I saw this on youtube and thought you might like to see it.
First of all, John 3:16. Secondly, we're "adopted" as sons and daughters. The first-born of many is a qualitative statement as much as it is and quantitative. That means he isn't just another random human who opened the way and now serves no purpose but par excellence model (Schleiermacher).
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Supernatural Operation
The human brain is the most complex thing on this planet. Atheists and theists fight over what the brain is. Is the "soul" just the brain's "consciousness"? Mystery is often attributed to the supernatural. The less people know about science, the more they attribute to the gods. So, this concept is often then used to disprove religion. For instance, there is an argument that near-death experiences which tell of a mysterious "white light" are proof of the after-life. Some scientific evidence seems to show that these may be due to a lack of oxygen. This lack of oxygen causes the brain to reduce it's activity to it's innermost parts (which also happen to be the more primitive parts of the brain). So the "white light" is simply the result of the brain closing down to the simplest state in order to still run. Okay, so should we chalk this up to another win for atheists? There's just one problem with this. On the same program where I heard all these things I'm discussing, there was a man who told a story that fits with this situation. He said that he had an "out-of-body" experience while being operated on. He said that he hovered over his body while it was being operated on. Okay, so you're probably thinking that he's crazy. Well, he remembers some things about the surgery that would seem impossible to know unless somehow his consciousness was able to exit his body.
First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.
He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.
So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.
First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.
He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.
So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Watch The Offering Plate: A Response
The following is a comment I left on a blog on myspace. Two of the current top 10 blog posts on myspace are from atheists. Atheism has a strong following on the internet sort of like Ron Paul had. Neither carry over with much veracity. Atheism is pride taken to the extreme. It's for the elites with their post-graduate degrees and their high horses. It's for those who love themselves, their own works, and their own minds so blindly that they can't see how simple the message of Jesus is. How true he is. How good he is.
Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.
Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.
Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.
Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Rob Bell Response
This is a response to a blog I read at "The Bench Stone." Click this link to read it first, but if you do, then you're in for a lot of reading with his and mine combined (you are now warned). Of course, if you don't read his first, then mine won't make sense. Oh well, I guess you suck it up or x it out. Your choice.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Problem of Evil
Ever since I learned about the problem of evil as a theology student it has plagued me. They call it the “heart of atheism.” Specifically, the death camps of WW2 have been used to “prove” or illustrate that there can be no God. Quickly, let me go over the problem of evil for those who aren’t familiar with it (technically). I write technically because you are familiar with it whether you know the technical term or not.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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.”
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.”
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
God: Chapter 3 (The Nooma Revolution)
Recently, I’ve really gotten into a Christian video series known as “Nooma.” A pastor in Michigan named Rob Bell is continually producing this series. He is the anti-typical pastor…young and non-suited. Enter on stage left the criticism. As a person who spent five years of his life academically studying theology, I realize Bell’s theology is “off.” I realize he isn’t spouting the typical view of God. I realize his Christology is of the type known as “low-Christology.” That is, he tends to focus on the human side of Jesus. The reality of our Tradition is that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine. That is the “official view,” but it isn’t what you hear in church. What you get in church is this “lofty, otherworldly” figure. You get the divine. To talk about him as a human is borderline heresy. It’s liberalism. That’s where the church is wrong. We make him out to be a distant divinity. We make him the untouchable, exterior figure that does some good stuff for us and then waits on us to get to heaven. Jesus didn’t just come to “get us to heaven.” He wanted to show us heaven. This life isn’t just a “waiting period.” It doesn’t just believe a fact about Jesus so that we don’t burn for eternity. Christianity is more than a belief…it’s a lifestyle. It’s a worldview. It’s a way of living that says there is more. Relationship with the divine is both possible and necessary. Jesus is our example. A real example. He is what we should be and do NOW. With the help of the Spirit, Jesus carried out the work of the Father. This is, in theological language, called “Spirit Christology.” When I learned what that was in grad school, it revolutionized my way of thinking about Jesus. It made Jesus human. He was a baby that cried like the rest of us. He had his “dirty diapers.” He fell. He dropped things. He cried. He learned. He was truly tempted. He resisted through the power of the Spirit. He knew what others were thinking through the Spirit. He healed by the power of the Spirit. In essence, Jesus was divine, but we know he laid down the power of his divinity to truly be human. Let’s let him be this. Let’s use his relationship with the Spirit to see how we too can be more. When we deny what Paul says (Philippian 2) about the “emptying of himself,” we deny what he did. Jesus did what he did as a human. He did it through the power of the Spirit. So this is what the “high-Chrisologists” and the “low-Chrisologists” don’t get. Jesus was both. High Christology, on it’s own, makes Jesus such a divine being that he wasn’t really like us, and therefore, he couldn’t be a true example for us. Low Christology makes him such a human that he couldn’t really do what only the divine could do—save us. So the missing link is Spirit Christology. With his relationship with the Spirit (which we can have as well), Jesus could truly be a human that saves us.
But what is he “saving” us from? This is what the Nooma series wants to show us. It isn’t just “hell” as we so often make it about. “Hell” is literally an “otherworldly” concept. It doesn’t make sense in our modern world. It just seems like such a mythical view of eternity. I’m not saying it’s untrue; I’m just saying that it isn’t something that motivates the modern person. The atheist doesn’t believe hell exists so he laughs at you when you try to convince him that he needs to convert to avoid hell. Nooma shows us that Christianity isn’t just about the afterlife but the present one as well. This life is what motivates us. I want to be a Christian even if it isn’t true. I want whatever way I live my life to be the best way to live my life regardless of if there is another life to come. People today are so focused on this life that speaking about the unknown next life is literally irrelevant to them. Rob Bell gets this. He thinks, as do I, that Jesus’ life shows us a better way to live in this world. Loving your neighbor doesn’t just yield a reward in the afterlife. It does here. Forgiveness shows her profit here. Fear isn’t the motivator it once was. When people don’t like this focus on the here and now, they don’t just misunderstand Spirit Christology. They don’t understand “The Kingdom of God.” Jesus came to initiate heaven on earth. The miracles he performed were “proleptic.” That is, they were an early glimpse of what is to come. Already do we have the Kingdom in Jesus, but not yet is it fully realized. We still have poverty, death, sickness, war, etc. Jesus came to the poor, raised the dead, healed the sick, and taught us to turn the other cheek. Jesus is the bridge to the divine, not just divinity itself. Our world isn’t perfect, so the kingdom hasn’t been perfected. Yet we’ve been given the blueprint.
Most people that have seen some of the Nooma series say that their favorite video is “08 Dust” (myself included).
This is the story about Jesus’ calling of the disciples. In the video, Bell discusses the Jewish system of education. Students were taught to memorize the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament). Those that achieved this and were talented were allowed to continue on to learn the rest of the Old Testament. Those that didn’t make the cut were supposed to learn the family trade. The ones who continued then learned the rest of the Old Testament to only be told whether or not they could continue on learning from their Rabbi. Were they good enough? Were they talented enough to become “like” their Rabbi (which means teacher)? Only the best of the best could do this. So now, consider this in light of the calling of the disciples. The disciples were out fishing. So that means they hadn’t made the cut. They weren’t the best of the best, yet a Rabbi came along and said “follow me.” The Rabbi chose them where they had previously been rejected. They weren’t good enough to serve God, but now a Rabbi tells them they are. Now a Rabbi says you can do what I do. “I can make you good enough.” When Jesus walks on the water, Peter says “Lord, if it be you, call me.” Jesus says for him to come and Peter does. Peter knows that if the Rabbi does it, and the Rabbi says “come,” then he must be able to do it this as well. And Peter does. He does walk on water until he doubts himself, or in reality, he doubts his call. The call came from Jesus/his Rabbi, therefore, he can. Rob Bell says that Peter doubts himself instead of doubting Jesus (because Jesus isn’t sinking). People attack Bell here because they say that faith is in God, not one’s self. What they don’t get it is that faith in one’s self is faith in God. Why? Because we are called. We are not called by man. We aren’t good enough for man (e.g. the Rabbi’s rejected them). We are “good enough” for God. Jesus teaches us that calling = equipping. If we are called or asked to do something, then we can by virtue of who called us. We deny God when we deny his calling on ourselves. “High-Christology” people, always want to stress the greatness of God, so they do this by belittling man’s role in anything in religion. They do this out of a pure heart, but they just don’t get it. We are the hands of God not because he can’t accomplish his goals without us but because he chose this. The triune God chose to die on the cross when he didn’t have to do this to save us. We know from philosophy that whatever God does in action, he can do in word (consider creation…“Let there be…”). So the death on a cross was a choice which carried a visible meaning to us. God chose to create by voice but to save creation by action. He chose the cross and then said “go make disciples of all nations.” So who saves? Clearly Jesus does, but he chose the church to spread the message. He chose humans to do the work. The message is both of the afterlife and the current life. He doesn’t just heal in heaven. He doesn’t just release from addiction in the next life. He doesn’t just love in the next life. He doesn’t just restore in the next life. The Kingdom of God theology teaches us that heaven has invaded earth now.
The Nooma series has a video called “Bullhorn.”
This is about a man who wants to spread the Gospel by yelling at people to “save” them. Is Christianity just about avoiding burning? Is it more than that? That is what the Nooma series is. What is this life about? The essence of Christianity is not hell.
This is my 2nd favorite Nooma video. “Rhythm” It will say in 2 minutes what has taken me this whole time. (By the way, I love this song.)
Nooma
But what is he “saving” us from? This is what the Nooma series wants to show us. It isn’t just “hell” as we so often make it about. “Hell” is literally an “otherworldly” concept. It doesn’t make sense in our modern world. It just seems like such a mythical view of eternity. I’m not saying it’s untrue; I’m just saying that it isn’t something that motivates the modern person. The atheist doesn’t believe hell exists so he laughs at you when you try to convince him that he needs to convert to avoid hell. Nooma shows us that Christianity isn’t just about the afterlife but the present one as well. This life is what motivates us. I want to be a Christian even if it isn’t true. I want whatever way I live my life to be the best way to live my life regardless of if there is another life to come. People today are so focused on this life that speaking about the unknown next life is literally irrelevant to them. Rob Bell gets this. He thinks, as do I, that Jesus’ life shows us a better way to live in this world. Loving your neighbor doesn’t just yield a reward in the afterlife. It does here. Forgiveness shows her profit here. Fear isn’t the motivator it once was. When people don’t like this focus on the here and now, they don’t just misunderstand Spirit Christology. They don’t understand “The Kingdom of God.” Jesus came to initiate heaven on earth. The miracles he performed were “proleptic.” That is, they were an early glimpse of what is to come. Already do we have the Kingdom in Jesus, but not yet is it fully realized. We still have poverty, death, sickness, war, etc. Jesus came to the poor, raised the dead, healed the sick, and taught us to turn the other cheek. Jesus is the bridge to the divine, not just divinity itself. Our world isn’t perfect, so the kingdom hasn’t been perfected. Yet we’ve been given the blueprint.
Most people that have seen some of the Nooma series say that their favorite video is “08 Dust” (myself included).
This is the story about Jesus’ calling of the disciples. In the video, Bell discusses the Jewish system of education. Students were taught to memorize the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament). Those that achieved this and were talented were allowed to continue on to learn the rest of the Old Testament. Those that didn’t make the cut were supposed to learn the family trade. The ones who continued then learned the rest of the Old Testament to only be told whether or not they could continue on learning from their Rabbi. Were they good enough? Were they talented enough to become “like” their Rabbi (which means teacher)? Only the best of the best could do this. So now, consider this in light of the calling of the disciples. The disciples were out fishing. So that means they hadn’t made the cut. They weren’t the best of the best, yet a Rabbi came along and said “follow me.” The Rabbi chose them where they had previously been rejected. They weren’t good enough to serve God, but now a Rabbi tells them they are. Now a Rabbi says you can do what I do. “I can make you good enough.” When Jesus walks on the water, Peter says “Lord, if it be you, call me.” Jesus says for him to come and Peter does. Peter knows that if the Rabbi does it, and the Rabbi says “come,” then he must be able to do it this as well. And Peter does. He does walk on water until he doubts himself, or in reality, he doubts his call. The call came from Jesus/his Rabbi, therefore, he can. Rob Bell says that Peter doubts himself instead of doubting Jesus (because Jesus isn’t sinking). People attack Bell here because they say that faith is in God, not one’s self. What they don’t get it is that faith in one’s self is faith in God. Why? Because we are called. We are not called by man. We aren’t good enough for man (e.g. the Rabbi’s rejected them). We are “good enough” for God. Jesus teaches us that calling = equipping. If we are called or asked to do something, then we can by virtue of who called us. We deny God when we deny his calling on ourselves. “High-Christology” people, always want to stress the greatness of God, so they do this by belittling man’s role in anything in religion. They do this out of a pure heart, but they just don’t get it. We are the hands of God not because he can’t accomplish his goals without us but because he chose this. The triune God chose to die on the cross when he didn’t have to do this to save us. We know from philosophy that whatever God does in action, he can do in word (consider creation…“Let there be…”). So the death on a cross was a choice which carried a visible meaning to us. God chose to create by voice but to save creation by action. He chose the cross and then said “go make disciples of all nations.” So who saves? Clearly Jesus does, but he chose the church to spread the message. He chose humans to do the work. The message is both of the afterlife and the current life. He doesn’t just heal in heaven. He doesn’t just release from addiction in the next life. He doesn’t just love in the next life. He doesn’t just restore in the next life. The Kingdom of God theology teaches us that heaven has invaded earth now.
The Nooma series has a video called “Bullhorn.”
This is about a man who wants to spread the Gospel by yelling at people to “save” them. Is Christianity just about avoiding burning? Is it more than that? That is what the Nooma series is. What is this life about? The essence of Christianity is not hell.
This is my 2nd favorite Nooma video. “Rhythm” It will say in 2 minutes what has taken me this whole time. (By the way, I love this song.)
Nooma
Friday, February 22, 2008
God: Chapter 2 (1+1+1=1)
When I led a session on the Trinity, I asked the class to draw the Trinity. The result of this request was looks of bewilderment and to this day it is brought up. I don’t really understand why. The reality was that the objective was achieved the moment I asked the task of them. #1. It showed the complexity of the issue. #2. It revealed misunderstandings about the Trinity. It’s funny, but it’s hard to draw or talk about the Trinity without conveying a heresy. How do you draw singularity and plurality at the same time?
Why not tri-theism? Why don’t we just bite the bullet and admit we’re tri-theists? Remember the last chapter where I discussed why monotheism is superior to polytheism? There is no such thing as polytheism. If God exists as we think of him, then he must be a single essence.
What does this matter? Why does God being 1 essence and 3 persons matter? Dr. Cross says that the Trinity is a model for the church. He bases his entire systematic theology on this concept. God exists in community. I’m sure you’ve heard of the “body of believers.” What if God himself were a mini “body of believers.” The Father is the sender. The Son is the sent one. The Spirit is the relationship between the two. The Spirit acts as informer and comforter. So to, for humans, does the Spirit act as informer (e.g. Spirit of Truth) and comforter (e.g. Paraclete meaning “called alongside of”). Some have described it like this: The Father is the fullness of the Godhead invisible, the Son is the fullness of the Godhead visible, and the Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead to the believer.
Some in the early church didn’t think there was a “Trinity.” In reality, it’s not like before Jesus’ ascension he said, “Now you guys need to believe that My Father, the Spirit that is coming and I are all in this conglomeration called a ‘Trinity.’” The Trinity matters because the denial of the Trinity is the denial of who Jesus was. Can someone be saved and not believe in the Trinity? Yes. Why do I say that so confidently? I say that because people don’t know what the Trinity is even now, yet they know Jesus as “savior.” Jesus’ mission was to save, not convince us of his ontology (being). Why it matters is because philosophically, a human cannot save us. A human cannot remove our sins. A human cannot do what only a divine being can do. Therefore, for us to be saved, Jesus must be divine. Those who attempt to rob Jesus of his divinity attempt to rob us of our salvation. So, it must be true that Jesus is divine for us to be saved, but it doesn’t require our intellectual understanding of this. It isn’t intellectual assent alone that saves us “for even the demons believe.” Jeremy Taylor shows us that it begins with this but matures itself leaving the residue of works. Mature faith reveals the Trinity. It exists in community. It overflows in a loving relationship. It expands from the individual to the community to the society (as does the Trinity). It makes disciples of all nations. It doesn’t say “the three of us are enough.” It expands because it desires to.
One final note, John Calvin burned a man at the stake for a heresy of the Trinity (Servetus). You might not want to believe that God was the Father, then the Son, and now is the Spirit (Sabellianism). I used to be completely baffled as to why people burned others at the stake. I was especially perplexed for John Calvin to do it as a Protestant who understood how many early Reformers were burned at the stake. It hit me one day why they did this with no problem of morality. Besides the fact that they believed the condemned’s actions were severely dangerous to the community, they believed this person was going to burn in hell forever. If the person is going to do this forever, what is a few more minutes? It served to be a deterrent of that belief system. So the justification was to prevent others from following that “wrong” path. They could see where it would lead not only on earth but in eternity. It was an “object lesson.”
Why not tri-theism? Why don’t we just bite the bullet and admit we’re tri-theists? Remember the last chapter where I discussed why monotheism is superior to polytheism? There is no such thing as polytheism. If God exists as we think of him, then he must be a single essence.
What does this matter? Why does God being 1 essence and 3 persons matter? Dr. Cross says that the Trinity is a model for the church. He bases his entire systematic theology on this concept. God exists in community. I’m sure you’ve heard of the “body of believers.” What if God himself were a mini “body of believers.” The Father is the sender. The Son is the sent one. The Spirit is the relationship between the two. The Spirit acts as informer and comforter. So to, for humans, does the Spirit act as informer (e.g. Spirit of Truth) and comforter (e.g. Paraclete meaning “called alongside of”). Some have described it like this: The Father is the fullness of the Godhead invisible, the Son is the fullness of the Godhead visible, and the Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead to the believer.
Some in the early church didn’t think there was a “Trinity.” In reality, it’s not like before Jesus’ ascension he said, “Now you guys need to believe that My Father, the Spirit that is coming and I are all in this conglomeration called a ‘Trinity.’” The Trinity matters because the denial of the Trinity is the denial of who Jesus was. Can someone be saved and not believe in the Trinity? Yes. Why do I say that so confidently? I say that because people don’t know what the Trinity is even now, yet they know Jesus as “savior.” Jesus’ mission was to save, not convince us of his ontology (being). Why it matters is because philosophically, a human cannot save us. A human cannot remove our sins. A human cannot do what only a divine being can do. Therefore, for us to be saved, Jesus must be divine. Those who attempt to rob Jesus of his divinity attempt to rob us of our salvation. So, it must be true that Jesus is divine for us to be saved, but it doesn’t require our intellectual understanding of this. It isn’t intellectual assent alone that saves us “for even the demons believe.” Jeremy Taylor shows us that it begins with this but matures itself leaving the residue of works. Mature faith reveals the Trinity. It exists in community. It overflows in a loving relationship. It expands from the individual to the community to the society (as does the Trinity). It makes disciples of all nations. It doesn’t say “the three of us are enough.” It expands because it desires to.
One final note, John Calvin burned a man at the stake for a heresy of the Trinity (Servetus). You might not want to believe that God was the Father, then the Son, and now is the Spirit (Sabellianism). I used to be completely baffled as to why people burned others at the stake. I was especially perplexed for John Calvin to do it as a Protestant who understood how many early Reformers were burned at the stake. It hit me one day why they did this with no problem of morality. Besides the fact that they believed the condemned’s actions were severely dangerous to the community, they believed this person was going to burn in hell forever. If the person is going to do this forever, what is a few more minutes? It served to be a deterrent of that belief system. So the justification was to prevent others from following that “wrong” path. They could see where it would lead not only on earth but in eternity. It was an “object lesson.”
Sunday, February 17, 2008
God: Chapter 1 (“The Logos”)
“In the beginning was the Word….” What if I started a book out with “In the beginning was the word”? It wouldn’t be read with the understanding of what it meant. That is, we read that line and start theologizing it. The first readers didn’t have a capital “Word” which symbolized “Jesus.” So did it mean John was saying that in the beginning was a literal word? That seems pretty crazy. Maybe this “word” was “alphabet.” Maybe this “word” was “supercalifragisexpialidocious.” No, probably not. The reality is the original reader knew “word” (logos) to be a symbolic word. It was used in philosophy to convey a sense of intangibility and otherworldliness. So what is this word? What is it trying to represent? Before we get there, we should know first that this English translation falls short of it’s Greek equivalent. In Greek there is no “the” in the line “In the beginning….” So let’s write it in English without the article. “In beginning was the word.” What is John trying to say? Well, we still don’t know what “word” is so all we know is that John is trying to convey that there was no specific beginning. The article “the,” if it were there, would be called a “definitive article.” It would the type of “the” which tries to send the “message of specifics.” Let’s say you and I co-own a dog, and I said “THE dog” jumped over the creek. You would know which dog I’m referring to. So if “the” were there, it would mean John would probably be saying this “word was” when time began. This word “was” when Genesis 1:1 happened. So “the beginning” referred to here is not Creation. In fact, the writer seems to be suggesting there was no time period when this “word” is mentioned. Time seems to be irrelevant in this word…almost existing outside of it. So what kind of thing is being referred to here if it can exist outside of time? I suppose we’re left with only a supernatural being. So this word is already exposed as a supernatural being by the lack of a single tiny word “the.”
You didn’t think this was enough material on the first third of that verse did you? We haven’t even looked at “was.” This word points to a past. Now remember the philosophical use of “logos”? It meant the logos was an “intangible thing” or an “otherworldly thing.” So this logos was. In verse 14, the logos “became flesh.” “Was” is no longer used. “To become” (egeneto) is used. So it doesn’t say this word “was” flesh but this word “became” flesh. The intangible became tangible. The otherworldly invaded this world. The immaterial became material. The timeless entered time.
“…And the word was with God….” Wait wait wait. We just learned this logos was supernatural. So how can there be 2 gods? If this logos isn’t God himself than he must just be a supernatural being like an angel. My other question is what does “with God” mean. Does it mean equality? Does it mean they’re buds who like to hang out? Why did John say in the first part of this sentence that the logos was there in the timeless beginning? How could this supernatural being be there when time didn’t exist? That would mean it wasn’t created. We already know that which isn’t created is God itself (via philosophy). This is getting complicated because we have a timeless being (1st third of John 1:1) that we learn is in some way separate from “God” (2nd third of John 1:1). Nothing is co-equal with God so what is going on here?
Well, let’s look at the Greek. The “with” is not the usual word that is translated as “with” (e.g. meta). The word used (pros) is usually translated as “to” which refers to a direct relationship. Like, “I give this “to you.” That wouldn’t make any sense in English though, so it isn’t written “…and the word was to God….” The reason it is translated as “with,” besides the fact that “to” wouldn’t make sense, is that “with” is what it is trying to convey. This word and God are distinguishable yet inter-related. The two have a relationship of intense closeness, yet by the very fact there is a relationship, the two are not the same. We say in our “Christian thought” that “two become one” in marriage. The two have such close relationship that they are united in various ways yet the very fact that they can be united makes them separate. So apparently we have 2 gods. Well, that is until we read the final third of the verse.
“…and the word was God.” So now we have a separate God but the same God. What is going on? John grew up monotheistic so we know he likely is not trying to suggest there are two gods. Maybe he is trying to say this is God manifest now. That Old Testament God was the past and this is the new experience of God. This is known as Sabellianism or technically that God is one person experienced as The Father first, then the Son/Word, then the Spirit. It also happens to be a heresy which John’s words are actually fighting against. Kai theos en ho logos. “…And God was the word.” This is how it is written in Greek, but it isn’t the order in which it is written in English. This is because we write the subject first. How do we know which is the subject: God or the logos? The article tells us this. The “the” (in the Greek above “ho”) tells us that the logos is the subject of the sentence and since we, unlike the Greeks, usually put the subject first, it must be written “…and the word was God.” We know from “and the word was with God…” that this logos is not the same person as God. So why here is John walking the line with Sabellianism (that the word is God)?
John is trying to avoid another misunderstanding which became very popular in the early church called Arianism (not Nazi Aryanism). This heresy taught that Jesus was a created being. A god-like being created to save humanity and could be worshipped because of his closeness with God and his work. To the Arians, he was of a “similar” “substance” as God. Why the quotes? Ever heard the phrase “it doesn’t make one iota’s difference”? Actually, you may not have, but my dad uses it all the time. In Greek, “similar” and “same” are separated by “one iota.” This one little letter is the difference in whether Jesus is actually God (uncreated being) or similar to God (created being). There is a significant problem with the idea that a created being can be a God. It’s really simple. Polytheistic cultures like the Greeks and Romans had multiple gods who controlled things. Mars was the God of war. So you offered Mars a sacrifice before going to war. I believe Neptune was the God of the sea. There were gods of love, peace, fertility, life, healing, death, harvests, marriage, etc. If there really is a god or gods then this/these god/gods should have certain characteristics. (This is a philosophical way of proving the superiority of monotheism over other theistic beliefs). “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived” (paraphrase of Anselm). God then is ultimate good, ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, and unlimited in by space-time (aka God personifies goodness, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and is omnipresent). If God is all-powerful, then he is the God of war and the god of fertility (because he can cause fertility). This same God controls the seas (e.g. Jesus walks on the water). This same God can heal (since he created us in the first place). The monotheistic God encompasses all the gods of the Romans into a single God who can do everything those gods can do, and more. Which is God: “Mars, God of war” or “God.” Which is God: a god who can do a single task or a god who can do every task? It’s simple philosophy that shows us that monotheism is far superior to polytheism.
So, Jesus could not be created by God because that then makes him a sub-god, which we know from the philosophy above, is no God at all. “…And the word was God” conveys that this logos is God himself. We know from “was with God,” though, that he is not the same person. So we have multiplicity of persons in the Godhead. The exact Greek that was used appears to be very intentional. It’s walking the tightrope of heresies to convey a new theology of God based on the new revelation of his Son. Keep John’s purpose in mind because we have to look at the “Jehovah’s Witness” translation of John 1 now.
Jehovah’s Witness theology translates the final third of John 1:1 as, “the logos was a god.” Why and how? Well, it isn’t because they’re evil and don’t any understanding of the Greek. It’s because they have too little understanding of the Greek. Technically, what was done is okay. What I mean is, if the Greek article comes before a noun, then typically it is definitive (THE, like I talked about earlier). It points to a specific person. If there is not definitive article, then an “a” can be supplied in English to show generality/plurality. So the lack of an article can and often does allow for the adding of “a.” So why is it incorrect to use it here?
If the article were before both nouns (God & Jesus) [would look like this “ho theos en ho logos” or “the God was the word”], then John would be saying that Jesus and God (Old Testament concept of “God”) were the same “person.” Basic Christian theology teaches a trinity of persons yet one substance. There is no single person in the godhead. Jesus is not all of the trinity. Jesus is not all of the Godhead. He is one of the three persons. If John had used an article before both nouns, this also would allow for the interchangeability of subject and direct object. Basically, “the God was the word” and “the word was God” would both be appropriate translations. This helps one see how John had a purpose in not using the second article. It prevents this interchangeability. We know later from v.14 that “the word became flesh.” The Father did not. “God” did not (“God,” here would mean the Old Testament concept of God which I contend means “Father”).
Some have suggested that the lack of the article before “God” conveys “divine essence” more so than personhood. Remember, the trinity (GOD) is both 3 persons and 1 essence. Consider that with this: Greek often uses word order to convey emphasis. The first word in a clause is the most important (“theos en ho logos” “God was the word”). That means “God” or “divine essence” as we just learned, is the emphasis. The logos WAS divine is the meaning. Furthermore, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right with “a God,” then how would John construct the sentence to fit the traditional interpretation? In other words, how would he write it if he wanted to write it the way that “the rest of us” interpret it? Here is how: the way he did. He could only write it that they way it was. Two articles = the heresy of Sabellianism. Zero articles = no subject and therefore, it wouldn’t even be a sentence. It would be like me trying to write a sentence without a subject. It had to be written the way it was.
So, in the context, it does not make much sense to translate it “a God” despite being technically possible. For one, we’ve already seen that there can be no such thing as a lesser God. There is either one God or no God but multiple gods is an impossibility. Also, it would require John to drop his monotheistic roots which simply didn’t happen with Jews. They were drilled from the time they could understand words (Deut. 6:4) “The LORD Our God is ONE.” Thirdly, the JW’s translation is the result of “sophomore syndrome.” That is, they have a little bit of knowledge but only enough to use it foolishly (soph- meaning “wisdom” + mor- meaning “fool”). The JW”s don’t name who their translators are and the ones that have come out have been revealed to have no more than two years of Greek education. I, myself, had two years of Greek, and I can tell you that I could only handle the easiest book of the New Testament (I John). For example, after my first year of Greek, we finally got to look at actual passages from the New Testament. I was excited at the prospect because of how much time and effort I had devoted to it. So the teacher told us to translate Luke 1:1-4 and come back the next day. That sounds like no big deal because it’s only four verses but four verses is easily over an hour of work. So, when we came back the next day, the teacher tallied up how many new words (meaning we hadn’t learn these yet in our vocabulary from the first year) were in these four verses. I believe it was around 15 and one of the words was 16 letters long. None of us could actual do the sentences because we didn’t know the words we were supposed to be translating. So if we couldn’t translate four verses, how could they translate the entire New Testament?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
