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?

Knowing the Unknowable

Every year I declare that I’m not going to watch the new season of MTV’s The Real World. Every year I fail…except for the Las Vegas seasons. Now, why the Las Vegas seasons? I have no idea. I loved Vegas when I went there, so that baffles me. Anyway, the latest season is in Sydney, Australia. I think the following is true: they allowed America to vote for who would make up the cast. Funny thing, America didn’t vote in any gay or bi people. MTV must have been shocked that the majority of Americans don’t think 1 out of 7 is a representative percentage. Good lord I’m talented at not getting to the point.

Okay, there is a man named Isaac on the show. He used to do acid when he was a teenager. He is off it now, but he has side effects that have stayed with him. I didn’t even know this about him until this last episode. Well something happened that got me thinking. He woke up one morning and said he saw a black bird. By “saw” he meant HE saw it and no one else could see it. He has visions occasionally which he attributes to having been on acid. He didn’t have the visions before he got into drugs. Anyway, he doesn’t talk about it because it obviously makes him look crazy. Well seeing the black bird wasn’t just a reminder of his past. He had seen a black bird before. Four times to be exact. Each time he saw the bird it was a sign that someone he knew died. So, to see the bird freaked him out. He called home and had someone call around for him. His mood changed dramatically. I don’t know if it was that day or the next, but someone from home called him and told him that his Grandpa had just died.

Now here is my question: how would an atheist explain that? The little I know about atheism teaches that there is no such thing as the spiritual world. Would it have to be chalked up as a 6th sense? Maybe that would avoid the spiritual route, but it seems that a 6th sense of knowledge would be mental. What I mean is that you would just know it. It wouldn’t require a bird flying in your mind. It wouldn’t need to communicate through signs. My way of viewing what happened to him is that the acid altered his brain in such a way that he can sometimes view parts of the spiritual world. I get that what I just wrote is pretty mystical and primitive, but there is something more to our world than just the physical. That is the part that the atheist would have a problem with.

Have you ever known something before it happened? I have, and the occasions range from the funny to weird to downright impossible. I don’t know what to think of this, but I have a funny example. Before I write it, I should preface it with this: I think this was probably just a weird coincidence.

When I was about 10 years old, I lived in Branford, Florida. After church one night, we had some people over. My mom was talking to one of the church members when she said something that I couldn’t understand. She said it in a weird way, so of course, I made fun of it by saying what I thought she said. So, I said, “Fred, the chickens are coming.” I didn’t just say it. I added an accent, and I kept repeating it over and over. Less than one week later we came home to find like 5 or 6 chickens in our yard. They hung around our yard for about a week. Never before and never since have I lived anywhere where a chicken came onto my property. I don’t know what to make of that. Like I said, it was probably just random coincidence.

For summer, I always came home from college. I tried to work every year. One year I came home and didn’t know where I wanted to work. I can’t remember which year this was. Anyway, I felt like I was being a bum by not working, so I decided I would go back to work at Southern Dunes. For whatever reason before I ever even went up there, I felt like I shouldn’t go. For some reason I felt a pull that that was not the place I should be at. I thought that that feeling didn’t make any sense, and I was just being lazy. One day I just forced myself into going up there to talk to my old bosses to see if I could work for just a couple months. It seemed like it would work out, but I needed to talk to a specific person who wasn’t there at that time. Later that night we had church. When I walked into the foyer of the church, a person standing in the foyer looked at me and said, “You shouldn’t have gone there.” I don’t remember what my response was, but I knew exactly what he/she was talking about. Now how did I know? Even more so, how did he/she know? Discernment is real. This person wasn’t psychic and neither am I. God tells us things sometimes that we could never know on our own. I think about that sometimes and wonder what the big deal was. Why was working at Southern Dunes, that summer, not a good idea? The only thing I can think of is that maybe I would have gotten into an accident. But you know, when you go down that road, you could just as easily say God could prevent the accident. I don’t know what that deal was about.

This past Sunday, my dad announced service for that night. By the end of the morning service, he said that he didn’t know why, but he felt like he shouldn’t have church that night. He doesn’t just call off church especially for no reason. The reason was “no reason” only in the sense that he didn’t understand it. The one telling him did.

I had another incident in my life where I knew something that was impossible to know. I’ve never told anyone, and I’m not about to here.

There is a spiritual world. There are things that are impossible to be known, by normal means, but can be known by the spiritual.

Time, Part 6: Chemical Time

A wise man once said, "Keep it simple stupid." I have not done that with any of my entries on "time." So, I'll try that with this one. "Chemical Time" is a made up term I'm using to describe the way humans view time differently. The question was asked, does time pass quicker for some and slower for others? The answer is yes, but this isn't due to genetics. It's due to chemical released in the brain. Let me discuss some experiments to illustrate this point.

A group of seniors were randomly stopped on the street and asked if they would participate in a science experiment. That experiment called for them to count to 60 seconds. The point of the exercise was to see how close they would come. Would they generally be go over 60 seconds or under? I think if we had to guess, we'd say that they would go over. Well, we'd be right. On average, the older crowd took too long (about 67 seconds). Now, let's flip this to the teenagers. The exact opposite was true. They counted to fast and were under 60 seconds. Why? Why did we already have a hunch how this would turn out? We know that old people drive slowly. They walk slowly. Everything tends to be slower. Is it just energy level? Could energy level be apart of the reason?

Let's look at another experiment. Ever heard of near-death experiences where time slowed down for the person? This is a difficult thing to test obviously because it requires someone being near death. An idea that was used was to place a watch-like contraption on a man's wrist and drop him from a long distance into a net. The man knows he will be fine, but the fear of falling overrides rationality. So it could work. The trick was that the contraption on his wrist would have a flashing number on it. The speed at which it flashed was so fast that it was unreadable to the human eye. The scientist wanted to see if it could be read while in mid-fall. Beforehand, the contraption was shown to the camera at its normal flash rate. I could not read it. So what was the result? The man read one of the two numbers correctly. So it "sort-of" worked. He got the first number right but missed the 2nd. I can tell you as someone who saw it beforehand, the only way to get even one number right was to guess correctly. It was simply too fast to see it. They tried it again and got the exact same result. He got a different first number right but missed the 2nd. I can't explain the miss of the 2nd number, but again, to even get one right seems to suggest that the myth of time slowing down is not actually a myth. When you're in a near-death experience, the brain releases chemicals like adrenaline which seems to slow down your ability to process information. This makes sense because in such an important moment, the ability to react quicker would result in survival more often than not.

The final experiment I want to tell you about involves some mice trained to hit a button at exactly 14-second intervals in order to receive food. The mice were trained to do this and could do so almost flawlessly. Here is the kicker. For this experiment, the trained mice were given shots of different stimulants. The first was given crack. The second was given marijuana. In humans, crack speeds up a person's actions while marijuana tends to slow them down. This is true of the mice as well. Instead of hitting the 14-second interval just like they used to, both were off. The one on crack hit the button too soon. The one on marijuana hit it too late.

What does all this suggest? The way we view time is different based upon what is going on in our heads. Time is truly relative. When you get behind a old person driving slowly, it's because his view of time and yours is different. In his mind, he is traveling as fast as you. How strange is that? What I mean is that he feels he is driving normally…so do you. I guess the good news kiddies is that you're gonna grow up fast and die slowly. That is, you become an adult quickly. Go through life normally. When you're older, time slows down for you to enjoy what you have left. At least that is the game plan. Ready…Break.

ps, This is the last planned entry I have for this series, but I guess I could come across something later.

pss, Go buy the new Angels & Airwaves cd and thank me later.

Secret Crowds

I know this will likely mean nothing to most, but I want to write about another Angels & Airwaves song. I wrote a while back about a lyric from the first cd in which the line was, “I wanna have the same last dream again, the one where I wake up and I’m alive.”

Here it is (with an anecdote edited out) if you need some context:
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Alive
I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which is absolutely, incredibly good). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery [and I would add now, hopeful progress]. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a 2nd chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?

I wrote just two more entries after this before Celeste died. I think about that when I listen to that song. She subscribed to my blog, so I believe she read it. Words are powerful. I know that little things said in a classroom are sometimes remembered for the rest of someone’s life. Celeste never said a word to me about that entry, but it could have effected her. I hope it did.

Well, I didn’t expect to go down this road. I was simply trying to setup why I was going to talk about “Secret Crowds” (another Angels & Airwaves song off their new cd). So here, I finally go:


"If I had my own world, I'd build you an empire." This is the opening line of "Secret Crowds." Immediately, that seems so "music lyric-esque." My meaning there is this: it comes across as another lyric that makes no sense. His point is this, he'd like the world to be different. What if you had the power to create a world? What would it look like? I believe God created our world, but chose to give free-will. That is where things took a dive.

The way I view the song is if God himself were singing it. I see it as what he intended for us and what we will receive in the end. I see the empire as "The Kingdom of God." The theology of the Kingdom of God is very interesting to me. I believe in a form of eschatology (study of the end times) in which the Kingdom of God (discussed in the Gospels) is already, but not yet here. It's like Jesus came to save us, but what does save us mean? Well, it has to do with the restoration of our world but this is inclusive of everything (plants, animals, humans). The lion will lay down with the lamb. Jesus brought the Kingdom of God with him. Healings are a sign of this Kingdom. Some get healed (already) but some do not (not yet). In the afterlife, we believe there will be no more sickness and death. Didn't Jesus spread that as he preached? He healed people and gave both spiritual and physical life to people. He didn't do this every where. Already here, but not yet fully realized. This is the Kingdom of God. It desires "that no man shall perish." God built us an empire. We chose this for ourselves. Salvation is about the restoration of this decision. (I just realized that I wrote all of that and I've only gotten past the first lyric.)

Here are the lyrics:
(If I had my own world)
(I'd build you an empire)

If I had my own world
I'd fill it with wealth and desire
A glorious past to admire
And voices of kids out walking dogs,
Birds, planes, trees and cars

If I had my own world
I'd love it for all that's inside it
There'd be no more wars, death or riots
There'd be no more police, packed parking lots,
Guns, bombs sounding off

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the far lands
To spread love like violence

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies

Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you
Inventing the first clean and usable,
God's greatest miracle

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Let me feel you carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Another lyric I want to talk about is, "Watch our words spread hope like fire." It reminded me of Hebrews 12:29, "For Our God is a consuming fire." That is a reference to a verse in Deuteronomy, but I think the Deuteronomy verse references back to the burning bush. The fire consumed the bush but did not burn it up. Fire is used in a way in Christianity that I find interesting. It illustrates fervor and intensity but without destruction. It's the perfect metaphor for the song because in this new "perfect world" he is describing, fire needs to not be destructive. It has all the power it used to but for positive purposes. Hope should be infectious. Hope should spread from one to another. There are a lot of hopeless people, but it's the responsibility of the church to spread hope. Spread it with the speed, intensity, and purity of fire.

The next line I liked was, "Secret crowds rise up and gather. Hear your voices sing back louder." I interpret here, the secret crowds as the "invisible church." That is a theological term for those in the church who are actually "saved." The Protestants developed this idea because they split off from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was The Church. What the Protestants showed was that the church isn't a physical building nor a physical group of people. Joe Shmoe could walk in the building, but that doesn't make him a believer. It's the belief that makes one apart of the Church. The Greek has a couple words for church—ecclesia and koinonia. The ecclesia were the "called out ones." These are the people chosen by God to be saved. (I'm not going into Predestination or opposing views, frankly the New Testament has both views in juxtaposition). The koinonia are the group of believers who fellowship together. They share commonality. The line I quoted has both versions of the Church. It has the "secret crowds" which is the ecclesia (the people called out from among others). Then it talks about singing back louder. What is a choir? It is a group of people singing together "on the same page." So basically, I see this world that he is describing as including the Church. It's as if God wants to change this world, so he's asking his "secret crowd" or the "called out ones" to rise up and do their part. Use your words to spread the Gospel (aka good news). Remember, he wants the good news to spread like fire.

The next 2 lines go:
If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies

Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you

Doesn't that sound like, "I have come that you might have life more abundantly"? This new life can exist with friends, families, and even in the midst of enemies. The new world God says he will create is a world in which death is gone. Peace does not know worry. He says that you can go if you want to. It's about hearing and then receiving. "I know that you have it within you."

Later he says, "Let me feel you, carry you higher. Watch our words spread hope like fire" I didn't know the line at first, so I thought he said, "Let me heal you, carry you higher." Think of Jesus healing people and then they get up and walk. They get off the dirty ground that they've been on for most if not all of their life. They stand and walk. It's "higher" physically but also spiritually. I know he doesn't actually say "heal" but my entire point is the interpretation of the song. Their lyrics lend themselves to this…this "epic" or "higher" way of thinking. Healings are apart of the Kingdom of God. God's wish is for good. Jesus' work was this restoration. It was the beginning of the Kingdom of God that will break through. Spread hope like fire.

Time, Part 5: Mitochondria

Remember my intro where I said I was going to travel down the science route but I was likely to stumble over my words? Well, I'm sure you've noticed that already. Today I'm going to write again about something that I don't understand. Your bodies have life-giving material called mitochondria. I don't know where it comes from or even what it is. What matters is that it powers our existence. It keeps us alive. According to one of the shows that I watched regarding time, humans aren't programmed to die. That is, aging isn't written into our DNA. Aging is a result of destruction, not genetics. Your DNA doesn't read a line of code which eventually comes to the point of your death. Mitochondria continually makes new our cells. However, there is something working against this. Our daily actions continually cause damage to our bodies. What we eat is often not good for us. We brake bones or put stress on our bodies. It's the continual destruction of our bodies that outweighs the construction of mitochondria. We can't keep pace. Something is aiding this process. This something is known as "free radicals." No, not "New Radicals," the one-hit-wonder band with the song "You Get What You Give." But, thank you for bringing that up. I just downloaded it from iTunes a week ago. Great song. Anyway, free radicals are produced in our bodies just like Mitochondria. These free radicals go around destroying cells. (I don't begin to understand why they are there.) What matters is this: we know that they are there and there may be a way to reduce them. If we can find a way to cut the amount of free radicals down, then we might be able to slow down or even stop the aging process. (By the way, we're working on this in rats, and we're making progress.) Obviously, this doesn't help with accidents or war, etc. As medicine continues to understand more and more, we may be able to prolong life. From the program, it appeared that this could help even with diseases. So, I'm guessing something like cancer wouldn't be able to be a quick killer. That part, though, wasn't discussed much. The main thing they focused on was to say the "125 year" limit could become a memory due to the possibilities of blocking free radicals.

What would this mean to life? Our time on earth would change. I can't even come close to discussing all the ways that would change our lives but consider this one: How about knowing your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great Grandfather. You better remember his birthday this year or you'll get it. Anyway, what I found so interesting about the show was the amount of years it was suggested we could live. Can you guess? One thousand. Now, where have I heard that before? Think back to the Bible. Remember those stories in Genesis about how there was a time when people lived 900+ years? How do we rationalize that? Why did they live so long? Why don't we? Why does it appear people will live 1,000 years in Revelation? (I'm not going into the question of whether the 1,000 years is literal or not). I just found it interesting that the host of the show said "1,000" years and Revelation seems to say the same thing.