satan took offense at this abomination that was created after him, and refused to bow to it. Michael was all like "hey Satan maybe you should be careful... I mean, God told us to bow" and Satan was like "I don't care what God tells us to do!"
Hence the fall happened.
I don't know where I learnt this. It's a rough approximation of Islamic scripture, as I found out today - you can find out more about it here, here and here.
Like I said, I've been thinking about this passage a bit. Even more so with reading Luke 10:18, and Peter repeating it in his sermon on Sunday. The fact that it's of Islamic origin kinda makes my following musings farfetched, but bear with me. It's interesting.
Jesus was obviously around when Satan fell, yet the fall was pre-humanity (that is, Jesus's humanity). And we believe that God is all-knowing, right? So for Satan to refuse to bow down to created man - the form that Jesus would take upon himself - would be a refusal to bow down to God.
I think I would like to know about how Satan feels about Jesus. Because if the above scenario did touch on truth (unlikely; it has no founding outside the Qu'ran and I just came to conclusions myself) then it reveals one of the biggest mistakes in history. A lack of awareness of the things God has planned, a refusal to do his will, to trust him. I don't think an omniscient Satan makes sense. How could you know you were going to lose and still rebel? (Sounds a bit like Norse religion, ne?)
But that's as far as those musings get me. Interesting, nonetheless.
On a side note, seeing I've brought up Norse mythology--
Today one of my friends corrected someone in class for saying B.C. and A.D., as it is now officially (really? not sure. think it depends on the organisation really...) B.C.E. and C.E. for the purposes of avoiding religious slanting. But if we rename our dating system--should we not also rename the days of the week, lest we appear to be aligned with Norse gods? Thor's-day? Odin's-day?
What do you think?
Thursday, July 22, 2010
John 17:20-26
Jim delivered an excellent sermon on Sunday. Oh, I know, Sunday was a fair few days ago... But you watch, I will get into the swing of this, and my posts will become more regular.
It was on John 17:20-26:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Naturally, the sermon dealt a lot with unity, and the pre-requisites for it. This passage is not saying that everyone on earth should have unity with one another; it is specifically for believers, in Christ and in God the Father. Right at the start we read: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one".
So our oneness comes from:
a) believing in Jesus. But an important question, which comes up a lot, is which Jesus? Do we have unity with those who believe in Jesus.... as teacher alone? as prophet alone?
b) no. the next part is - believing in the Jesus presented by the disciples, "through their message" - Jesus's words, not mine. That is, if someone's belief in Jesus is contrary to the teaching of the disciples, then their Jesus is a false Jesus. I think this can be extended to all apostolic tradition - Paul, for example, did learn from the disciples, so I think he is a trustworthy conveyer of truth.
This means people can say they believe in Jesus, yet be deluded. I already knew this, but now it's becoming clearer where the lines are drawn. Unfortunately, I think this also puts a number of so-called Red Letter Christians at risk. I don't know enough about them to say all. I know that they focus on the teachings of Jesus (which just seems Christian to me), mostly those about love and nice things (the Socialist Gospel), but I have come across Red Letter Christians who don't read anything but the words of Jesus. This is risky due to the subsequent ignorance of the Old Testament, which is a key factor in understanding the character and teachings and necessity of Christ; it's the context. And Jesus quotes it a lot; if he thinks it's important, who are we to ignore it? I do not understand how Christians can ignore the Old Testament insofar as it is readily available.
But even more risky, these Red Letter Christians would also ignore the teachings of the disciples, who say lots of things about how Christ is the only way to salvation, you need him, so on and so forth...
And maybe that's worse than ignoring the Old Testament. I'm starting to think so.
It was on John 17:20-26:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Naturally, the sermon dealt a lot with unity, and the pre-requisites for it. This passage is not saying that everyone on earth should have unity with one another; it is specifically for believers, in Christ and in God the Father. Right at the start we read: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one".
So our oneness comes from:
a) believing in Jesus. But an important question, which comes up a lot, is which Jesus? Do we have unity with those who believe in Jesus.... as teacher alone? as prophet alone?
b) no. the next part is - believing in the Jesus presented by the disciples, "through their message" - Jesus's words, not mine. That is, if someone's belief in Jesus is contrary to the teaching of the disciples, then their Jesus is a false Jesus. I think this can be extended to all apostolic tradition - Paul, for example, did learn from the disciples, so I think he is a trustworthy conveyer of truth.
This means people can say they believe in Jesus, yet be deluded. I already knew this, but now it's becoming clearer where the lines are drawn. Unfortunately, I think this also puts a number of so-called Red Letter Christians at risk. I don't know enough about them to say all. I know that they focus on the teachings of Jesus (which just seems Christian to me), mostly those about love and nice things (the Socialist Gospel), but I have come across Red Letter Christians who don't read anything but the words of Jesus. This is risky due to the subsequent ignorance of the Old Testament, which is a key factor in understanding the character and teachings and necessity of Christ; it's the context. And Jesus quotes it a lot; if he thinks it's important, who are we to ignore it? I do not understand how Christians can ignore the Old Testament insofar as it is readily available.
But even more risky, these Red Letter Christians would also ignore the teachings of the disciples, who say lots of things about how Christ is the only way to salvation, you need him, so on and so forth...
And maybe that's worse than ignoring the Old Testament. I'm starting to think so.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
It seems weird to me that my first post here is a movie post, but it is to tie into the gospel, so bear with me.
I saw this movie the other day, and thought parts of the supernatural element were overdone. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie; but just because a movie involves the supernatural doesn't mean it has to make explicit bible references. There were a few, and they were weak and unsubstantiated. Lord Blackwood, the villain of the movie, is compared several times to Jesus (not a spoiler); when Holmes first finds that he has been ressurected after his execution (not a spoiler), he makes the comment "and on the third day he rose again", and at another point Lord Blackwood associates himself with Revelation 1:18 (Revelation, not Revelations): "I am the living one".
The likeness between Lord Blackwood and Jesus is minimal, but these comparisons didn't bother me too much. What did bother me was when Holmes said: "I may well have reconciled thousands of years of theological disparity". When I first heard this in the movie I thought, what is he talking about? I developed a theory but it's weak, so I tried to find out what other people thought. First stop: imdb. Nobody's discussing it; it's not on the quotes page. Either nobody noticed it (there were lots of complaints about Holmes's accent...), nobody has any idea what he was talking about, or everybody understood exactly what disparity he was talking about and how he solved it and I'm the odd one out. I googled it; all that came up was a link to the script and a Christian blogger who writes from movies: but he didn't analyse it, as far as I could tell; just used it to introduce his theological analysis of the movie.
Here's my interpretation of what Holmes said, and why I think it's shallow and would have been better left out of the text. I have to give you a big warning: this is where the spoilers come in.
I believe that at this point of the movie, Holmes has just realised that Blackwood was never ressurected because he never actually died. The hanging was fake. This is consistent with the fact that Holmes claims to be enlightened, and after this the movie is action packed: he doesn't really get another chance to sit down and try and figure out what is going on. So if he solved the mystery, which we know he did, this is when it happened.
So when he says that he has solved thousands of years of theological disparity, I fear he is making another comparison between Jesus and Blackwood. He knows at this point that Blackwood was never ressurected because he didn't die; I fear he is claiming the same about Jesus.
Too many holes. I don't want to believe he means that. But here is my rebuttal.
1) Faking a crucifixion must be very different to faking a hanging. You figured out how the harness stopped Blackwood from being harmed; if you are going to claim that Jesus also didn't die, it would be nice if you could tell us a) how the guards *didn't really* drive nails through Jesus wrists b) and they *didn't really* flog him (many people died at this point, even before their crucifixion...) c) and the soldier *didn't really* thrust a spear through Jesus's side, and water and blood *didn't really* come out (John 19:34), and thus we can know that he *wasn't really* dead. Swoon theory? Unconvincing due to the water that came from Jesus side. Substitution theory? Oh dear, Sherlock Holmes must be highly influenced by the Koran: but still unconvincing. After all, many disciples and people who personally knew Jesus were present. I think they would have noticed if they got the wrong man. So there you go. All evidence seems to point to the fact that he died. Remember that many eyewitnesses died claiming these things; I will not concede that this is fabrication.
2) So really, all you have left to claim is that he wasn't ressurected--he definitely did die. But so many people died claiming they had seen the ressurected Jesus, and saw him ascend to heaven. Then there's the conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus: what motivation could there have been for him to adopt a life of suffering and imprisonment, if he was not truly convinced that he saw the ressurected Messiah?
Really, Holmes, I am not convinced. Please do not make such lofty claims without substantiation. Lord Blackwood and Jesus have nothing to do with each other.
I was going to write comparisons about how the two lived (Jesus didn't sacrifice women and try to usurp world power....), but now this seems unnecessary.
If anyone has any alternative explanations of what he could have possibly meant by solving thousands of years of theological disparity, I'd love to know. It's clear that my understanding is flawed, and I dread to think that is what the screenwriter intended. Maybe it was something so vague as "the supernatural doesn't exist", but can that really be claimed from a single incident of one man manipulating peoples belief in the supernatural?
Maybe I should just write to the screenwriter and ask them.
I saw this movie the other day, and thought parts of the supernatural element were overdone. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie; but just because a movie involves the supernatural doesn't mean it has to make explicit bible references. There were a few, and they were weak and unsubstantiated. Lord Blackwood, the villain of the movie, is compared several times to Jesus (not a spoiler); when Holmes first finds that he has been ressurected after his execution (not a spoiler), he makes the comment "and on the third day he rose again", and at another point Lord Blackwood associates himself with Revelation 1:18 (Revelation, not Revelations): "I am the living one".
The likeness between Lord Blackwood and Jesus is minimal, but these comparisons didn't bother me too much. What did bother me was when Holmes said: "I may well have reconciled thousands of years of theological disparity". When I first heard this in the movie I thought, what is he talking about? I developed a theory but it's weak, so I tried to find out what other people thought. First stop: imdb. Nobody's discussing it; it's not on the quotes page. Either nobody noticed it (there were lots of complaints about Holmes's accent...), nobody has any idea what he was talking about, or everybody understood exactly what disparity he was talking about and how he solved it and I'm the odd one out. I googled it; all that came up was a link to the script and a Christian blogger who writes from movies: but he didn't analyse it, as far as I could tell; just used it to introduce his theological analysis of the movie.
Here's my interpretation of what Holmes said, and why I think it's shallow and would have been better left out of the text. I have to give you a big warning: this is where the spoilers come in.
I believe that at this point of the movie, Holmes has just realised that Blackwood was never ressurected because he never actually died. The hanging was fake. This is consistent with the fact that Holmes claims to be enlightened, and after this the movie is action packed: he doesn't really get another chance to sit down and try and figure out what is going on. So if he solved the mystery, which we know he did, this is when it happened.
So when he says that he has solved thousands of years of theological disparity, I fear he is making another comparison between Jesus and Blackwood. He knows at this point that Blackwood was never ressurected because he didn't die; I fear he is claiming the same about Jesus.
Too many holes. I don't want to believe he means that. But here is my rebuttal.
1) Faking a crucifixion must be very different to faking a hanging. You figured out how the harness stopped Blackwood from being harmed; if you are going to claim that Jesus also didn't die, it would be nice if you could tell us a) how the guards *didn't really* drive nails through Jesus wrists b) and they *didn't really* flog him (many people died at this point, even before their crucifixion...) c) and the soldier *didn't really* thrust a spear through Jesus's side, and water and blood *didn't really* come out (John 19:34), and thus we can know that he *wasn't really* dead. Swoon theory? Unconvincing due to the water that came from Jesus side. Substitution theory? Oh dear, Sherlock Holmes must be highly influenced by the Koran: but still unconvincing. After all, many disciples and people who personally knew Jesus were present. I think they would have noticed if they got the wrong man. So there you go. All evidence seems to point to the fact that he died. Remember that many eyewitnesses died claiming these things; I will not concede that this is fabrication.
2) So really, all you have left to claim is that he wasn't ressurected--he definitely did die. But so many people died claiming they had seen the ressurected Jesus, and saw him ascend to heaven. Then there's the conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus: what motivation could there have been for him to adopt a life of suffering and imprisonment, if he was not truly convinced that he saw the ressurected Messiah?
Really, Holmes, I am not convinced. Please do not make such lofty claims without substantiation. Lord Blackwood and Jesus have nothing to do with each other.
I was going to write comparisons about how the two lived (Jesus didn't sacrifice women and try to usurp world power....), but now this seems unnecessary.
If anyone has any alternative explanations of what he could have possibly meant by solving thousands of years of theological disparity, I'd love to know. It's clear that my understanding is flawed, and I dread to think that is what the screenwriter intended. Maybe it was something so vague as "the supernatural doesn't exist", but can that really be claimed from a single incident of one man manipulating peoples belief in the supernatural?
Maybe I should just write to the screenwriter and ask them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)