God: Chapter 6 (Reality)

While I was trying to think of ideas for our new church website, I thought about godtube.com. I decided to check it out to see if maybe I should either embed a video on our site or provide a link over. I came across a video that looked like it might be a candidate. The production quality was pretty good. It was filmed in black and white, used an interesting but non-distracting song, and some video effects (e.g. slow motion). Anyway, the video shows a guy in front of a building realizing he is out of money. Simultaneously, this broke man sees a teen walk into the building with a backpack on. He follows him in and waits for him to go into the stairwell. When they meet, he pulls his gun and shoots the boy taking his pack. This is where the video turned to crap. The shooter runs out of the front of the building and sits on the bench that he was at before entering the building. So first of all, he feels no strong need to get out of the area apparently. That doesn’t even compare to what happens next. The guy digs into the bag to find what he has just stolen. He pulls out a Bible. He doesn’t just look past it; he opens it up and starts reading it. Apparently he knew to turn to the New Testament. Of course, he goes from shooter to convert in less than 20 seconds. At this point, he runs back into the building to help the person he just shot. And this is the state of Christian media. Disconnection from reality serves no one. Would this happen? Where is the honesty? In real life, the man would have not hung around. He would not have grabbed the Bible and turned to Matthew 5. I get the point. I get the message. I get the hope of the message. But its disconnect with reality leaves a void. I can’t listen to a Christian message that lives in an ivory tower. I can’t be moved by something that I can’t relate to. Why can’t Christian art, in terms of music, photography, and video, be real? I can only think of a few examples (e.g. Nooma, Switchfoot). Is that why Nooma is so popular? Are Christians starved for a message that lives in our actual context…that faces our real problems with real solutions? Do we want something other than a solution in a book which is covered in dust. Are unbelievers open to a message in a different format?

In the latest Nooma video, 019 Open, the message is real. It’s especially real for me. “God answered my prayer” shouldn’t be equated with “God said yes.” The reality is that people pray and people die. People pray and “God shows up.” Well, if God showed up for you, does that mean God abandoned me? The reality is that we don’t like to talk about those times. When the answer is no response, we don’t promote that in the church. When Lazarus dies in the Bible, Jesus is called upon (John 11). The distance from where he was and where Lazarus was located was no more than a two day trip. Jesus doesn’t show up until the 4th day. Why? The prayer came wholeheartedly. Why did he leave them in the dark for 2 extra days? In Matthew 9, Jesus goes the moment the father asks to save his daughter. As soon as Jesus saw the dead man and the wailing mother of Luke 7, he spoke life back into the son. In Lazarus’ case, there is silence for 2 days. The hint is found here: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." The point of the wait was to stretch the faith. It was to increase the miracle. In the Jewish culture, a person wasn’t technically considered dead until the 3rd day (practically, though, they were). This meant that the person still had a chance of coming back because the spirit hovered over the body until the 3rd day, in their minds. By waiting till this 4th day, Lazarus’ coming back was a miracle. He didn’t just come back into his body from hovering over top. He truly came back from the dead.

So this is why I don’t like the vast majority of Christian media. It lives in another world. It pretends as if we’re already in heaven. It always has a smile on its face. It has a hard time being honest. It tells us that if God "didn't," then you must have not had enough faith. It pretends as if conversion is just a matter of handing someone a Bible. It tells people to convert or burn as if this other world we’re speaking of is in any way relatable to people who don’t even believe it exists! Maybe another Christian T-shirt will do the trick. Christian media also tends to not be original. The first video I saw when I went to God-Tube was “Umbrella - Christ Mix.” This is a rip off of Rihanna’s “Umbrella.” Where is our originality? Don’t we have a relevant message that has the ability to think proactively rather than reactively to our culture? Can’t we shape culture rather than rip it off? I think the problem is that we’ve relegated God to the physical church building. Whatever happens inside a church “is” Christian. Whatever happens outside of it is secular. Real life, then, is secular. Real life isn’t Christian. Real life is getting together to play basketball. It’s getting together to go to a concert. It’s “family fun day.” It’s learning something on tv or from a book and sharing it. That is the Christian’s life. It’s real life experience taken in through the lens of the truth. God is the author of this world. He made it possible and we’ve been given the ability to create more. Our concept of what “Christian” is is too narrow. It’s just whatever can be said, listened to, and watched in a church. A while back, Amy Grant, put out a cd that didn’t say “God” in every song and suddenly she lost her salvation. Suddenly, she “sold out.” That was the reaction. When you understand what God as creator means and our connection with each other inside this creation, then there is no such thing as secular. Everything in creation is either used for God’s glory or not. After all, Everything is Spiritual.

God: Chapter 5: (God of Healing)

The following is an archeological possibility. That means that I don’t know if the interpretation I’m about to take is valid or not because the interpretation is based on this place actually being the place described in John. Obviously as you will see, I think it fits rather well.


In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of “Bethesda.” Archaeologists have found a set of baths in the vicinity of where John describes this event. He says this pool is near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 50 meters south of the Sheep Gate, one will find 2 Roman baths, some smaller and rougher pools, and a temple. The baths were designed like the typical Roman baths were. The “rougher” pools resemble caves. They’re sort of cut out of the rock but with no attempt to use right angles forming a square or rectangle like the other more “polished” baths. Now, I did mention a temple here. The temple was to Asclepius. Before I mention what kind of God he was, let me first mention his daughters: Hygieia, Meditrina (the serpent-bearer), Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea. Hygieia? Do I need to go into that one? Meditrina? That certainly sounds like “medicine.” Also, think about the imagery surrounding medicine that we see so often—the serpent curled around the staff. That also harkens back to Moses. Well, Asclepius was a Greek God. But, the Romans adopted the Greek gods. Asclepius was the God of healing or medicine. Is this a coincidence that Jesus heals a man here? Now, think of the story. It has this strange mythical view that if the waters stir, the first one in will be healed. I used to wonder about that. It seems to come from nowhere in Jewish history. It seemed to be pure mythology that was being propagated by the Jews there. Clearly though, it turns out that this was a myth of the Greeks and Romans, which they in turn had taught the people. Those who were sick with diseases or disabilities were disallowed the “nice” Roman baths. However, they were allowed in the “rougher” pool I described earlier. This was the “Jewish” twist to the pagan ritual. However, going in at night wasn’t out of the ordinary. And so as the myth went, if they could get in first, they would be healed. Asclepius would heal them. Jesus comes along and sees this. He heals a paralytic with Asclepius’ temple in the background. Who is the healer now? Who is the one who delivered the man? The Greco-Roman God failed him for 38 years. Jesus didn’t heal everyone there…just this man. Yet the point is still made. The Gods of this world promise yet can’t deliver. As powerful as the Roman Empire was, their gods were made up. They were powerless.

Back to our boy Asclepius. The myth surrounding him was that he could raise the dead using the blood of the Gorgons (Medusa was a Gorgon). So, Asclepius could use blood to raise the dead. Two things were said of Asclepius that made other “gods” angry. One said that he resurrected people in exchange for money. Another said that he healed people making them immortal. This made the god of the underworld angry because he had rightful possession of the dead. Think about these two scenarios in the light of Jesus. Jesus offers resurrection at a price but a price he paid. It is free to you and I. In Peter’s epistle, according to interpretation, Jesus may have “descended into hell.” He “took the keys of the grave” away from Satan. Satan no longer had power over death. The Resurrection is the great conquering of life over death. It is the “ultimate” healing.

As if this story couldn’t get more interesting, there are 12 signs of the zodiac according to popular tradition. In reality, there are 13 signs. One is missing from our modern tradition. This is the sign “Ophiuchus.” “Ophiuchus” is Asclepius after he was murdered by Zeus. (Anyone else enjoy the irony of the resurrecting God who can’t resurrect himself)? Zeus places him in the sky because he realized the importance Asclepius had to men. The name change was to Ophiuchus which meant “serpent-bearer.” This, obviously, fit in with his character, so therefore the name wasn’t random. Ophiuchus is the largest of all the zodiac constellations. I first heard about it a while ago when I was reading about the “New Age Movement.” A lost zodiac sign where a god is known as the “serpent-bearer” sounds pretty insignificant right? Hmm…the new agers wouldn’t lash onto the serpent god who heals mankind would they? The symbol of the serpent doesn’t just convey “healing” but also knowledge. Even in the Bible, the serpent tempts Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. To the Mormons, the serpent is good because he brings about knowledge. To many other religions, the serpent or dragon (flying serpent) symbolize truth. (2012 in the Chinese calendar is the year of the Dragon. This being mentioned here only makes sense if you’re familiar with the rumors surrounding 2012.)

So we’ve traveled a long distance from just “another of Jesus’ healings.” If the archeological site was the actual location John was referring to, then many of the early readers would have known the significance of the location. They would have realized the parallel of Jesus as healer vs. Asclepius. Jesus as leader of the Kingdom of God vs. Rome as the Kingdom of this world. Even today, some grab onto this “healing” figure to bring out the hidden knowledge that will save us. That is the Bible for you, a few seemingly insignificant words about a location carry a ton of importance which we miss.

God: Chapter 4 (The Lost Letter)

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” (1st Corinthians 5:9, The Net Bible). The “first” letter to the Corinthians mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians. We don’t have it. Why? Was it not inspired? More importantly, what would we do if we found it and could authenticate it? Certainly the Church isn’t unified enough to agree, but some would add it to their Bible. I suppose most wouldn’t. But why? The argument would be that it wasn’t inspired because if it was, then we would have had it from the beginning. So that is an argument against it based on time. Well, suppose humanity goes on for another 20,000 years. What is 2,000 years in that time frame? So then does eschatology effect our view of Inspiration?

Think about Corinth. Paul wrote them a letter that isn’t in the Bible. Paul wrote them a letter that we can’t read. Imagine Paul wrote your home church a letter and no one else has it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Paul doesn’t just shoot the breeze or puff the ego. His modus operandi is to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong. What would your “Lost Letter” look like? What would it say?

I can’t help but think about this in the context of “prophecy.” I am Pentecostal, so I still believe in the gifts of the Spirit. One of these is the gift of prophecy. Our local church has an Evangelist who comes to speak every few years. She gives “words” in three ways. 1. With the microphone for the whole church to hear and anyone who listens to the tape later on [local church + global church]. 2. With no microphone but all those close enough can hear [local church alone]. 3. With no microphone via whisper into your ear [only you]. The books of the New Testament fit into scenario one. This “lost letter” fits in with scenario 2 (and sort of 3 if you think of the “smallness” of a single church in the history of THE Church). It was the private letter. It was the personal letter. It was for their ears alone unless of course it is found and authenticated. So what do we do with it then? Does this change the way we look at it? A personal letter/personal word should only be made public by the volition of the original receiver. I don’t think Paul’s letter was “personal” in the sense that he was against their making it public. He not only mentions it, but he also says what it was about. It seems to only be personal by wirkungsgeschichte (sort of the history of effects/interpretation). That is, it seems to be anachronistic to say it was a personal letter. I still relate it to the prophecy/private word I wrote of above via the Evangelist because that is the way history has effected the letter. However, this “personal” nature would be no reason to disqualify the book from the canonical question since it is invalid to call it personal the moment it is discovered. So we’re left where we began. What would we do? Would we add it? What if it had no “controversial” doctrine? How much would that help for it to be added? Again, I think it wouldn’t be added, but it certainly would sell. I’d like the book rights to that deal. This should really challenge the way we look at Scripture unlike the bogus “Gospel of Judas.”