Acts 2:42-47
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
There is so much going on in this passage and one could probably talk about it for a looooong time. And what I am about to say undoubtedly seems like a diversion.
But when I read this the other night, I was thinking about how awesome it would be to spend time with Christians daily. And not just any Christians, but the apostles! Those who had walked with Jesus! Being dedicated to their teaching...!
John says the following about all the things that Jesus did:
If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written (John 21:25).
But these guys... these guys were there. Can you imagine the stories that were told in these days? Can you imagine all the things they talked about it in these days? Even a small passage like this is inexhaustible... and the apostles, they had seen much more.
Viv said this passage was like a vision of heaven. I gotta say... I'm keen for heaven :D
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
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.
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)