SkipChurch's Teeny Tiny Chapel

Three Ravens

2012-01-25T13:56:00.002-05:00

The Lilies of the Field: Saying 36 of the Gospel of Thomas

2012-01-24T15:59:00.001-05:00

The Lilies of the Field: Saying 36 of the Gospel of Thomas and Secondary Accretions in Q 12.22b–31

JAMES M. ROBINSON

and CHRISTOPH HEIL (2001).

New Testament Studies,

">Volume 47,
Issue 01, January 2001 pp 1-25

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=64365

Abstract
An archaic form of the sayings collection Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies (Q 12.22b–31) is to be found in P. Oxy. 655, Gospel of Thomas Saying 36. T. C. Skeat detected in 1938 a scribal error already present in Q 12.27a (taken over in Matt 6.28b), but still correct in P. Oxy. 655. Part I publishes Skeat's much more recent reconstruction of Saying 36 in P. Oxy. 655. Robinson had already enlarged Skeat's thesis by focusing attention on four ingredients in Q 12.22b–31 that scholarship has long since recognized as secondary, and that are significantly absent from P. Oxy. 655. Part II responds to criticisms of this thesis by J. Schröter. Part III contains concluding remarks on the archaic form of the sayings collection as a whole.

The World: Too Big To Fail?

2012-01-23T16:19:00.005-05:00

This is the real obvious point: you can't just keep printing money based on nothing forever. What happens if you do that is rampant inflation. That is because the paper currency has no intrinsic value (except as a very bad toilet paper) and at some point any actual, useful material good looks like a more desirable thing than paper money. So far our inflation is restricted to commodities, with gold being the most flagrant and alarming example. Alarming because gold is not really useful, it is just an alternative to paper money, and so it betrays a deep distrust of paper money worldwide.

This situation does not lead anywhere very good.

Too bad crooks like Jon Corzine get off while the average working stiff will take the fall.

Isn't this what I've been saying?

2012-01-23T13:29:00.000-05:00

Ann Barnhardt (commodities trader): Well, if anybody out there understands fourth grade arithmetic you know from metaphysical certitude that Europe is done. Europe is mathematically impossible. It cannot be saved. You want to make a start. You even want to make a start at trying to bail out Europe we are talking $25 trillion just to start. And it would then—if you were going to bail out the entirety of Europe—you would now be talking about hundreds of trillions of dollars. Okay, people, there isn’t that much wealth or money on the surface of the earth. The total gross domestic product of the entire planet earth is I think just under $70 trillion. And we are talking about in excess of $100 trillion to bail out Europe? This is now mathematically impossible. These people have so leveraged themselves and so leveraged these governments in these countries giving their brain dead citizenry free hand outs and entitlements that it is now mathematically impossible to save the paradigm. It's not a matter of if the global financial system is going to collapse. Oh, it's going to collapse. You better trust and understand that. It's just a matter of when. And these piddling little maneuvers that these people are making that the Fed is doing. Oh, we are going to give Europe some money. Okay. What I saw this morning, what the Fed is getting ready to do in terms of Europe, is keep Europe going for another seven days. Well, fantastic. Thanks for that. That is literally the brain dead mindset of these politicians. All they are doing is looking to kick the can down the road. At first it was kick the can down another 10, 12 years. Then it is kick the can down the road for another year. And then it was well, let’s kick the can down the road for another few months. Now we're literally to the point where all we can do is kick the can down the road for a matter of a few days. It's not going to make it. I will be very surprised if we make it until Christmas.

Raven Silhouettes

2012-01-23T08:57:00.004-05:00

I like this middle one, with the red outline!! It can be done small with ease!!! The raven would be looking at the crowned lily.

Pauline Anthropology

2012-01-21T14:21:00.002-05:00

Once more I will attempt to give expression to the Apostle Paul's concepts of body, soul, flesh, spirit, sin, and death: in other words to the Pauline anthropology. First of all, the body is not opposed to the soul with the former being bad and the latter good, as in gnostic thought. Paul strictly follows Genesis, wherein God created all the living creatures and found them good. Spirit and flesh are conceived of as transcendent powers, as indeed are sin and death. 'Flesh' is Pauline shorthand for the power of sin, and the power of death. The flesh, the power of sin and death, entered man with Adam's sin and has taken possession of the whole man, inner and outer. It is important to realize that for Paul a sharp distinction is made between body and flesh. The spirit (pneuma) is the great antagonist of the flesh (=sin + death), and is the power of life, the power of God's creation, the power of the resurrection. In the End Times in which we live (as distinct from OT times) the power of the Holy Spirit is powerfully at work in all members of the community. This is because Jesus through his resurrection has defeated sin and death.

Like the flesh, the spirit also takes possession of the whole man, inner and outer. The spirit however is more powerful than its dark adversary, and so takes possession of the inner man so decisively that the believer is 'renewed every day' (II Cor 4:16). The GsJn repeats this message over and over. We are already in a state of resurrection; the New Era is innagurated; the body is in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Wherever the Holy Spirit is at work there is a momentary, or partial, retreat of death, even in the body. Hence the healings of the sick. This is a foretaste of the End, but here it is only a matter of retreat not a transformation of the body of death into the glorious body of the final resurrection. Even those raised up by Jesus from the dead were destined to die again, for they did not receive a resurrection body. The transformation from a fleshly body into a spiritual body does not take place until the End. only then will the Holy Spirit's power of resurrection take such complete possession of the body that it transforms the body as it is already transforming the inner man.

Our soul is not released from the body, as in Greek thought. Rather, both body and soul are freed from the fatal power of the flesh. The Holy Spirit dwells in you already Paul says in Romans 8:11. Jesus says in Mt 10:28 that the soul can be killed. The soul is not immortal.

For living Christian believers, the power of the Holy Spirit is in a tug of war with the flesh. The renewal day by day is necessary and can be aided by the believer's constant seeking, inviting, crying for, a more powerful and complete indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and help and strength to defeat the power of the flesh, sin, and death.

JUDAISM: ITS DIFFUSION AND LIMITS

2012-01-20T12:00:00.004-05:00

This is from Harnack's Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries .

Very dense, but worth a close look!

Their numbers were greatest in Syria. The large number of Jews in Antioch is particularly striking. next to that in Egypt (in all the nomes as far as Upper Egypt),For the diffusion of Jews in S. Arabia, cp. Philostorgius's important evidence (H.E., iii. 4). The local population, he avers, οὐκ ὀλίγον πλῆθος Ἰουδαίων ἀναπέφυρται. Rome, and the provinces of Asia Minor Philo, Legat. 33: Ἰουδαῖοι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν εἰσὶ παμπληθεῖς Ἀσίας τε καὶ Συρίας (“The Jews abound in every city of Asia and Syria”). The word “every” (ἑκάστην) is confirmed by a number of special testimonies, e.g. for Cilicia by Epiphanius (Hær., xxx. 11), who says of the “apostle” sent by the Jewish patriarch to collect the Jewish taxes in Cilicia: ὃς ἀνελθὼν ἐκεῖσε ἀπὸ ἑκάστης πόλεως τῆς Κιλικίας τὰ ἐπιδέκατα κτλ εἰσέπραττεν (“On his arrival there he proceeded to lift the tithes, etc., from every city in Cilicia”). On the spread of Judaism in Phrygia and the adjoining provinces (even into the districts of the interior), see Ramsay's two great works, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, and The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, along with his essay in the Expositor (January 1902) on “The Jews in the Græco-Asiatic Cities.” Wherever any considerable number of inscriptions are found in these regions, some of them are always Jewish. The rô1e played by the Jewish element in Pisidian Antioch is shown by Acts 14:44-50. Acts xiii.; (Ἰουδαῖοι παρώτρυναν τὰς σεβομένας γυναῖκας τὰς ἐυσχήμονας καὶ τοὺς πρώτους τῆς πόλεως). And the significance of the Jewish element in Smyrna comes out conspicuously in the martyrdom of Polycarp and of Pionius; on the day of a Jewish festival the appearance of the streets was quite changed. ''The diffusion and importance of the Jews in Asia Minor are attested among other things by the attempt made during the reign of Augustus, by the Ionian cities, apparently after joint counsel, to compel their Jewish fellow-townsmen to abandon their faith or else to assume the full burdens of citizenship” (Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., v. pp. 489 f., Eng. trans. Provinces, ii. 163). The extent to which they had made their way into all the local conditions is made particularly clear by the evidence bearing on the sphere last named, where, as on the north coast of the Black Sea, Judaism also played some part in the blending of religions (e.g., the cult of “The most high God,” and of the God called “Sabbatistes”). The same holds true of Syria, though the evidence here is not taken so plainly from direct testimony, but drawn indirectly from the historical presuppositions of Christian gnosticism. Cp. also the remarks of Epiphanius (Hær., lxxx. l) upon the cult of Παντοκράτωρ. In Africa, along the coast-line, from the proconsular province to Mauretania, Jews were numerous. See Monceaux, “les colonies juives dans l’Afrique romaine” (Rev. des Études juives, 1902); and Leclerq, L’Afrique chrétienne (1904), I. pp. 36 f. We have evidence for Jewish communities at Carthage, Naro, Hadrumetum, Utica, Hippo, Simittu, Volubilis, Cirta, Auzia, Sitifis, Cæsarea, Tipasa, and Oea, etc. At Lyons, in the time of Irenæus, To all appearance, therefore, he knew no Jewish Christians at first hand. they do not seem to have abounded; but in southern Gaul, as later sources indicate, their numbers cannot have been small, whilst in Spain, as is obvious from the resolutions of the synod of Elvira (c. 300 A.D.), they were both populous and powerful. Finally, we may assume that in Italy—apart from Rome and Southern Italy, where they were widely spread—they were not exactly numerous under the early empire, although even in Upper Italy at that period individual synagogues were in existence. This feature was due to the history of Italian civilization, and it is corroborated by the fact that, beyond Rome and Southern Italy, early Jewish inscriptions are scanty and uncertain. “The Jews were the first to exemplify that kind of patriotism which the Parsees, the Armenians, and to some extent the modern Greeks were to display in later ages, viz. a patriotism of extraordinary warmth, but not attached to any one locality, a patriotism of traders who wandered up and down the world and everywhere hailed each other as brethren, a patriotism which aimed at forming not great, compact states but small, autonomous communities under the ægis of other states.”

Something supernatural

2012-01-18T09:33:00.006-05:00

TODAY’S SCRIPTURE
“Bring forth fruit that is consistent with repentance [let your lives prove your change of heart]”
(Matthew 3:8, AMP)

TODAY’S WORD from Joel and Victoria . I liked this message and I hope you do too.

Something supernatural happens when you submit your mind and heart to the Lord. First, your heart changes; then your thoughts begin to change. Your actions begin to change. Your life begins to bring forth fruit, or it displays the character of God. The Bible tells us in Galatians that the fruit of God’s spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These character traits are proof that God is at work in our lives. Do you have more love than you used to? Are you more at peace than you used to be? Are you more gentle? Self-controlled? That’s because God is at work in your life, and it brings Him pleasure when you act more like Him.

If you need to grow in any of these areas today, simply open your heart and ask Him to work in your life. He promises that He will complete the good work He’s started in you. Don’t give up! Keep praying, keep believing, keep repenting and submitting your life to Him. Put His Word as a priority in your life and you will continue to grow and bring forth His fruit and live in His abundant blessings in every area of life!

Early NT Manuscripts

2012-01-13T16:27:00.004-05:00

There are two basic types of NT texts, the uncials (written in capital letters) and the later miniscules (written in connected script). Some of the most famous uncials are known by name at least even to NT hobbyists such as myself: the V century Codex Alexandrinus; the mid-IV CE Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican Library but unknown for many centuries because the librarians were reluctant to let the scholarly world have a look); the V or VI century Codex Bezae, which was donated to Cambridge by Calvin's successor Beza in 1581; and the famous Codex Sinaiticus, illustrated here with a verse from Luke 11:2.

There are also thousands of miniscules, and some preserve readings of early origin.
One of the most interesting manuscripts is the Codex Freerianus, in the Freer Collection of the Smithsonian. It is from the IV CE or the beginning of the V. It includes this unique text after Mk 16:14 (called the Freer Logion):

“And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’”

The miniscule used by Erasmus for the first printed edition of the NT in Greek did not include Revelation, which he had to reconstruct from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Manuscript 33, which has been called "the Queen of the Miniscules", contains the whole Bible except for Revelation. Those who wish that this misleading book had never been included in the c anon applaud these omissions!

A number of manuscripts use a shorter version of Luke, with affinities to Marcion's gospel. Miniscule 157 is such a manuscript, and ends with the following: "copied from the ancient manuscripts of Jerusalem."
A group of miniscules known as the Ferrar group (Mss. 13, 69, 124, 346 and about half a dozen others) have the interesting characteristic that the pericope of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is located after Lk 21:39 instead of after Jn 7:52. To my mind this is good evidence that the story was free-floating and not in the earliest version of John.

A number of manuscripts show in their GsLk affinities with Marcion's gospel. 157 is such a miniscule and contains the colophon "copied from the ancient manuscripts of Jerusalem" after each gospel.

700 is a peculiar gospel manuscript of the XII century. It contains 270 readings found nowhere else, and it seems that these unique readings derive from a very old text, since the form of the second petition (“forgive us our sins”) of the Lord's Prayer in Lk 11:2 reads “Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us". This is the form in Marcion's gospel, but also attested in the orthodox church father Gregory of Nyssa, but it appears nowhere else.

The evidence from the manuscripts inclines me to believe that Marcion’s gospel was not an abridgement of canonical Luke, but rather an adaptation or alteration of a shorter proto-Luke which was in common circulation in his home region’s churches. Surely it looks as if proto-Luke originally started at Chapter 3, with the orthodox redactor “Luke” adding an infancy gospel, possibly specifically to counter Marcion.

Mighty Man of God Smites Steelers

2012-01-09T11:14:00.002-05:00

Whose Child Is This?

2011-12-23T10:56:00.003-05:00

Even the casual reader of the first chapter of Matthew may notice that the extensive genealogy given in verses 1 to 16, for the purpose of establishing the descent of Jesus from David, is immediately undermined by the story of the virgin birth which begins at verse 18. It would appear that two sources are being used by our evangelist, one of which establishes the Davidic descent through Joseph being the father of Jesus, and another which seeks to demonstrate the specialness of the birth through a story of miraculous conception and virgin birth, without the involvement of Joseph:

“before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:18).

Variant readings, however, attest to a more primitive version of the gospel wherein the genealogy portion had no idea of a virgin birth. Ancient Sinaitic Syriac manuscripts place before us the following, cited by B.W. Bacon (Critical Notes, Amer J of Theology, Jan. 1911, P.83):

(1) the readings of Syr. sin. in Matt. 1:16-25, as follows: i:i6, "Joseph .... begat Jesus"; i:21 "she shall bear to thee a son"; x:25, "and she bore to him a son";

(2) the reading of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, edited by Conybeare in Anecd. Oxon. Class. ser. 8, 1898, which Conybeare maintains to have been the basis of all existing readings.

The Dialogue reading is as follows: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ, and Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ."

Schmiedel, reviewing both forms, regards both (1) and (2) as composite.

Syr. sin., (i) as he points out, contains only surviving traces, now quite overlaid by the canonical form of the text, of a reading which critical theology had long ago insisted on as the original, the only reading consistent with the employment of Joseph's genealogy, the simple form: "And Joseph begat Jesus."

But just as in Syr. sin. the two mutually inconsistent representations (a) of a birth of Jesus by physical descent through Joseph from the royal line of David, (b) of a miraculous conception in the womb of "Mary the Virgin" are fused together by conflation, although in this very ancient version the inharmonious parts still remain imperfectly adjusted to one another.

Prof. Bruce Metzger noted that no Latin or Greek manuscript contains this sort of reading for Mt 1:16, but he renders the text of a Sinaitic Syriac palimpsest in the style of the RSV as follows:

“Jacob the father of Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed the virgin Mary, was the father of Jesus, who is called the Christ [or, the Messiah].”

Magic Bone Propels Indian Gal Through Glass Tipi

2011-12-20T14:06:00.008-05:00

After her baptism by a Jesuit missionary at age 20 drew strong disapproval from her family, Tekakwitha moved to a Christian community near Montreal, where Walt Disney painted her portrait. She later took a vow of chastity, and refused ever after to speak of Disney, Mickey, the Dwarves, and what happened in that studio.

The smallpox scars on her face are believed to have disappeared inexplicably a few minutes after her death. This was a pretty good indication that she was bound to make her way up the magical saint ladder.

John Paul waived the first miracle ordinarily required for Tekakwitha's beatification in 1980. He said since she was a woman and an Indian, he'd get with the church's affirmative action policy and "give the little lady a fair shot at sainthood."

According to Sister Kateri Mitchell, executive director of the Tekakwitha Conference in Great Falls, Mont., the miracle approved by Benedict on Monday concerns a 6-year-old Native American boy of the Lummi Reservation in Washington state, who was cured of a flesh-eating virus on his face in 2006, after Mitchell prayed with his family and placed a chip of Tekakwitha's wrist bone on his body. Whether the virus was in any way connected with the scars that disappeared from St Kateri's face centuries earlier is being studied by top Vatican hagiographers.

Cana

2011-12-17T13:46:00.006-05:00

The scene is Cana of Galilee, a place also mentioned by Josephus. From GsJn 1:43 to 2:1 Jesus and his entourage have taken three days to walk to the wedding feast already in progress at Cana. This information from the Bible has led to some comical efforts to calculate the speed with which J &Co. were able to walk. We might also conclude that the addition "of Galilee" suggests that there was another Cana not in Galilee which we (the readers) might confuse with this Cana. At this wedding we find the nother of Jesus. Whether she is usually resident at Cana, or was invited thence from elsewhere does not matter, but she must be mentioned by name because of the role she is presently to play.

Jesus and his disciples have also been invited to the feast, but there is no need to give any particular explanation of this. Jewish marriage feasts lasted for seven days. The guests would come and go, but the bridal party stayed for the whole time. Profs. Weiss and Zahn suggest that Jesus & Co. were invited late, and were not noticed arriving. Bultmann however calls the suggestion that the wine ran out early because of the unexpected increase in guests "grotesque" and similarly rejects Prof. Weiss's idea that after their long journey Jesus and the disciples polished off what wine was left because they were "particularly thirsty." At all events, the wine runs out and Jesus' mother brings it to his attention. Of course she does this with the aim of getting him to perform a miracle. Zahn and Weiss speculate at this point that Mary thought J might go fetch some more wine from the neighborhood, which is pretty absurd, but not so laughable as the idea that Mary was suggesting that Jesus and his disciples should leave the feast, but he replies that his hour had not yet come! (As if this could refer to the time he planned to leave the feast.)

The purpose of this preparation is to bring out the character of the miracle, to build up tension, by having Jesus refuse at first, but in such a way that the hope for a miracle is kept alive. His refusal is a rough one: "Woman, what concern is that to you and me?" We are surprised by the form of address here, where we would expect "Mother"; yet the form used, "woman" is not so brusque in antiquity as it sounds to our ears. Odysseus in disguise addressed Penelope in this way, as did Oedipus address Jocasta. Even though it is not disrespectful or scornful, it creates a certain distance between Jesus and his mother. She exits, telling the servants to do whatever he commands.

A description is necessary for what is to come. Our narrator tells us that six large water jars are ready to hand, and explains for the benefit of the Gentile reader that these are employed in Jewish purification rituals.These jars are of enormous capacity. Jesus directs the servants to fill them to the brim with water.This is done, and Jesus then directs that some of the contents be taken to the steward of the feast. The jovial toastmaster makes an insulting joke about the water-turned-into-wine, saying that the usual practice of getting the guests smashed on good wine and then bringing out the cheap swill has been reversed! The inferior wine was served first, then this magnificent vintage was brought forth. Prof. Hans Windisch devoted his great learning to a comprehensive investigation of the supposed "Johannine Wine Rule" but reached no better conclusion than that dishonest publicans and poor hosts might well serve inferior wine to drunken guests.

It will come as no surprise that temperate Protestant exegetes found the 700 liters of wine a bit of a problem, and resorted to such comical expedients as suggesting that the wine Jesus created came pre-diluted with water, or that Jesus by his very presence would insure that the miraculous wine was not misused. As the company was evidently seriously inebriated already this sop to evangelical sensibilities is quite out of place.

Many efforts to allegorize this story have been made. The water was the inferior Jewish law, the wine was the revelation of Jesus; the water is baptism, the wine is Jesus' blood; etc. None of this is needful. The miracle of the wine at Cana is very simply a heathen miracle of Dionysus taken over for Christian purposes. As always in John the meaning is not in the details of the miracle but in the fact the Jesus the Revealer has arrived on the scene. The true vine; the living water; the bread of life; the light; the shepherd: we are to note the divine brilliance (=radiance=glory) not the street-corner magic trick. The evangelist is actually uncomfortable with the miracle qua miracle, and does not want the 'sign' as such to be overemphasized.

THE PROBLEM WITH ORTHODOXY

2011-12-17T13:44:00.005-05:00

The trouble with orthodoxy in matters of Christiasn religion is that it must be largely wrong. So for example the Virgin Birth is an orthodox dogma, but is it likely that the Christians of the community that produced the Gospels or Mark and John, or indeed the Apostle Paul himself, had ever heard of this dogma? No. Had James the brother of our Lord heard of it? I think not. I doubt the mother of Jesus herself had any such idea. So too with the Real Presence in the eucharist. Obviously the Christians of the Didache community knew nothing of this, and all the evidence points to the eucharist as conceived by Paul to be minority view ('this is my body" etc). Most early Christians evidently celebrated a communal meal based on the feeding of the 5000, which included fish. When Jesus himself criticized the Pharisees for their man-made laws and traditions, the theologians of Christendom seem to have not listened.

THE PROBLEM WITH RON PAUL

2011-12-17T13:41:00.003-05:00

The problem is, he is mostly right. Other GOP candidates are ginning up a preemptive strike against Iran. Ron thinks it is a bad idea. Only Ron sees -- or will admit to seeing-- the undeniable connection between America's blind support of Israel and our trouble with terrorists. Only Ron Paul calls the War on Drugs what it is: a failure, which is basically a War on Black Folks. Only Ron Paul gives the sensible reply that abortion is a STATE issue. Of course Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination, because he has an independent and consistent political philosophy, which is completely fatal in the GOP of Limbaugh, Hannity, and that other turkey, the Mormon with the blond flatop whose name I cannot recall.

Bye Bye Eurozone

2011-12-07T11:49:00.009-05:00

I have concluded that the Euro must crash, resulting in chaos in the Eurozone financial markets, more social unrest, and a depression in Europe, with very dire results for the US.

Therefore, time to exit equity investments. The seven fat years have come and gone. Now we'll see the seven lean years. It will take about six months for the fact that the situation is structurally unworkable to sink in. So let's say July of 2012. The reasons are really simple. In the old days when Greece, or Spain, or Italy mismanaged their financial affairs, as they often did, their currency suffered by a worsening of the exchange rate versus more prudent countries. With the Euro, that effect is diluted by the big German economy, so the full impact of feckless Greece's spending spree took a long time to come back to roost.

Who can bail out these guys? Well, nobody. But of course the US will, by using the International Monetary Fund. This is the 'too big to fail' mistake all over again. Europe does not have the political will to undergo the austerity necessary to fix the problem. Therefore, the problem will not get fixed.

By the way, I'm still working on the relationship of the Gospel of John to Samaritans and their religion. Interesting how the Samaritans are portrayed in a positive way!

Mighty Man of God Goes 6 and 1

2011-12-05T09:28:00.003-05:00

And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go. ~ Josh. 1:16

Pantheism? ... or something else?

2011-11-30T08:48:00.006-05:00

The Gospel of Thomas has many points of interest. For me, the immanent idea of the Kingdom (= God = salvation) is more sensible than the transcendent idea. That is, it expresses my personal feeling better. In the "already" and "not yet" discussion of the eschaton, it emphasizes
former.

What then, in the end, is the "good news"? Is it the gospel that Paul says he received and passed on? Can it be also the Gospel of Thomas, with its "already" Kingdom of God, and lack of interest in Jesus' death? We might well wonder while we're at it what was the gospel Philip preached to the eunuch of Candace, running along side of his chariot before "the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away."

"Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus."

Here are some GsThom verses I especially like.

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

113 His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?""It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

51 His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?"He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."

Metastasizing babble

2011-11-28T15:54:00.004-05:00

Is theology a branch of knowledge? First of all, what is the object of study in theology? It would have to be "God", right? But obviously, at least in the modern conception, God cannot be an object of study. God cannot be objectified. God cannot be studied in the same way the objects of the natural world can be studied. God is not a cactus, or an asteroid, or even an electron. Nor can God be studied in the sense that history is studied; though the facts that underwrite the science of history (and also economics, sociology, etc) are admittedly subject to interpretation, the facts themselves are at least in principle accessible.

Not so with God. God, in principle, is inaccessible-- at least to the methods of science, which theology implicitly claims to be.

The false belief that God can be studied in this way has given rise to reams and barrels and bales of Christian gobbledegook, which really has to be gotten rid of. This was essentially Dietrich Bonhoeffer's program, and in a similar way Rudolf Bultmann's.

One look at the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia will convince any reasonable person that the absurd metastasizing babble of professional theologians is an impediment rather than an aid, to genuine religious experience and understanding.

New topic!!

Here are two pictures from the Christian catacombs of Via Latina. Hercules killimng the hydra (!!!) and Jesus with the Samaritan woman.

Johannine Prologue

2011-11-26T12:59:00.003-05:00

In antiquity the use of bottom-of-page footnotes was unknown, so any remarks an author wished to make upon a text he was quoting simply went right into the flow of the text he was using. Quotation marks, and indeed punctuation of any kind was also unknown. This situation leads to some intriguing interpretive problems, which can be readily exemplified by the so-called Johannine Prologue, the first eighteen verses of the Fourth Gospel.

The Prologue has been called an overture (Heitmuller, and also Bowen), and this apt term captures the dramatic nature of the Prologue, and its relationship to wahat follows much better than "introduction" or "preface". That the Prologue can stand on its own was recognized by Harnack (1892), who did not think that verses 1-18 were oiriginally part of the gospel at all. Be that as it may, the literary integity of the Prologue is evident. As to the literary character, it seems to be a myth of some sort at first glance, because it speaks of a divine being's life and destiny. A strong dose of Gnostic influence is detectable, as are comments or clarifications inserted by a Christian (I will say the Evangelist himself) to explain the text or to score polemical points against followers of John the Baptist.

Let's look at the text, divided up as Rudolf Bultmann has it in his commentary on Gs Jn..

John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God; [3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

[9] The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
[10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. [11] He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. [12] But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;

[13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

[16] And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.

[17] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18] No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

The underlined parts are the comments inserted by the author. The plain text is the original cultic-liturgical petry, or we might say, hymn. It seems that the hymn, which to us is far from clear, was well-known to the community for whom the gospel was composed, and so the theme of the Logos being made incarnate, and his/its pre-existence, was nothing obscure and needed no explanation. What did need explanation was the position of JBap vis a vis the Incarnate Word (=Jesus Christ). in case anyone should think otherwise, the Evangelist stresses that JBap "was not the light", and that JBap himself acknowledged that Jesus "ranks before me" and was pre-existent.

With JBap spoeaking in verse 15 we might think that his discourse continues right to the end.I don't think that is right. JBap's confession must end where indicated by the quotation marks (which of course did not exist in the original). What follows in verses 17 and 18 are more comments and explanations by the Evangelist.

Though of course and thing like a reconstruction of the orginal hymn without the Evangelist's commentary is highly speculative, let's see how it looks by itself.

Johannine Prologue: The Proto-Gnostic Hymn

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.

He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
But to all who received him, he gave power to become children of God;

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.
And from his fulness have we all received grace upon grace.

(I have italicized the catch-words linking the verses of each couplet.)

Erwin Goodenough: John a Primitive Gospel

2011-11-21T12:58:00.005-05:00

This is a terrific except from an excellent paper from 1945. Professor Goodenough was at Yale Divinity School, and was an expert in early Christian history, art and archaelogy, as well as Jewish art and practice. Read it all !!! It will be on the final!

C. The Institution of the Eucharist.

It seems equally clear that the author of Jn had no knowledge of the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper as told by Paul and the Synoptists. The eucharistic discourse of Jn 6 has been mentioned for what seems to me the primitive character of its theology or philosophy as compared with the Pauline story. It seems incredible to me that an author who would have retold in such detail as he did the story of the Passion, and who felt it important to stress as he did the Last Supper, should have failed, had he known it, to rehearse the event which the Church has ever since thought to be the supreme act of the Christ of history, the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper. The sixth chapter, with its long insistence upon the necessity of eating the flesh (and drinking the blood vss. 53-56), shows that the members of John's community were devout communicants who believed in the real presence. But they knew only the quite clumsy story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes to justify their practice, quite clumsy because it made no place for the wine, while it included the soon to be discarded fish as part of the meal.

Now the art remains of early Christianity make it highly likely that the early eucharistic observance included fish with the bread and wine, and it has long been suspected that the Messianic fish which the Jews of the time ate, along with the bread and wine which they still partake of with "blessing" in a special way, was what lay behind the Christian observance. In so brief an essay there is not space to present or to discuss this evidence. What appears increasingly likely is that on Friday nights, as well as at the major feasts, faithful Jews were eating a Messianic meal, in which they partook of the Messiah in the form of fish, bread, and wine, in anticipation of his coming and of the great Messianic banquet of the future life. This banquet early Christians would have continued, since they were still observant Jews. Only, and this was the great step, since Jesus was now their Messiah, the Christians in partaking of the Messiah were partaking of Jesus Christ himself.

Myths are much more apt to be produced by cult acts than cult acts by myths. Christians in this early meal found themselves partaking of Jesus Christ in the blessed elements, and the practice cried out for a definitely Christian justification, arising from an act or command of Jesus himself. Two stories thus arose. The first story would appear to be that given in Jn. For this the analogy of the miraculous feeding of the ancient Israelites in the desert with manna, and their getting the divine drink from the rock of Sophia or Logos, of which mention has already been made, offered one element. Just why the fish took the place of the rock as symbol of the divine fluid in the new version of the story I cannot say. But Jesus took the place of Moses for the Christians now in a new feeding of the multitude in the desert, and this was a symbol of the new sacrament in which Jesus gave his flesh and blood to his followers, the heavenly food and drink, and made such partaking a general requirement for all Christians. With this, as we shall see at once, was fused another, a Messianic, element. That this stage in, or form of, the celebration of the eucharist is not purely imaginative on my part is definitely witnessed by the order for the celebration of the eucharist in the Didache. The passage, familiar as it is, is so important that it must be quoted entire:

IX. 1. And concerning the eucharist, hold eucharist thus: 2. First concerning the cup, "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy Vine of David thy child, which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child; to thee be glory for ever." 3. And concerning the broken bread: "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child. To thee be glory forever. 4. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever." 5. But let none eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." X. 1. But after you have been filled, thus give thanks: 2. "We give thanks to thee, O Holy Father, for the holy Name which thou didst make to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy 173 Child. To thee be glory forever. 3. Thou, Lord Almighty, didst create all things for thy Name's sake, and didst give food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee, but us hast thou blessed with spiritual food and drink and eternal life46 through thy Child. 4. Above all we give thanks to thee for that thou art mighty. To thee be glory forever. 5. Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and gather it together in its holiness from the four winds to thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it. For thine is the power and the glory forever. 6. Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hosannah to the God of David. If any man be holy, let him come! if any man be not, let him repent: Maranatha, Amen." 7. But suffer the prophets to hold eucharist as they will.

Here are a number of very important Johannine reminiscences. The cup is the vine, "made known through Jesus thy Child." The bread is broken and scattered "on the mountains."The bread gives "life," "eternal life," and "knowledge," which again had been revealed in Jesus. In the story in Jn the fragments were gathered together into twelve baskets, and its gathering together in the Didache signified the reunion of the Church, a direct adaptation of a Jewish-Messianic prayer for the reunion of the scattered tribes. The concluding prayer echoes the Johannine idea that they are "filled and Jesus is "tabernacling," through the eucharist, in our hearts; but the allusion seems clear. Those who partake of the eucharist are different from all others, further, in that they take the "spiritual food and drink along with eternal life" through Jesus, which is an echo of the figure of the manna, though in the phrase with which Paul referred to it rather than Jn.52 The fishes have already disappeared, and in the final line the Didache shows that "prophets" could and did celebrate differently. Whether this is a reference to celebration according to the soon to become standard tradition of Paul-Mk we cannot say. Oesterley has made it quite clear that the Didache formula is itself an adaptation of Jewish liturgy, since unquestionable traces of identity still survive in spite of the number of editing hands through which the Jewish and Christian traditions have gone. When Jn 6 is considered with them, as it does not occur to Oesterley to do, parallels with the Jewish prayer increase. This evidence we cannot discuss here. The evidence which Oesterley presents, however, shows that the gathering together in the Didache of the Church from the four winds, as a result of the bread broken and brought together upon the mountains, is an adaptation of a Messianic prayer that the twelve tribes be gathered together from the four corners of the earth when the "ensign" appears upon the mountains.

In terms of Jewish mystic thought, which seems to me to have been the starting point of Christian formulations of the sacrament, the twelve baskets, continuing the twelve tribes of the Jewish prayer, would make the Christian ceremony a rite of what Philo and later the Christians called the "true Israel." When the twelve become the seven, and the loaves are seven, in the Markan account of the four thousand the whole is made more directly into a celebration of the Logos in terms of the mystic seven. The seven is definitely the more sophisticated number, and it is interesting that it is found in Mk, along with the original twelve, rather than in Jn which knows only the more primitive five and twelve. Had the author of Jn had the Markan seven before him I am sure he would have preferred it. The exact history of the rite will never be reconstructed from our evidence. But the evidence together indicates that the eucharist in the early Church was actually celebrated in terms of the miraculous feeding, and that the value of the rite as thus celebrated was that in it one partook of Christ's body and blood, which brought "eternal life" and "gnosis."

It is this celebration in a primitive form which the Johannine account reflects. Apparently its author had never heard of another form of celebration. Already by the time of the composition of Mk, however, this story had ceased in many circles to be the official account of the institution of the eucharist. Mark has heard another and much better account of the institution, and so, while the multiplication of the loaves was still to him a sacred story, carefully preserved in two versions (presumably as told in two different communities), it was no longer his story of the institution.

For Paul, under stress of inner disquiet, as such things usually happen, had meanwhile "received from the Lord" the tremendous revelation of the institution at the Last Supper. This story of the institution must rapidly have supplanted the other, and become the one rehearsed at the consecration of the elements. It was much better adapted to the purpose. Still, I suspect from Christian art that the fishes were long an actual part of the eucharistic food, and from this the Christ-fish symbol got its popularity. But that, I have said, is too long a story to rehearse here.

The point is that Jn presents us with the miraculous feeding as the story of the institution, while Paul and the Synoptics present the Last Supper. That the author of Jn knew but rejected or ignored the Pauline story, and created in its place a eucharistic meaning for the story of the feeding as told by Mk is possible. But in view of the later unbroken loyalty of the Church to the Pauline account, this is a much less likely hypothesis (and this is all we can hope to show) than that Jn actually tells the original story of the institution, tells it because it is the only one he knows. At the time Jn was composed Paul may have already told his version in the letter to the Corinthians, along with his passing allusion to the earlier account. But Paul's new story seems at once to have got such wide popularity that Jn would naturally be dated, if not earlier, at least not much later.

With this argument goes the generally admitted fact that Jn preserves the true (or original) date of the Last Supper in making it fall upon the evening before the day when the paschal lamb would have been killed and eaten, while the Synoptics all agree in making the Last Supper the Passover meal itself. The arguments for preferring Jn's date need not be rehearsed here. Enslin suggests that Jn changed the Synoptic date so that the death of Jesus would coincide with the killing of the paschal lambs, but this is highly artificial. For Jn did not change the date. Jn tells the right date because the author knew it and had no reason to change it. It was in the Paul-Mark tradition of the founding of the eucharist at the Last Supper that the date became changed, for it was in that tradition that the eucharist became the meal when the Christians ate not the manna from heaven but the "lamb that was slain."

True, Jesus was "The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" to Jn (1 29), but this was not a figure from the Jewish paschal lamb: it was the lamb led to slaughter of Is 53 7, which in turn was the lamb of sacrifice of Ex 29 38-41. Nothing in Jn associates Jesus with the lamb of Passover.

It is Paul, in the very letter in which he tells of the Last Supper, who insists that Christ is our Passover, killed or sacrificed for us. In saying this Paul has the eucharist in mind as appears from the way he goes on to discuss the true unleavened bread (I Cor 5: 7). The date of the Supper was changed, that is, to equate the eucharist with passover. The author of Jn, who knew nothing of all this, left the original date. From this again we should presume that Jn is an early account as compared with Mk.

Other details might be considered to indicate an early date for the Gospel, but they would be incidental, and the case must stand or fall with these.

doxa & sarx

2011-11-16T12:33:00.005-05:00

John:1[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

The Greek word sarx means 'flesh' and is the root of 'sarcophagus', while the Greek word doxa means 'common opinion', or 'belief', and is the root of 'orthodoxy'.

Strangely, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, the Hebrew word for 'glory' was rendered into Greek as 'doxa'. Thus, in our passage above, the opposition is between sarx and doxa, or flesh and glory. I take this "glory" to be the glorified body of the Risen Lord, or spirit-body.

The great paradox so strongly emphasized in the Fourth Gospel is, that the Creator joined the created, not only becoming flesh but becoming subject to every aspect of fleshly existence-- creatureliness if you will-- such as humiliation and death on the cross. Thus the immortal God (deathless one in Greek) became a mortal man; the Logos became sarx and dwelt among us and we beheld his doxa.

The very claim that a god who was 'athanatos' (deathless) could become flesh and be executed must have seemed inconceivably paradoxical to the ancient mind. (Note, in passing, how doxa has crept into our discussion again as paradox.)

Great Aunt Mary

2011-11-16T11:13:00.003-05:00

Mary Manassas Eager Joiner with granddaughters Dorothy Lee Joiner, Nancy Stuart Joiner & Mary Eager Joiner, about 1926. Photo provided by Leroy Gharis.

Birth: Aug. 17, 1861
Clinton
Hinds County
Mississippi, USA
Death: Jul. 30, 1953
Arlington
Tarrant County
Texas, USA

Born to Reverend Eleazer C. Eager (1813-1899) & Harriet Ide Eager (1815-1879). Mary was named for the Battle of Manassas, also known as Bull Run, which was fought on July 21, 1861, in Prince William County, Virginia, near the City of Manassas. It was the first major land battle of the Civil War. While it was a decisive Confederate victory, both sides were sobered by the violence and casualties of the battle, and they realized that the war would potentially be much longer and bloodier than they had originally anticipated.

Mary married Rev. James Monroe Joiner, a Baptist minister, on Oct. 16, 1884, in Brownsville, TN. Her father married them.

Both James Joiner & Mary Eager were the children of Baptist preachers. After their marriage, James & Mary were Baptist missionaries with Lottie Moon to China from 1884 to 1887, where two of their children were born. They returned to the U.S. for health reasons or "in broken health" as "A Century of Protestant Missions in China," published 1907, states. By 1904, James & Mary were pastor and first lady of the Baptist church in Elkton, Kentucky.

Children: Webb Broadus Joiner (1885-1967), James Patrick Joiner (1887-1971) & Mary Eager Joiner Evans (2/6/1891 in AL-?).

After returning to the US, they lived in Robertson County, TN, in 1900. By 1910, they were in Hamilton County, TX. They moved frequently following the call to pastor different churches. In 1930, Mary, now a widow, was living with her daughter, Mary Joiner Evans and her husband, Joe Evans, in Shelby County, TN. In 1938, she moved to Arlington, TX, to be near her son, Webb. She died at age 91.

Family links:
Parents:
Eleazer Chapin Eager (1813 - 1899)
Harriet Ide Eager (1815 - 1879)

Spouse:
James Monroe Joiner (1849 - 1914)

Children:
Webb Broadus Joiner (1885 - 1967)
James Patrick Joiner (1887 - 1971)

Burial:
Oakland Cemetery
Dallas
Dallas County
Texas, USA
Plot: Section 8, west 1/4 of Lot 140; call 214-421-2244

Who Baptized Jesus in Gs Lk?

2011-11-11T08:46:00.002-05:00

If we had only Luke's gospel, who would we conclude had baptized Jesus? Couldn't have been John, since he was in prison!

Luke 3:
[19] But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Hero'di-as, his brother's wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, [20] added this to them all, that he shut up John in prison. [21] Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, [22] and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

George Fox to the Lord Chancellor

2011-11-09T13:37:00.004-05:00

"I am a prisoner at Lancaster, committed by Justice Porter. A copy of the mittimus [a warrant of commitment to prison] I cannot get, but such expressions I am told are in it as are very untrue; as that I am generally suspected to be a common disturber of the nation's peace, an enemy to the King, and that I, with others, endeavour to raise insurrections to embroil the nation in blood; all of which is utterly false, and I do, in every part thereof, deny it.

"For I am not a person generally suspected to be a disturber of the nation's peace, nor have I given any cause for such suspicion; for through the nation I have been tried for these things formerly. In the days of Oliver I was taken up on pretence of raising arms against him, which was also false; for I meddled not with raising arms at all. Yet I was then carried up a prisoner to London, and brought before him; when I cleared myself, and denied the drawing of a carnal weapon against him, or any man upon the earth; for my weapons are spiritual, which take away the occasion of war, and lead into peace. Upon my declaring this to Oliver, I was set at liberty by him.

"After this I was taken and sent to prison by Major Ceely in Cornwall, who, when I was brought before the judge, informed against me that I took him aside, and told him that I could raise forty thousand men in an hour's time, to involve the nation in blood, and bring in King Charles. This also was utterly false, and a lie of his own inventing as was then proved upon him for I never spoke any such word to him.

"I never was found in any plot; I never took any engagement or oath; nor have I ever learned war-postures. As those were false charges against me then, so are these now which come from Major Porter, who is lately appointed to be justice, but formerly wanted power to exercise his cruelty against us; which is but the wickedness of the old enemy. The peace of the nation I am not a disturber of, nor ever was; but I seek the peace of it, and of all men, and stand for all nations' peace, and all men's peace upon the earth, and wish all knew my innocency in these things.

"And whereas Major Porter saith I am an enemy to the King, this is false; for my love is to him and to all men, even though they be enemies to God, to themselves, and to me. And I can say it is of the Lord that the King is come in, to bring down many unrighteously set up; of which I had a sight [prophetic vision]three years before he came in. It is much Major Porter should say I am an enemy to the King; for I have no reason so to be, he having done nothing against me.

"But I have been often imprisoned and persecuted these eleven or twelve years by those that have been both against the King and his father, even the party by whom Porter was made a major and for whom he bore arms; but not by them that were for the King. I was never an enemy to the King, nor to any man's person upon the earth. I am in the love that fulfils the law, which thinks no evil, but loves even enemies; and would have the King saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, and be brought into the fear of the Lord, to receive His wisdom from above, by which all things were made and created; that with that wisdom he may order all things to the glory of God.

"Whereas he calleth me 'A chief upholder of the Quakers' sect,' I answer: The Quakers are not a sect, but are in the power of God, which was before sects were, and witness the election before the world began, and are come to live in the life in which the prophets and apostles lived, who gave forth the Scriptures; therefore are we hated by envious, wrathful, wicked, persecuting men. But God is the upholder of us all by His mighty power, and preserves us from the wrath of the wicked that would swallow us up.

"And whereas he saith that I, together with others of my fanatic opinion, as he calls it, have of late endeavoured to raise insurrections, and to embroil the whole kingdom in blood, I answer, This is altogether false. To these things I am as a child; I know nothing of them. The postures of war I never learned; my weapons are spiritual and not carnal, for with carnal weapons I do not fight. I am a follower of Him who said, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' and though these lies and slanders are raised upon me, I deny drawing any carnal weapon against the King or Parliament, or any man upon the earth. For I am come to the end of the Law, but am in that which saves men's lives. A witness I am against all murderers, plotters, and all such as would imbrue the nation in blood; for it is not in my heart to have any man's life destroyed.

"And as for the word fanatic, which signifies furious, foolish, mad, etc., he might have considered himself before he had used that word, and have learned the humility which goes before honour. We are not furious, foolish, or mad; but through patience and meekness have borne lies, slanders and persecutions many years, and have undergone great sufferings. The spiritual man, that wrestles not with flesh and blood, and the Spirit that reproves sin in the gate, which is the Spirit of Truth, wisdom, and sound judgment, is not mad, foolish, furious, which fanatic signifies; but all are of a mad, furious, foolish spirit that in their furiousness, foolishness and rage wrestle with flesh and blood, with carnal weapons. This is not the Spirit of God, but of error, that persecutes in a mad, blind zeal, like Nebuchadnezzar and Saul.

"Inasmuch as I am ordered to be kept prisoner till I be delivered by order from the King or Parliament, therefore I have written these things to be laid before you, the King and Parliament, that ye may consider of them before ye act anything therein; that ye may weigh, in the wisdom of God, the intent and end of men's spirits, lest ye act the thing that will bring the hand of the Lord upon you and against you, as many who have been in authority have done before you, whom God hath overthrown. In Him we trust whom we fear and cry unto day and night, who hath heard us, doth hear us, and will hear us, and avenge our cause. Much innocent blood hath been shed. Many have been persecuted to death by such as were in authority before you, whom God hath vomited out because they turned against the just. Therefore consider your standing now that ye have the day, and receive this as a warning of love to you.

"From an innocent sufferer in bonds, and close prisoner in Lancaster Castle, called

"George Fox

2011-11-07T16:49:00.002-05:00

Lilies

2011-11-07T15:57:00.004-05:00

This World

2011-11-04T13:59:00.010-04:00

The message of the New Testament is, for many, obscured by the mythological language in which it is expressed, and by the mythological world-picture which the NT presupposes and in which it is embedded. It is no use trying to allegorize these mythological elements, as for instance by saying that various miracles which modern people find incredible are really just symbolic. The healing of a blind man might indeed be a fit metaphor for enlightening those whose understanding is darkened; turning water into wine could symbolize a change in the age from the insubstantial theology of Judaism to the intoxicating message of Jesus. Okay… that’s not a very good one. The point is that to allegorize the NT is not an acceptable exegetical procedure. The text meant that the blind were healed and the water was turned into wine literally. We can accept that or not, but that is what was meant.

So getting rid of the mythology by rendering it inoffensive through rationalization is not acceptable. Bultmann correctly realized that modern theology has to confront the question head on: does the NT has anything to say to modern man once it is demythologized? And the answer is Yes, it does.

If we consider the picture of Man presented in the NT of course we have the mythological ‘history’ of The Fall, of Adam’s disobedience, of the world polluted by Sin, and by Death as a consequence. I certainly do not think of death as a lurking presence in the world introduced by a personified Sin. Death is a natural process without which our existence as living creatures would be impossible. Not do I think that the persuasive powers of a talking snake in an idyllic primordial garden has any reality.

The underlying concepts which are explained by this mythological language can be understood by modern men, however. The NT emphasizes freedom and responsibility. Paul speaks of “flesh” , not meaning man’s sensual nature but rather meaning the entire sphere of what is visible and manageable, which comes to determine man’s existence only when man’s decides to “live according to it.” He desires to find his fleshly existence secure and this desire gives “the flesh” its fatal influence over him. He finds his existence in the creature, rather than in the Creator, and this transforms “the world” into “this world” of sin and death, delivering the man living according to the flesh up as a man in bondage to it.

Man’s attempt to secure his life transforms for the worse his relations with his fellow men. The dependence on the transitory things of this world finds its expression in a loveless relation to his neighbors. Everyone, anxious to secure his own existence, pursues his own interests with an utter disregard for the needs of others. Thus arises the Hobbesian war of all against all.

Salvation from this fate cannot be achieved by following the Jewish law. That much is plain. The atmosphere of self-seeking and hatred, relieved only by the morality of contract and convention, is precisely what the Fourth Gospel means by “this world.” To be “of this world” is exactly to live bound by certain conventional standards and values. The Pharisees are of this world precisely because of their obsession with rule-making and rule-breaking. They are slaves to man-made convention and to the tyranny of public opinion.

If this is the NT portrait of the natural man, what is the path of escape from this world of bondage and this fleshly way of life? In the NT a radical life of freedom is offered through faith (trust in God) and through the workings of the Spirit. The Christian’s faith need not be in the historicity of a list of miracles, but rather is trust in God, and obedience to the command to love one’s neighbor and to love God. Over and over Jesus tells us to observe the lilies of the field and the ravens, to trust in Divine Providence, to let go of the grasping attachments of this world. To trust God, to love others, and to be guided by the Holy Spirit is the heart of NT kerygma, and that is the "new man" Paul wrote of, in person in this world but not of this world.

The critique of modern life that is implicit in this message is just as pointed now as it was 2000 years ago. The false belief that an authentic existence can be achieved through one's own efforts leads to the futile striving for righteousness based on prideful piety and rule-mongering. Indeed, the letter killeth! Paul's message is actually easier to understand once the clumsy Semitisms and archaic mythological language is stripped away. The freedom from the past and the ability to embrace the future is the gift of Gos's grace.

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted;he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,to proclaim liberty to the captives,and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. ~Isa. 61:1 // Lk 4:18

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. ~2 Cor.3:17

Romans 5

2011-10-26T12:08:00.007-04:00

I wanted to make these remarks in a much more careful and classically exegetical way, but my impatience runneth away with me and I decided to jump right in, heedlessly.

In Romans 5 Paul deals with the problem (of his own making) that while he says Christ has conquered sin and death, there still seems to be plenty of sin and death around. The hope of the Christians is well founded he says: "Hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us." So that gift of the HS, you might say, is the down payment on the life believers receive through the work of the cross, and the justification effected by Christ's death for us, through the grace of God and not through our own merit.

So far, fine. This is Pauline thinking, no doubt of that.

Now starting in Verse 12 is a mixed up argument. Let's follow along.

5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --

Sin entered the world because Adam sinned; death followed the sin; and therefore death spread to everyone because all men sinned. Hmmm. Well, this is a bit strange I think. We have sin and death like a plague, a highly infectious plague, and once in the world, you're done for.

5:13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Now we are informed that sin entered the world with Adam, and was in the world before Moses, but that before the Mosaic Law, sin is not counted. So the sin is out there but all the folks before Moses, though sinners, can't be charged with sinning because the law was not yet in effect. Quite the neat rabbinical loophole, huh? So Cain killing Able was sinful? ....or not? Cain should have said, "Show me where it says I cannot kill my brother" instead of the "not my brother's keeper" plea.

5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Adams's sin = disobedience. Even folks who figured out other sins to commit were under death's rule before Moses. Adam is a type, or forerunner, of Jesus. Jesus will be the obedience "do-over" for Adam, and this will set everything straight.

5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

Here Paul starts to slide into incoherence. What he wants to do is to set up a perfect parallelism.

Adam : Jesus
Sin : Justification / Righteousness (should be Virtue, or similar)
Death : Life

His clumsy Jewish language of justification or righteousness is not really the opposite of sin, so Paul begins to flounder, substituting "trespass" for sin and "free gift" as its opposite. Sin and trespass are presumably understood as actions or behaviors that are morally bad. The opposite of that should be 'virtue', or perhaps 'good works' (horrors!!) though of course Paul can't say THAT. So trespass is set up as the antonym to "free gift." But the free gift is acquittal, or vindication,-- unmerited justification before God of a sinful believer-- so its opposite should be condemnation.

5:16 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

Now poor Paul goes off on a tangent further weakening his parallelism, stating frankly that the free gift is not like the trespass, but has a cool feature of literary interest, namely that one man (Adam) sinned and consequently many died, while one man died (Jesus) and many were given the gift of life.

5:17-19 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Verses 17, 18, and 19 just recite the Adam // Jesus parallelism in a variety of ways.

5:20-21 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The theme of the law as the cause of sin, or a spur to increased sin, is emphasized, along with the odd silver lining that because there was more sin, when Jesus arrived there was even more grace. So hooray!!! More grace! In the next chapter Paul will try to extricate himself from the seeming implication that more sin is good, because it occasions more grace when forgiven.

Paul consistently preaches that sin is caused by, or occasioned by, or somehow brought into the world by, the command of God not to sin (e.g. the Law, the command to Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge). How this can be maintained without the implication that God himself is the cause of sin, and of evil in the world, is hard to see. Paul seems to fan the flames of the theodicy problem rather than provide a solution to it. Is there an "Evil God of the World" lurking here? Why is Satan and the snake and even Eve not mentioned? Why is repentence not a pre-condition of the "free gift"?

It is hard, and worthwhile, to follow along the Apostle's thinking, and see if sense can be made of it. It is no use pretending that Paul is always clear, or even coherent, because he isn't. There are many gnostic ideas lurking here in Romans and even more in 1 Corinthians. The main gnostic theme, of the sin of the primordial man and the Gnostic Redeemer from above, is played out in Romans 5.

World Ends. No One Notices

2011-10-21T16:04:00.005-04:00

We have learned that except for a somewhat different understanding of the words “earthquake” and “rapture” or “catching up” no other past teachings of Judgment Day or the end of the world have been changed. The time line, the certainty of it, the proofs, and the signs are all precisely the same. No other past teachings have been changed or modified. Indeed, on May 21 Christ did come spiritually to put all of the unsaved throughout the world into judgment. But that universal judgment will not be physically seen until the last day of the five month judgment period, on October 21, 2011.

We have also learned that God is still teaching that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked and will not punish the wicked beyond what is called for in Deuteronomy 25. That is, there is a distinct limit to God’s wrath.

Thus we can be sure that the whole world, with the exception of those who are presently saved (the elect), are under the judgment of God, and will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on October 21, 2011, on the last day of the present five months period. On that day the true believers (the elect) will be raptured. We must remember that only God knows who His elect are that He saved prior to May 21.

You, too, without your knowledge may have become saved before that date. Anyone can continue to beseech God for mercy because salvation and the election program are entirely in God’s hands.

Seeing and Believing

2011-10-13T19:21:00.003-04:00

In our Fourth Gospel the famous story of the disciple Thomas not believing in the resurrection until he actually sees the risen Lord is related. A disciple, who had seen many wonders, a disciple of great loyalty who on a former occasion pledged his willingness to die with Jesus, still found the resurrection incredible, until he saw, and then believed.

Jesus said on this occasion, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

In the matter of faith I certainly do not think that Christian faith consists in a list of hard-to-believe wondrous events of long ago which the person of faith nevertheless says he believes in.

Probably most people actually do mean this sort of list of implausibles when they speak of "their faith" or "the Christian faith."

I however consider that faith is simply trust in God. Very likely the old saying that "seeing is believing" should be reversed in the case of religious experience: when you believe, then you can see.

Pretty facile, this. Sorry. It's my idea that the faith -- that is, the trust in God-- most naturally precedes any particulars. Throughout the Bible even the mighty men of God like Gideon have been notably deficient in their trust of God. Over and over Gideon asks for various "signs", basically divine magic tricks. The Almighty plays along: He was more a Good Ol' Boy back then. Well, don't put God to the test! He doesn't like it.

Still, it has been my personal experience that if you read scripture and open your heart, and let that trust come, it will come.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Confession at Caesarea Philippi

2011-10-09T16:08:00.014-04:00

The Marcan pericope called the Confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-33) is memorable for Jesus’ harsh “Get behind me, Satan” rebuke to Peter. The so-called Messianic Secret of the Gospel of Mark is neatly exemplified in this pericope. Jesus asks who the disciples say he is, Peter replies as spokesman for the disciples that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus orders them not to tell anyone this.

Exegetes such as W. Wrede and R. Bultmann have argued that Peter’s confession and Jesus reaction establishes the whole pericope as a post-Easter creation of the evangelist because the suffering dying-and-rising messiah is not attested in Judaism.

But this could not have been what Peter meant by 'Messiah’ prior to the resurrection, as demonstrated by his horror at Jesus' teaching that dying-and-rising was on the agenda.

Let’s accept, as a premise, that some such interaction occurred. First of all, it does not seem to serve any apologetic interest for Jesus to call Peter ‘Satan’! One might posit an anti-Petrine source for this saying, but that hardly stands up to the otherwise basically positive portrait of Peter provided up to this point in Mark.

In the Matthean version, Peter’s confession is followed by the obviously much later “on this rock I build my church” praise of Peter, just before the Satan remark. In Luke, who tolerates no negative portraits of the disciples, especially Peter (who is his counter-weight to Paul), the Satan quip is eliminated altogether.

For these reasons is seems not improbable that the tradition is preserving a genuinely early tradition of a saying of Jesus, which might well actually go back to Jesus himself. Would anyone make up a saying wherein Jesus calls his chief disciple Satan? I think not. But if this memorable saying was known, then a softening context might be contrived to explain it.

But the explanation of Jesus about how he must suffer and die is plainly a post-Easter addition, tailored to fit the Christian understanding of a suffering servant sort of Messiah. Mark wants to say that this was what Jesus understood, that this was his Messianic consciousness, and that Peter not understanding this was the occasion for the rebuke.

This however is impossible. Everyone, all the disciples, and Jesus, along with all the Jews of the first century, understood the messianic hope as promising a political Messiah. The political this-worldly Messiah is what Peter thought Jesus was, and saying so was the real occasion for the rebuke. After the Christianization of the political Messiah into a suffering and dying Messiah, the story was reworked into what we see in the canonical Mark. I have indicated in red the added narrative frame and post-Easter Christianization elements, with the original saying in black.

MARK 8:27-33
Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?”

And they answered him , “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”

And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

And he said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him.

But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus, the apocalyptic prophet of the Kingdom of God, rejects the this-worldly ruler type of Messiah, and likens this to the temptation by Satan in the wilderness (from Q, in Mt 4:8-10 // Lk 4:5-7).

The first part of the dialogue is filled with problems. Does not Jesus know what people say about him? Why would people think he was John the Baptist or Elijah? Do dead prophets reappear in other bodies? The Baptist after all was a contemporary of Jesus, so how Jesus could in any sense become possessed by John the Baptist is especially obscure.

All this however is just a setting for the nugget of authentic tradition that Mark had in his source: Peter said Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus rebuked him saying “Get behind me, Satan.” In the post-Easter church this required reworking, with the addition of a passion prediction and a new reason for the rebuke.

It may be that the command to silence is historical in the sense that Jesus instructed followers not to say he was the Messiah, because he was not the Messiah, and did not think he was.

Interestingly, in an analogous scene in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 6:66-70) Jesus transfers the Satan saying to Judas, saying “one of you is a devil.”

It seems as if it was known that one of the Twelve was referred to in this unflattering way, even if exactly when, where and why was no longer precisely remembered.

Rule of Three

2011-10-03T10:26:00.001-04:00

Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich are taking a break together, fishing on Lake Geneva. They are having a lovely time, smoking their pipes, chatting idly.

It's hot and they are getting thirsty. So Karl Barth gets up, steps out of the boat, and walks across the water to the shore, gets some beers and returns.It's quite hot so the beer doesn't last long.

Barth tells Tillich: "your turn, Paul". Tillich gets up, steps outside the boat, walks across the water, and fetches some beer.It is getting really hot now, and the beer is finished once again. Bultmann is beginning to sweat particularly profusely... and finally Barth asks him too: "Come on, Rudolf, your turn now."

With a slight tremor in his knees, Bultmann gets up, steps out of the boat, and sinks like a stone. Fortunately he is a good swimmer; he drags himself back into the boat and sulks at the far end.Tillich turns to Barth and says: "Do you think we should have told him where the stepping stones are?"

Barth looks at him in astonishment and replies: "What stones?"

Rudolf Bultmann

2011-10-02T13:20:00.006-04:00

Rudolf Bultmann was a Christian theologian, historian and exegete whose influence on New Testament criticism and method pervades the scholarship of the last seventy years. Professor Bultmann spent his long academic career almost entirely at the University of Marburg, from whence the influence of the groundbreaking historian and theologian radiated throughout the post-war period. His student Ernst Kasemann effectively initiated the new quest for the historical Jesus. The fruitful and exacting form critical method Bultmann pioneered shed and continues to shed new light on the NT texts. To read his 1926 monograph in The Journal of Religion ,“The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem”, is like being present at the moment of contemporary Bible scholarship’s first birth pangs.

Plainly Rudolf Bultmann is in the front rank of NT historians, and is comparable in importance to Adolph von Harnack and Walter Bauer. Of course all three are now regularly contradicted, disavowed, disproved and so on: which is the natural fate of intellectual figures of gigantic importance and undeniable erudition, whose work was comprehensive in its scope and boldly original in its conception. Scholars of the stature of Harnack, Bauer and Bultmann are the veritable standard against which the efforts that followed are judged.

Having said so much in praise of Bultmann’s historical scholarship, I must confess that his importance as a theologian was unknown to me. At Marburg, he was on the theological faculty, and this might have served as a big hint. It develops that Bultmann’s significance as a theologian -- and as a witness to the Christian faith that was integral to his self-understanding -- is comparable to that of his friends Karl Barth, Reinhold Neibuhr and Paul Tillich. His Theology of the New Testament is ranked as the most influential theological work of the 20th century.

With this introduction I will quote the opening section of Bultmann’s 1941 essay entitled “New Testament and Theology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation.”

Mythical World Picture and Mythical Salvation Occurrence in the New Testament

The world picture of the New Testament is a mythical world picture. The world is a three story structure, with earth in the middle, heaven above it, and hell below it. Heaven in the dwelling place of God and of heavenly figures, the angels; the world below is hell, the place of torment. But the earth is not simply the scene of natural day-to-day occurrences, of foresight and work that reckon with order and regularity; rather it, too, is a theater for the working of supernatural powers, God and his angels, Satan and his demons. These supernatural powers intervene in natural occurrences and in the thinking, willing, and acting of human beings; wonders are nothing unusual. Human beings are not their own masters; demons can possess them, and Satan can put bad ideas into their heads. But God, too, can direct their thinking and willing, send them heavenly visions, allow them to hear his commanding or comforting word, give them the supernatural power of his Spirit. History does not run its own steady, lawful course but is moved and guided by supernatural powers. This age stands under the power of Satan, sin, and death (which are precisely “powers”). It is hastening toward its imminent end, which will take place in a cosmic catastrophe. It stands before the “woes” of the last days, the coming of the heavenly judge, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment to salvation or damnation.

The presentation of the salvation occurrence, which constitutes the real content of the New Testament proclamation, corresponds to this mythical world picture. The proclamation talks in mythological language: the last days are at hand; “when the time had fully come” God sent his Son.

The Son, a preexistent divine being, appears on earth as a man (Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff; 2 Cor. 8:9; John 1:14, etc.); his death on the cross, which he suffers as a sinner (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 8:3), makes atonement for the sins of men (Rom. 3:23-26; 4:25; 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:14, 19; John 1:29; 1 John 2:2, etc.).

His resurrection is the beginning of a cosmic catastrophe through which the death brought into the world by Adam is annihilated (1 Cor. 2:6; Rom. 5:12 ff.); the demonic powers of the world have lost their power ( 1 Cor. 2:6; Col. 2:15; Rev. 12:7 ff., etc.). The risen one has been exalted to heaven at the right hand of God (Acts 1:6ff.; 2:33; Rom. 8:34, etc.); he has been made “Lord” and “King” (Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:25). He will return on the clouds of heaven to complete the work of salvation; then will take place the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment (1 Cor. 15:23-24; 50ff., etc.); finally, sin, death and all suffering will be done away (Rev. 21:4, etc.).

And this will all happen at any moment; Paul supposes that he himself will live to see this event( 1 Thess. 4:15 ff.; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; see also Mk 9:10.

Anyone who belongs to Christ’s community is bound to the Lord by baptism and the Lord’s Supper and is certain to be raised to salvation providing he or she does not behave unworthily (Rom: 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15:21ff., 44bff.). Believers already have “the first fruits” (Rom. 8:23) or the “guarantee” (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5), that is, the Spirit, which works in them, bearing witness that they are children of God (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) and guaranteeing their resurrection (Rom. 8:11).

The Impossibility of Repristinating the Mythical World Picture

All of this is mythological talk, and the individual motifs may be easily traced to the contemporary mythology of Jewish apocalypticism and of the Gnostic myth of redemption. In so far as it is mythological talk, it is incredible to men and women of today because for them the mythical world picture is a thing of the past. Therefore, the contemporary Christian proclamation is faced with the question whether, when it demands faith from men and women, it expects them to acknowledge this mythical world picture from the past. If this is impossible, it has to face the question whether the New Testament proclamation has a truth that is independent of the mythical world picture, in which case it would be the task of theology to demythologize the Christian proclamation.

Can the Christian proclamation today expect men and women to acknowledge the mythical world picture as true? To do so would be both pointless and impossible. It would be pointless because there is nothing specifically Christian about the mythical world picture, which is simply the world picture of a time now past which was not yet formed by scientific thinking. It would be impossible because no one can appropriate a world picture by sheer resolve, since it is already given with one’s historical situation.

…

It is entirely possible that in a past mythical world picture truths may be rediscovered that were lost during a period of enlightenment; and theology has every reason to ask whether this may be possible in the case of the world picture of the New Testament. But it is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work, and Wilhelm Hermann made clear, one would have thought, once and for all.

Paul's Theology and Marcion's Innovation

2011-09-27T08:46:00.004-04:00

Paul did not just believe that the Messiah was to come; he had come. The victory is not merely in the future; it has been won. The kingdom of God, the realm of the Spirit, is not just an expectation of the Christian believer; in the church that kingdom is really (though partially) present. The Spirit, which has been given us, is a foretaste of the full eschatological kingdom of God. Paul provides intriguing details about the return of the Lord, as for example 1 Thess. 4:13ff., where the famous ‘rapture’ is described, with living believers being ‘caught up in the air’ and so forth, while the dead believers also receive their spirit bodies and proceed upwards. This account is passed on by Paul as “a word of the Lord”, which we can but take as information conveyed from Jesus directly to Paul.

Many of Paul’s ideas are strange and next to indecipherable, at least to modern readers who have only his letters to rely on. Since the parousia which Paul expected did not occur and has not occurred thus far, it seems natural to ask how Paul’s theology retained its credibility and became central to the Christian message over the succeeding centuries.

Two events which Paul did not live to see were decisive I think. The first was the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The effect of this must have been electrifying in early Christianity, appearing as it must have done to be a mighty punishment of the unbelieving Jews who connived at killing Jesus, and secondly, as an undoubted fulfillment of Jesus own threat of destruction against the temple. That much having dramatically come to pass , the pressure was somewhat reduced for the immediate return of Jesus to usher in the new age of peace, justice and righteousness.

The second event, which Paul could hardly have imagined, was the elevation of his own letters to the status of scripture by the visionary heretic and staunch Pauline Christian, Marcion of Sinope. In the Marcionite Bible, there were two parts: Gospel (being an early version of 'Luke'), and Apostle (being the seven undisputed letters of Paul, plus Colossians and Ephesians). The crisis precipitated by Marcion being first in the field with a canon of scripture forced the proto-orthodox (= church of Rome) to either disavow Paul, or include him, embrace him, and somehow take the heretical sting away.

Disavowing Paul was not in the cards at all. A known apostle could not be left to the heretics!

What was done was this: All the letters that Marcion had, as well as some more (forged in Paul’s name) were acknowledged by the Roman church. The added letters were Timothy and Titus, such self-evident frauds that even church fathers suspected them. Then, to dilute the effect of Marcion’s bible further still, more letters written supposedly by other important figures were scouted up. Thus James, Jude, Hebrews, and Peter made their appearance confirming (wonderful good fortune!) proto-orthodox ideas.

More clever, and more telling, that this rummaging around for letters was the creation of an orthodox counter to Marcion’s Gospel and Apostle: this was the pair of books known in our canon as Luke-Acts. To the primitive Luke known to Marcion were added three opening chapters with infancy details to counter the Marcionite docetism. In Acts of the Apostles, there are really only two apostles -- Peter and Paul-- and while Paul is the hero of Acts, he is at all points subject to control from Jerusalem and Peter, to an extent that the historical Paul would have found extremely offensive. The many contradictions between the letters of Paul and Acts have bothered scholars for two thousand years, but the success of the ploy can be seen by the continued reliance of most to accept Acts over Paul’s own testimony about what he thought, said, did, and preached.

Thus did the Roman church co-opt Marcion's Gospel and Apostle innovation with their own bifurcated scripture, first of all Luke-Acts, then subsequently the fourfold gosple and greatly enlarged epistle section.

Sin & Death

2011-09-26T08:49:00.004-04:00

One of the stranger aspects of Paul’s theology is his conception of Sin and Death as personified forces to be overcome, and which have been in fact overcome by Christ. These demonic enemies got us in bondage through Adam’s disobedience. "…death held sway from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned as Adam did, by disobeying a direct command.--- and Adam foreshadows the man who was to come". ~Rom. 5:10-14.

How this works precisely is far from clear. Paul seizes on any metaphor he can: Christ pays our ransom; Christ is a sufficient sacrifice for our sin; Christ wins a victory over our demonic enemies. Paul writes in Second Corinthians that, “Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with human sinfulness, so that we might be made one with the righteousness of God.” Why God should do it that particular way is hard to imagine. For the apostle, using his reverse logic, it is plain that God in fact did it that way, and for Paul further inquiry is unnecessary and probably fruitless.

Paul is a thoroughgoing apocalypticist. He believes that the End of the Age is at hand. How the humble life of Jesus, his death and resurrection, could have had the saving effect Paul writes of is not explained in his writings. Be that as it may, it is evident that Paul believed it, and we have to suppose that the case was convincingly made to his churches through Paul’s preaching.

The evidence for both Paul and his churches that the Change of the Age is at hand is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the mighty works of God that they understood to be at work, and which validated their faith as no doctrinal argument could.

Women at Tomb: MIA in Paul

2011-09-21T09:47:00.004-04:00

Not only does the Apostle to the Gentiles not mention the Empty Tomb, but he does not number the women at the tomb in the 1 Cor 15 list of those who saw the resurrected Jesus. The list is:
1. Cephas
2. The Twelve
3. 500 brothers and sisters at the same time
4. James, brother of J
5. All the Apostles
6. Paul

In Mark, the women see the empty tomb and run away afraid, telling no one. But in Mt 28, Mary Mags and The Other Mary see Jesus. In Luke, the women (Mary Mags, Mary mother of James, and Joanna) see angels but not Jesus.

I had not noticed this interesting omission in Paul. It seems to be in agreement with Paul's "spirit-body" or Glorified Body resurrection, though. Perhaps Paul was not concerned with the revivified corpse concept. Of course in the Fourth Gospel, we have the scene where Mary Mags mistakes J for the gardener (because he spoke in Spanish?)... and then revealed himself as the Risen Jesus, and then told Mary Mags not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to his Father. (Unlike in Matthew where they apparently take hold of J's feet... risking wild ride upwards if he ascends right then).

Well, not much light to shed here, alas, on Paul's knowledge or attitude about the women and the Empty Tomb.

The Creation Law

2011-09-19T11:40:00.003-04:00

The founding act of God with respect to the Jewish people was his delivering them from slavery in Egypt, and subsequently presenting the law, the Decalogue, to Moses for the people. That establishes the covenant, what E.P. Sanders calls ‘covenantal nomism', wherin Yahweh is the God of the Chosen People and watches out for them (drowns enemies as may be required), while the Chosen People receive and agree to follow God's Law (ten commandments plus about 600 more regulations as indicated in Leviticus and Numbers, and special decrees from time to time).

The Founding Act:
I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. ~Exod. 20:2 //Deut. 5:6

Quite different is the founding act for everyone else, which was the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Founding Act:
The words ‘counted to him’ are meant to apply not only to Abraham, but to us; our faith too is to be ‘counted’, the faith in the God who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead; for he was given up to death for our misdeeds, and raised to life for our justification. Rom. 4:23-25

The gentiles are not excused from not knowing God. They should have known, in Paul’s view, ever since the beginning. They obstinately refused to see.

Likeness of God Lost by the Gentiles:
For all that can be known of God lies plain before their eyes; indeed god himself has disclosed it to them. Ever since the world began his invisible attributes, that is to say everlasting power and deity, have been visible to the eye of reason, in all the things he has made. Their conduct, therefore, is indefensible; knowing God, they have refused to honor him as God or render him thanks. Hence all their thinking has ended in futility and their misguided minds are plunged into darkness. They boast of their wisdom, but they have made fools of themselves, exchanging the glory of the immortal God for an image shaped like a mortal man, even for images like birds, beasts, and reptiles. ~Rom. 1:18-23

Now everyone must keep God’s commands, but these commands (as will appear) are not those of the Mosaic Law.

Christian Behavior:
Circumcision or uncircumcision is neither here nor there; what matters is to keep God’s commands. ~ I Cor. 7:19

Paul does what he has to do to get converts, but the only law he is under is the Creation Law from Genesis.

Christ’s Law:
To Jews I behaved like a Jew, to win Jews; that is, to win those under the [Mosaic] law I behaved as if under the [Mosaic] law, though not myself subject to the [Mosaic] law. To win those outside that [Mosaic] law, I behaved as if outside the [Mosaic] law, though not myself outside God’s [Creation] law, but subject to the [Creation] law of Christ. Rom. 9:20-21

The law of sin and death, the law broken by Adam, is this Creation Law. Man was disobedient. He was to rule over all Creation in the image of God in which he was made, but disobeyed. As a result Adam & Eve were expelled from the Garden.

Death
The sting of death is sin, and sin gains its power from the law. But thanks be to God! He gave us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ~1 Cor. 15:56-57

The Creation Command
‘You may eat from any tree in the garden’, he told the man, ‘except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the day you eat from that, you are surely doomed to die.’ ~Gen. 2:16-17

But with the coming of Jesus Christ, we have a New Adam, whose perfect obedience corrects the Fall of Adam and re-establishes the relationship between God and Man. The bondage to sin and death is terminated by this gracious sacrifice and Mankind is liberated.

New Creation:
Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is nothing; the only thing that counts is new creation! ~Gal. 6:15

It follows, my friends, that our old nature has no claim on us; we are not obliged to live that was. If you do so, you must die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the base pursuits of the body, then you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. The spirit you have received is not a spirit of slavery, leading you back into a life of fear, but a Spirit of adoption, enabling us to cry ’Abba! Father!’ ~Rom. 8:12-15

In the days of Moses God made the Jews his Chosen People.

The Chosen People
If only you will now listen to me and keep my covenant, then out of all peoples you will become my special possession; for the whole earth is mine. ~Exod. 19:5

But with the New Creation, the timeline is rolled back to before there was a Jew or Gentile, but just humankind. Therefore the new Chosen People are those who accept the gospel and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

The New Chosen People
My dear friends, beloved by God, we are certain that he has chosen you, because when we brought you the gospel we did not bring it in mere words but in the power of the Holy Spirit and with strong conviction. 1 1 Thess. 1:5

Much of the time, if not most of the time, Paul is talking about the Creation Law rather than the Mosaic Law, but he never makes this perfectly clear. This leads to a seriously wrong understanding of Paul’s theology.

Redemptive Obedience of Christ Corrects Adam’s Disobedience
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, how much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life! And that is not all: we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus, through whom we have now been granted reconciliation. What does this imply? It was through one man that sin entered the world, and thus death pervaded the whole human race, inasmuch as all have sinned. For sin was already in the world before there was law; and although in the absence of law no reckoning is kept of sin, death held sway from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned as Adam did, by disobeying a direct command.--- and Adam foreshadows the man who was to come. ~Rom. 5:10-14

Margaret Fell's Convincement

2011-09-13T19:50:00.004-04:00

(Every so often we have to read this again. ~Skip)

The next day being a lecture, or a fast-day, he [Fox] went to Ulverstone steeple-house, but came not in till people were gathered; I and my children had been a long time there before. And when they were singing before the sermon, he came in; and when they had done singing, he stood up upon a seat or form, and desired that he might have liberty to speak; and he that was in the pulpit said he might

And the first words that he spoke were as followeth:

"He is not a Jew that is one outward; neither is that circumcision which is outward; but he is a Jew that is one inward; and that is circumcision which of the heart."

And so he went one, and said, how that Christ was the Light of the world, and lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that by this light they might be gathered to God, etc.

I stood up in my pew and wondered at his doctrine; for I had never heard such before.

And then he went on, and opened the Scriptures, and said, "the Scriptures were the prophets' words, and Christ's and the apostles' words, and what, as they spoke, they enjoyed and possessed, and had it from the Lord": and said, "then what had any to do with the Scriptures, but as they came to the Spirit that gave them forth? You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?" etc.

This opened me so, that it cut me to the heart; and then I saw clearly we were all wrong. So I sat down in my pew again, and cried bitterly: and I cried in my spirit, to the Lord, "We are all thieves, we are all thieves; we have taken the Scriptures in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves."

So that served me, that I cannot well tell what he spoke afterwards; but he went on in declaring the false prophets, and priests, and deceivers of the people.

Justification By Faith

2011-09-13T19:15:00.004-04:00

If there is one thing every Protestant knows, and will happily explain if asked, it is that we are “justified by faith”, that this was the doctrine of Paul, and that Martin Luther did no more than notice this and insist on it. The first term, ‘justification’, most people will tell you is to be made right with God, and this is pretty much correct. It is not correctly understood as ‘made excuses for’ or ‘satisfactorily explained’ as if one were able to justify oneself before God in the same way you justify to the headmaster your late arrival to chapel. The justification of Paul is passive. You do nothing. God ‘right-wises’ you. You are not, by some merit of yours, now in the good books of the Almighty. Not at all! For Paul, the work was all done at the cross, and the justification is the gracious act of God.

So what of the ‘faith’ part of the equation? To be sure, Paul speaks constantly of “having faith” in Christ; but “faith” as Paul uses the word, does not mean acknowledging a statement as true in the way one speaks of a fact of history or geography. Faith is not the intellectual acceptance of a fact not personally verified, as in the faith I have that Pisa really does have a leaning tower, or that there really is ice at the North Pole. Paul’s faith, and the faith that is salvific in the Protestant conception, is the reception of a concrete personal reality. Paul would never have set “faith” against “knowledge” as we often do, because for Paul faith is the knowledge of Christ. If Paul made a list of the things he knew and those he “only believed”, surely the present reality of Christ would be in the list of the things he knew.

The reality of this for Paul appears constantly in his letters, as in Galatians where Paul says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,” and continues, “and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.” Paul’s doctrine is essentially mystical, but passages elsewhere is the NT might be employed to dilute the mystical message, as for example Jn 20:29, where Jesus tells Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” But the saving faith of Paul is not a mere list of things which the true Christian has to believe in order to be saved. Faith is not at all this narrow, foolish, doctrinally-based works-in-disguise. Paul does not have a list of things in which you must have faith: virgin birth, check; son of God, check; raised Lazarus, check; rose from dead on third day, check.

This sort of Christianity is high school bible camp Christianity, asking “Why don’t you just believe these things, so you can go to heaven?” For Paul the teacher in reality is the Holy Spirit, and his churches need principally to attend to the Spirit’s teachings and leadings.

And we have received this Spirit from God, not from the spirit of the world, so that we may know all that God has lavished on us; and because we are interpreting spiritual truths to those who have the Spirit, we speak of these gifts of God in words taught us not in our human wisdom but by the Spirit. An unspiritual person refuses what belongs to the Spirit of God; it is folly to him; he cannot grasp it, because it needs to be judged in light of the Spirit. But a spiritual person can judge the worth of everything, yet is not himself subject to judgement by others. Scripture indeed asks, ‘Who can know the mind of the Lord or be his counsellor?’ Yet we possess the mind of Christ. ~ 1 Cor. 2:12-16 (Rev. English Bible. Isn’t this a terrific translation?)

Inside Baseball

2011-09-09T13:19:00.006-04:00

Take a look at Romans. The version that Marcion had in his "Apostle" section of the Marcionite Bible lacked Chapters 15 and 16. Of course the later Proto-Orthodox said he had "mutilated" the epistle, but it seems that church father Tertullian only knew of a 14 chapter Romans. In all likelihood the short version of Romans circulated in the primitive church, and was not a Marcionite creation. Might other Marcionite scriptures be of greater antiquity than the canonicals? I will mention also that it has been frequently thought that the letter ended at Chapter 15, since the last line reads very like a typical Pauline close.

[31] that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, [32] so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company. [33] The God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Picture: Marcion of Sinope. Just the sort of fine-looking preacher to attract a loyal following.

Disciple Source and Apostolic Source

2011-09-09T08:24:00.006-04:00

The Gospel of Mark and our Fourth Gospel have more in common than is commonly realized. Both focus on the fact of Jesus' death and resurrection as establishing his messiahship. In Mark the Messiahship is nudged and winked and pointed at by the device of the Messianic Secret, while in John it is just announced straight out, over and over, with (famously) the "I Am" statements. What both Mark and John lack is the rich source of sayings called Q, which Matthew and Luke used, and which contains no passion narrative or resurrection account.

In Acts and Paul the teachings of Jesus are essentially irrelevant, while his death and resurrection is everything. In much of Mark and John the sayings in one way or another point toward the Messiahship. In Luke and Matthew, the sayings tell us how to live and are of the prophet or teacher type of wisdom or predictive utterances.

In Mark you can discern two sources, one of which refers to 'the disciples' and the other which tells about 'the Twelve'. These sources reflect what we might think of as a Galilean "Jesus as prophet and teacher" emphasis (disciple source) , and a "Jesus as Savior of the World" emphasis ('the Twelve' or Apostolic source).

Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and probably the community of the Didache are all about the sayings and teachings of Jesus. The Fourth Gospel, Acts, and Paul are not the least interested in the teachings of Jesus, but are all about the work of salvation at the cross and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit available to Christian believers. Whatever Jesus might have said or taught during his lifetime, the Spirit has taken over that job in the emergent Apostolic Church.

These two paths which marked the early church resulted in the triumph of the Apostolic view. The Epistle of James -- a 'disciple' type of document-- with its emphasis on teachings and its harmony with the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, was eclipsed by the letters of Paul which show next to no knowledge of Jesus' earthly life.

What we can be grateful for is that the two paths were allowed to coexist, and that the various documents of each side were incorporated into the final corpus of our New Testament canon.

Paul Quiz

2011-09-07T12:53:00.006-04:00

Which of the following statements can be validated from the letters of Paul?

1. Paul was a Jew.
2. Paul's Jewish name was Saul.
3. Paul was instructed by the noted rabbi Gamaliel.
4. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin.
5. Paul was from Tarsus, in Cilicia.
6. Paul's conversion experience occured on the road to Damascus.
7. Paul organized a collection for the church in Jerusalem.
8. Prior to his conversion Paul was persecuting Christians in Judea.
9. Paul was a Roman citizen.
10. Paul himself continued to participate in the Jewish temple cult after his conversion.

O man, whoever you are

2011-09-02T12:44:00.005-04:00

It is a strange fact, and one I never noticed before, that in the undisputed letters of Paul the typical program of salvation through repentance and forgiveness of sins play a very small (almost invisible) part of the Pauline program.

Here is the one place where Paul speaks about repentance in the traditional Jewish way. Notice how oddly un-Pauline it seems!

ROM 2:
[1] Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. [2] We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. [3] Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? [4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

What??? Render to every man according to his works??

Yes, that is what it says, which is why this passage is an anomaly. Paul did not (mainly) think that that Christ died for your sins, and paid the debt you owed, and all that accounting or legal type language. What Christ did was to die and rise that you might die and rise with him. He is in YOU and you are in HIM. Over and over Paul drives home this idea with his "in Christ" and "in the Spirit" teaching.

Rom. 6 [11] So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8: [1] There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 Cor. 5 [17] Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

So when you become a Christian, you are no longer under the lordship of Sin and Death, but are under the lordship of Christ, you are part of Christ, and therefore are (at that point) sinless. If, as a Christian you sin (which you might) it is wrong not because the law says it is wrong, but wrong because it is incompatible with you being “in Christ.” That is the mystical innovation of Paul. The law cannot save you, because only being “in Christ” can save you. And if you are in Christ, the law is superfluous.

Rom 6: [14] For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Baptize with Spirit and Fire

2011-08-30T14:57:00.007-04:00

In our earliest gospel, Mark describes (Mk 1:8) the baptism of Jesus, reporting John’s statement that “I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

When we get to Matthew and Luke, the logion they have taken from Q has a different character:
Lk 3: [16] John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. [17] His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

So now, the one to come has a baptism of a distinctly more punitive character. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is all very well, but the burning up of the chaff in the fire does not seem so attractive, from the chaff’s point of view.

It seems that the Q version in Matthew and Luke is more likely reflective of the actual attitude of John the Baptist. There is one problem, though. Water it is true has fire as it’s opposite, but where does the Holy Spirit fit?

Since the word for Spirit in Greek – pneuma—is the same as the word for ‘wind’ and for ‘breath’, it is more likely that John spoke of the one to come baptizing with wind and fire. After all, John anticipated a coming one whose arrival signified the Last Day. Such a one will not be baptizing for repentance and remission of sins! Oh no! Such a one will meet out terrible judgment.

But the Christian tradition had a Jesus whose followers continued on baptizing with water, yet whose followers experienced the indwelling of the Spirit. Therefore the prediction of John would be best understood, by them, as John's Coming One (Jesus) baptizing with the (Holy) Spirit, and so the original meaning of pneuma would be changed to accommodate the Christian experience and expectation, and their understanding of John's role as Jesus' forerunner.

The Gospel of John finally gets rid of the fire altogether, and all the punitive aspect from Q evaporates:
Jn 1 : [33] I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

In Acts the business gets more conflated, with Pentecost now the occasion of the Spirit Baptism.
Acts 11: [16] And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, `John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

But it seems that even in Acts the wind and the fire remained in the Christian subconscious:

Acts 2: [1] When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. [2] And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. [3] And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. [4] And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Hurricane Irene

2011-08-29T15:53:00.002-04:00

While Hurricane Irene was taking her time about arriving, and I was immersed in an engrossing study of Paul’s troubles with his churches in Corinth and Galatia, I had occasion to observe a remarkably big orb-weaving spider. The web itself was a meter in diameter, with the greatest distance of the points of attachment being 1.3 meters by actual measure. This magnificent creation was just out my back door, attached to the exterior door lintel and the underside of the balcony of the apartment above.

While the Apostle to the Gentiles praised or criticized his Corinthians and Galatians, I periodically peeked at the web. Ah yes, a little winged creature of the order Diptera, a fly or gnat, had gotten stuck in the web.

But Miss Spider was nowhere to be seen.

I did my laundry, and approached the web from the outside. There she was, in the center of the web! This spider was huge. I later was able to measure her body lengthwise at 19 mm, excluding the legs. A very intimidating spider indeed, black with orange bands on the legs in a festive Hallowe’en color scheme.

At my approach she zipped up her silk thread, out of site somewhere above.

At length the hurricane started to blow. She was in the center of her web throughout the rain on Saturday evening.

On Sunday morning I looked and the web was gone.

But no! Seen from a different angle, the main threads that attached the web to the building had held fast. I hope Miss Spider was up above, making her re-building plans.

What is truly amazing is that the hurricane that blew down trees and power lines was not of sufficient strength to destroy the orb weaver’s web entirely.

Quiz

2011-08-08T08:49:00.000-04:00

Besides that--okay, let's take a quiz first. Get out a piece of paper. This is your first exam. This'll determine your grade for the rest of the semester. Tell me if this is in the New Testament, is in the Bible, or is not in the Bible. All right? It's just a yes and no question. All you need is ten places to write yes or no. You can even abbreviate and put Y or N. First, which of these things are in the Bible? The Immaculate Conception? Now you may not know anything about the Bible. If you don't know, just kind of guess, just make a guess. I'm not actually going to grade these. Is the Immaculate Conception something that's in the Bible? (2) This quotation: "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." Is that quotation in the Bible? "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." (3) At Jesus' birth three wise men or three kings visited the Baby Jesus. Is that in the Bible? (4) This quotation: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." (5) The Doctrine of the Trinity; is it in the Bible? (6) This quotation: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." (7) Peter founded the church in Rome. In the Bible, not in the Bible? Peter founded the church in Rome. Make a guess. (8) After his death, Jesus appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem. Is that in the Bible? After his death Jesus appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem. No talking with your neighbor. [Laughs] (9) After his death, Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee. After his death, Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee. Tenth and Last: Peter was martyred by being crucified upside down. Oh hard one.
Okay, let's go back. Number One: Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible? How many people think so, yes? How many people say no, it's not in the Bible? Somebody tell me what the Immaculate Conception is. Anybody know? Yes?
Student: Mary's conception.
Professor Dale Martin: Mary's conception. It doesn't refer to the miraculous conception of Jesus. That's what often people think. See, one of the things about this course is you'll learn a lot about the Bible and early Christianity, but the most important thing is you learn cocktail party conversation tips. [Laughter] So think about--you really want to impress that girl you're with. "Hey, did you know that a lot of people think that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus? It doesn't!" It refers to the conception of Mary as being without Original Sin. Immaculate means "without stain." So it refers to the conception of Mary, by her mother, Anna, without--according to tradition--without Original Sin being transferred to Mary; and that's because, according to Roman Catholic tradition, then she could transmit the birth of Jesus without Original Sin also. Now that's not actually in the Bible. It's part of Roman Catholic doctrine. It's something that Protestants don't accept. But a lot of people think it's one in the Bible, or a lot of people confuse it with the Miraculous Conception of Jesus, which is in the Bible, in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.
Second: "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." How many people say it's in the Bible? Can anybody tell me where? Come on, there's got to be some fundies in here.
Student: 1 Corinthians 13.
Professor Dale Martin: 1 Corinthians 13. Good Sunday School education. (3) Three wise men or kings visited the Baby Jesus. In the Bible? Not in the Bible? How many people say it's not in the Bible? You say it's not in the Bible. Why?
Student: I guessed. I have no idea.
Professor Dale Martin: You have no idea. It's not in the Bible. It's true that wise men or kings did visit Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, but it's only tradition that says that it's three of them. Why was the tradition developed that there were three kings that visited the manger of Jesus? Yes?
Student: The gifts.

This will read correctly on left arm...

2011-07-20T14:12:00.001-04:00

2011-07-20T11:35:00.000-04:00

Announcing New Rules at My House

2011-07-15T08:20:00.000-04:00

Sword of the Spitit

2011-07-14T10:37:00.002-04:00

It's getting there I think. The upper shadow on the blade would not be included. The lettering has to be bigger I think than what can fit on the blade, because the size of the sword is determined by the size of my forearm.

Cross-Eyed Holy Ghost Preacher

2011-07-07T12:37:00.003-04:00

You know how I got filled with the Holy Ghost? I got filled with the Holy Ghost by a cross-eyed preacher. He was as cross-eyed as a bat, son. This guy could be looking directly at you, and you couldn't tell it. This boy was cross-eyed!

He was not only cross-eyed, but he had a problem with the way he walked, too. He walked like one of those old Pentecostal preachers, strutting around like a chicken scratching at the ground. I don't know why they all walked the same way. They didn't walk like normal people. Maybe that's kind of rude, but bless God, I thought, What's the problem with this old boy?

He talked like one of those old Pentecostal preachers, too. He kept putting extra sounds at the end of his words. He would say, "I'll tell ya-ah-ah...I tell ya, God-huuuhhhh, Gawd-huhhhhh." You know, I thought that the guy needed a healing for whatever he had that made him talk like that!

That's the kind of preacher who got me filled with the Holy Ghost. I was at that meeting with Cathy and her sister, Christine. At the end of the service, Cathy turned to me and said, "Go up there and get the Holy Ghost."

I said, "No way! I don't want to come back walking like that man! I ain't going up there!"

She said, "Well, my sister's going to go. You go with her."

"I don't want to go!" I said. "If I go up there and get what he's got, I'm going to start talking weird and walking funny."

"You need it!" Cathy insisted. "You've had an outpouring of supernatural power, but you need an outpouring of supernatural portion. You need the Holy Ghost."

I finally did go up there with her sister, but I put her in front of me. I said, "Go ahead, Christine. You go first."

As soon as I did that, an usher came over and grabbed me, moving me over beside her. So here I was, standing in front, and to be honest with you, I was a little nervous. The preacher came walking over, and it was amazing what this man would do. He said, "I'll tell you, Gawwwwwd-huuuuuuh, Gawwwd-huuuuu, Gawd...."

When you see someone like this coming over to you, you've got to put your hands up before he stops in front of you. You want to blend in with everyone else, because if he stops in front of you, he's going to start scratching and shaking right there. Then everybody will start looking at you.

I could just see what was going to happen. I would be standing there with my hands up, and he would come over to me, start scratching and shaking, and I would start shaking too. Before you knew it, every one of us up there would be shaking and talking funny.

Well, he came over and stood right in front of me. I could see him standing right there in front of me, but he didn't know who was in front of him. I looked up and saw that crossed eye trying to catch me. It was moving, and I was moving back and forth, trying to catch it. He started saying, "Would you like to receive-uhhhhhhh?"

I was thinking, Me? You mean me? Just who are you looking at? I kept trying to move over to where that eye was looking. I couldn't tell who he was looking at. I really couldn't! One eye was looking at me, and the other one was on somebody else. He was standing right in front of me, but he was looking at two different people!

Christine nudged me and whispered, "Jesse, I think he's looking at you."

"No," I said, "his eye's on you."

"Yeah," she said, "but only one of them is. The other one's on you."

This cross-eyed preacher was standing in front of me, getting ready to lay hands on me, but he couldn't find me. He told me he was going to lay hands on me, and reached out his hand to touch my head. But his aim was way off. His hand was flapping air somewhere over between me and Christine, trying to catch one of us.

I realized he was seeing two heads, so I leaned over to catch that hand. I knew he was missing me because he couldn't find my head. And Christine thought he was going for her head, so we both tried to help him out, and craaack! Our heads knocked together.

She said, "I thought he was looking at me."

"No!" I said, "he was looking at me."

It didn't matter though. An outpouring of supernatural portion came upon me, and I was filled with the Holy Ghost. Christine was filled with the Holy Ghost too. Both of us walked away from that prayer line all cockeyed - but full of the Holy Ghost! It didn't matter what that preacher looked like. We still got the Holy Ghost.

God will use some of us who don't look the best. He didn't care that the man was cross-eyed. God just wanted a willing and obedient vessel. If you want to be used by God, determine to be a willing and obedient vessel. Then He can use you - no matter what your imperfections are!

Anyway, that's how I got filled with the Holy Ghost - from a cross-eyed vessel. Don't laugh. It could happen to you!

~ Jesse Duplantis, JAMBALAYA FOR THE SOUL

The House-Martins

2011-06-27T15:59:00.006-04:00

Birds in general are wise in their choice of situation: but in this neighbourhood every summer is seen a strong proof to the contrary at an house without eaves in an exposed district, where some martins build year by year in the corners of the windows. But, as the corners of these windows (which face to the south-east and south-west) are too shallow, the nests are washed down every hard rain; and yet these birds drudge on to no purpose from summer to summer, without changing their aspect or house. It is a piteous sight to see them labouring when half their nest is washed away and bringing dirt "to patch the ruins of a fallen race"--"generis lapsi sarcire ruinas" (Note: Virgil).

~Gilbert White to Hon. Daines Barrington, Nov. 20, 1773

1859 in Accident-Prone Augusta County

2011-06-27T14:26:00.002-04:00

A correspondent from Waynesboro writes us during the past few days, that very serious casualties have occurred in that community. A son of Spotswood Harrington, fell from a Hickory tree into which he had climbed to gather its fruit, a distance perhaps of 30 feet.--He came down head foremost, throwing out his hands to protect himself, the whole force of the fall was received upon the arms, the right wrist crushed, the bone protruding through the flesh, entered the ground from one to two inches; the other wrist was broken or badly dislocated. The face of the little sufferer, (for he was under 12 years old,) was much bruised, and the concussion being of course great, affected him generally. Drs. Waddell and King were soon on the ground, rendering the needed assistance, and the boy is doing as well as could be hoped for.

Another--Young James Bush, son of Mr. John Bush, whilst in the act of sending up a bucket of stone and earth from the bottom of a well, which he was digging for J. B. Smith of Waynesboro, was surprised somewhat, by the return of bucket and contents on his head and shoulders, a distance of 25 to 30 feet, the bucket weighing near one hundred pounds. Death was supposed to be the consequences, but not so; Bush was terribly bruised but is getting well.

Another case of well doing which occurred in our village some time since, perished for want of a chronicler. It fell out on this wise: Mr. L. Shaw abandoned a well he was digging, after obtaining a depth of 60 feet--the mouth of the well was covered with loose thin plank, barely sufficient to support a man. Mr. David Bush's horses had escaped the enclosure and were playing in the vicinity of the well; two of them, large, able-bodied and fat fellows, leaped together upon the plank crossing the wells mouth, which gave way, and together they descended to it dismal depths. Reader, you will say they were instantly crushed to death--not a bit of it--by the skillful management of stalwart men, and by means of ropes and pulleys, they were brought to light and life, and marvelous to say, very little injured.

Day before yesterday two sons of Mr. Van were amusing themselves in front of their father's residence on Plum street, by jumping from a dray. Strange to say, both received similar injuries at almost the same time, which resulted in their death yesterday morning. Either from the overstraining or falling, in jumping from the dray, they ruptured their omentums or cauls. Robert Albert, aged fourteen years, and Theodore Lewis, aged sixteen years.--What makes this more singular is, that Mr. Van has lost all his sons by accident--the two above named being the last of eleven boys.

Mr. Tom Marshall, our gentlemanly and efficient Constable, who is so very much given to nabbing others, came near being nabbed himself the other evening.-- He most incautiously invaded the "beat" of a black Bear, somewhere between this place and Greenville, and was only saved from his lethal embraces by the speed of his horse, which last, however, did not escape ignominious wounds on his rump.

For some weeks past bears have been quite common in this county, as well as other parts of the State. We have heard of several adventures which different persons have had with them. On Wednesday night last, as Mr. Thomas Marshall, one of our Constables, was riding in the country, his horse showed signs of alarm, and was immediately assailed by a bear, which left the marks of his claws upon the horse ship. Mr. M. dashed off at full speed, but the bear kept up with him for a considerable distance.--Mr. James R. Paris, who lives about two miles from town, went into his meadow Friday evening, to feed some cattle, and found there a bear, which pursued him to the house. Before Mr. P. could get a weapon, Bruin had turned and made off. The next morning, Mr. Womelsdorf encountered the same bear, it is supposed, and with his dog between his feet, stood facing the enemy for some time. Another bear was seen on the farm of Mr. L. R. Waddell Friday evening, about the time of Mr. Paris adventure; and on Sunday morning it was pursued by some persons on the adjoining farm of Mr. Jefferson Kinney, but made his escape. The most serious adventure, however, happened to a gentleman, whose name we have forgotten, near Mt. Torry Furnace. He was out hunting, and discovering a bear up a tree fired a pistol at him.--The bear came down, and assailing his adversary threw him to the ground and scratched his face severely. For a few moments the hunter thought his life in danger, but finally got hold of the bear and turning him recovered his footing. The animal took to a tree again and was shot by persons who came up.

Not to Call the Righteous

2011-06-27T13:17:00.003-04:00

The following appeared as a comment on SermonAudio:

Jill N Jesus from Maryland (1/1/2011)
“ Great Sermon! ”
Lord Jesus Please destroy the homosexuals and the wicked barbarian muslims that decay our society... In Jesus Name I Pray, Amen

Now that's a very interesting prayer.

In the NT we find the panic-stricken demon(s) asking Jesus, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God" (Mk 1:27 // Lk 4:24).

Then too we have: "Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up '" (Jn 2:19).

But we do not have Jesus threatening homosexuals and wicked barbarians with destruction. We cannot infer from that that Jesus approved of homosexuality, or condoned barbarian wickedness.

What I think we can be sure of is that the attitude of Jesus was not vengeful, but was loving. So if Jill's homosexuals and wicked barbarians are indeed sinners-- which remains to be seen and is not mine to judge-- Jill will pray to the Prince of Peace for their destruction in vain.

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." ~Mk 2:17

Andrew Brooks to his sister

2011-06-07T14:20:00.001-04:00

Jan 23 1861
Washington College
Lexington

Dear Sister,
The time has again come round for me to write home. And it must be done to night or you will not get one this week. Because we have a little more spare time Wednesday night than any other, and precious little then, for in addition to our regular studies we have a poor chance to do for examinations; two of which we will have next week, Greek, Mathematics.

We are very well. The anniversary of the Graham Society came off on last night. It was such a pleasant and beautiful moonlight that there was a large crowd. The anniversary address was delivered by Mr. Paxton of Rockbridge. It was a very good address, well written and very well delivered.

The question, "If Turkey fails to protect her Christians should nations interfere?" was then discussed by four other members of Society, whose names it is not necessary to mention.
All the front of the college was illuminated and made a very pretty appearance.
The people of this county held a meeting at the Court house, Monday to nominate candidates for the convention which resulted in the nomination of S McD Moore and James Dorman,two strong Union men, so that if the question of Virginia's secession depends upon their votes, she won't go out soon. Who are candidates in Augusta?

From all I can hear, I think that the secessionists are rapidly gaining ground in Virginia, and would not be surprised if that convention should declare Virginia out of the Union. From present appearances it seems that we are almost sure to have civil war. There are such extensive military preparations going on in the north and from the threatening and insulting way in which the Republican papers and from the overbearing and contemptuous actions of Congress in refusing compromises giving the South the barest justice, it must be
Lincoln's intention to compel the South to remain in the Union, if he can. And if he attempts that, the whole South will and ought to unite and oppose it. A week or two ago, a few of the boys secretly made and hoisted upon top of College a Disunion Flag, bearing a single red star and the word Disunion. But Dr. Junkin very soon had it taken down and there has been nothing said about disunion since.

Yesterday was warm and clear, but now it is cold and snowing. I never saw weather so changeable, or so much rain, or so many cloudy and foggy days in my life as we have had here. It is hardly ever clear three days at one time.

We have been looking for a letter from home for two or three days to tell us about the wedding, but haven't got one yet. You must think we don't want to hear! Does Uncle Andy look like he is married?

Writing letters is the hardest work that I have to do at College and since there is nothing here that will interest you, and believing that I have done remarkably well in having written this much, I quit.

Love to all,
your brother
A. Brooks

Blood

2011-06-05T15:13:00.007-04:00

“…If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
~ 1 John 1:7

I will skip over the interesting theology implicit in the passage from the first epistle of John, saying only that it seems to me to say that if you are trying always to walk in the light of Christian belief, then even if you sin the blood of Jesus, which cleanses from all sins, will cleanse from these as well.

Let us look at the assertion that it is Jesus’ blood that cleanses from sin.

Of the 309 uses of “blood” in the Hebrew Bible, 103 refer to sacrificial blood (Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 109). In ancient Jewish practice the significant thing was not the death of the animal but the use made of its blood in sprinkling the veil of the temple or in anointing the horns of the altar, tasks confined to the priests. It was demanded that the animal should have certain qualities of perfection and that the blood be obtained through the violent death (sacrifice) of the victim. This understanding affects the NT understanding of the sacrificial quality of Jesus’ death as well.

The death of Jesus therefore had to have the qualities of the traditional animal sacrifice of the Temple cult, and this included the shedding of blood. The death, to be properly sacrificial, had to be violent and intentional. Jesus could not have “died for us” in an accidental fall, or by contracting a fatal illness. He had to be the perfect and perfectly innocent sacrificial lamb. And of course there had to be blood.

Since the shedding of blood was not at all necessary to the process of crucifixion, various elements of the story had to be invested with the necessary sanguinary character, though if you actually read the gospel execution scenes blood is scarcely mentioned. Only in John is it stated that “one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water” (Jn 19:34). Certainly we may imagine that the scourging, the crown of thorns and the nailing to the cross caused bleeding but this is not stated in the actual crucifixion scene. The reference we have to nails by the way is only in GJohn. The others don’t mention nails, and John only speaks of nails in the context of the Doubting Thomas story at Jn 20:25.

So in GJohn, of six total mentions of blood, only that one at 19:34 refers to blood shed on the cross, while four refer to Jesus’ (Eucharistic) blood, to be drunk.

If the Book of Revelation is an offshoot of the Johannine writings (as is often asserted), the frequency of the blood theme there suggests that GJohn may not have done justice to the importance of the theme in Johannine thought.

“…freed us from our sins by his blood…” Rev 1:5
“…by thy blood didst ransom men for God…” Rev 5:9
“…washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb…” Rev 8:14

There is much more bloody business in Revelation. Oceans of blood, hail and fire mingled with blood, blood of saints, blood of prophets, blood of martyrs, blood to dip garments in, blood on the moon, blood in the rivers, etc.

In Genesis 4:10, in the most poetic appearance of the magical power of blood, God tells Cain that “the voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” It is not Abel’s death, or the spirit of Abel, but rather his blood that cries out.

So also the blood of Jesus, so closely associated with life, comes to represent the whole of his earthly mission, death, sacrifice, and redemptive power. It is spoken commonly in the NT for initial justification (Col 1:20 ; Acts 20:28; I Pet 1:18-19) as well as ongoing forgiveness and reconciliation (Eph 1:7, 2;13; Rom 5:9; 1 Pet 1:2; Heb 9:14).

Our passage uses the Greek word ‘katharizein’, rendered as “cleanses“. A wide variety of terms are employed elsewhere to describe what has been done to sin:
“forgive” (aphienai)
“take away” (airein)
“destroy” (lyein)
“atonement, expiation” (hilasmos)
“clean” (katharos)

Hebrews 9:22 tells us that “Indeed under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Do I go too far in seeing a basis for Middle Eastern honor killing in this way of thinking? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.”
~Lev 17:11

I personally find all this sacrificial language and all this business about blood, being washed in the blood, drinking the blood, and all that, to be both archaic and distasteful. Of course blood nowadays doesn’t have quite the mystical associations that it apparently had for the ancients. In the first century it was a given among both pagans and Jews that blood sacrifice was right, and necessary, and efficacious. In that world the idea that the death of Jesus was an efficacious sacrifice for sin made sense. It was not, please note, similar to or analogous to the animal sacrifice of the temple: it was in fact a sacrifice, the final sacrifice or the ultimate sacrifice, that made all others not just redundant but meaningless and impious. The gospels are at great pains to make this point, even to tinkering with the timing of the event to make it more like the Passover lamb’s sacrifice.

I have often wondered whether anything would have become of the teachings of Jesus without the shocking drama of the crucifixion. If Jesus had fallen into the well and died, while chatting with the Samaritan woman, would there be a great cathedral at the site? I rather doubt it. Nor would a dripping wet resurrected Jesus, back among the living after his accident, have quite the same inspirational value as the man from the empty tomb.

We can see from the letters of Paul how quickly the teaching of Jesus and the significance of his earthly ministry is moved into the shadows while the death and resurrection are in the center stage spotlight.

Around the edges of the NT accounts we can see evidence of the square peg being hammered into the round hole. Pilate says “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves” (Mt 27:24), for in levitical thought of course it was the priests who should oversee the sacrifice.

The Jews should preside, the death should be on the Day of Atonement (oops), there should be blood shed, there should be a perfect victim. Of course the death of Jesus was not on the Day of Atonement but rather before Passover (with its own but different blood-on-the-doorposts), so this had to be glossed over or reinterpreted as we see in Hebrews. It is evident in the Didache that the idea of a sacrificial death had not taken hold very firmly, nor had the fully sacramental Eucharist with its magical overtones found a home yet.

It seems to me that many of the elements we find in later and especially in modern Christian thought derive from pagan mystery religions. The Jewish Christians of the Didache celebrated a Eucharist something like an ordinary meal, except that the participants were to have purified themselves by reconciliation (confession of sins), the event was held on “The Sunday of the Lord”, and the prayers said were conceived of as a sacrifice offered to God. So there was a bit of the sacramental at work, but far from the “this is my blood” doxology.

At all events the idea of taking the god into oneself by eating something magically transformed into the god’s body and blood certainly has more in common with paganism than Judaism, so we can surmise that the Christian community that took in the blinded Paul was very likely of this type. Paul's mystery religion with its (to me) obscure theology of identification with the crucified Jesus had a ready market among the Gentiles which we can see is lacking in the Jewish Christians of James's Jerusalem community. We may well suppose that one set of Christians in those early days still continued with the blood sacrifices of the Temple cult, even as Paul himself did when necessity pushed him to it.

Say No More

2011-05-31T16:17:00.001-04:00

ὁ θεòς ἀγάπη ἐστίν

2011-05-18T09:21:00.003-04:00

Now this is the promise
Now this is the commandment
Now this is the conquering power
Now this is the testimony
Now this is the confidence
Now this is love

pneuma ho theos
ho theos phos estin
ho theos agape estin

Worst Greek in NT: 1 John 1

2011-05-12T08:52:00.000-04:00

1 Jn 1: [1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life -- [2] the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- [3] that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

what
was
from
beginning
what
we have heard
what
we have seen
with
eyes
of us
what
we looked upon
and
the
hands
of us
touched
concerning
of
life
and
the
life
was made known
and
we have seen
and
we testify
and
proclaim
to you
the
life
the
eternal
which
was
with
Father
and
was made known
to us
what
we have seen
also
have heard
we declare
also
to you
so that
also
ye
fellowship
may have
with
us
also
the
fellowship
even
the
our
with
Father
also
with
Son
of him
Jesus
Christ

Other Sheep

2011-05-12T08:39:00.001-04:00

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. ~John 10:16

MAD DOWNGRADE DASH ENDS FATALLY

2011-05-11T16:05:00.000-04:00

The engineer pulled at the whistle
For the brakes wouldn't work when applied
And the brakeman climbed out on the car tops
For he knew what the whistle had cried.

With all of the strength that God gave him
He tightened the brakes with a prayer,
But the train kept right on down the mountain
And her whistle was piercing the air.

And on down the grade she went racing
She sped like a demon from Hell
With the engineer blowing the whistle
And the fireman was ringing the bell.

Specialized Defender-Morphs ("Soldiers")

2011-05-05T10:30:00.007-04:00

Danger of nest usurpation is probably the most important selective pressure in the origin and maintenance of defender-morph sociality. …

This does not diminish the important of fortress-defender sociality, and convergent defender-morph societies should focus our attention on commonalities in ecological circumstance: resource value, stability, and distribution; and threats from predators and kleptoparasites, for example.

(Note possible kleptoparasite in background keenly interested in foreground defender-morph's resource.)

In The Hour of Visitation

2011-05-05T09:01:00.003-04:00

Sir.18:
[15] My son, do not mix reproach with your good deeds,nor cause grief by your words when you present a gift.
[16] Does not the dew assuage the scorching heat? So a word is better than a gift.
[17] Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift? Both are to be found in a gracious man.
[18] A fool is ungracious and abusive, and the gift of a grudging man makes the eyes dim.
[19] Before you speak, learn, and before you fall ill, take care of your health.
[20] Before judgment, examine yourself, and in the hour of visitation you will find forgiveness.

>Wise advice. I should pay attention!! <

September 11, 2001 - May 2, 2011

2011-05-02T09:12:00.001-04:00

PROV 24: [17] Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles;
[18] lest the LORD see it, and be displeased,
and turn away his anger from him.

Mary Mags at the Tomb

2011-04-27T08:56:00.006-04:00

Let’s follow the footsteps of Mary Magdalene on Easter morning, as reported in GsJn!

But first we need to set the scene. In Chapter 19, after the crucifixion, the secret disciple Joseph of Arimathea begged the body of Jesus from Pilate, and together with Nicodemus (who had secretly met with Jesus by night) these two crypto-Christians took the corpse. Nicodemus had brought along a huge amount of aloes and myrrh, “about a hundred-weight” our text tells us. They bound the body and spices with linen cloths, and placed their now-respectable and doubtless highly fragrant burden in a handy tomb. The text reports that “in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden there was a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.”

Just in passing we note that the role of Nicodemus in the burial is unknown to the synoptics; that the amount of myrrh and aloe is excessive, not to say ridiculous; and most jarringly, that the garden with its tomb is placed in bizarre proximity to the place of execution, and that the tomb seems to be merely conveniently close at hand, not the tomb owned by Joseph as in Matthew. But only in Matthew is it actually stated that the tomb was Joseph’s, so the original tradition as in Mark did not state that Joseph had a right to use the tomb. Matthew did not like this ambiguity, and amended the tradition with a clarification. GsJn goes a step further than Mark in the other direction by making the tomb selection appear more definitely mere convenience or happenstance.

So Jesus got buried.

Back to Mary Mags.

In John 20:1, we find Mary setting out for the tomb early on Sunday morning. She alone is left of all of the women in the synoptic tradition (three in Mk 16:1, two in Mt 28:1, more than three in Lk 24:1). Why is Mary heading for the tomb? It cannot be to anoint the body, since this has been done with thoroughness thanks to Nicodemus’s myrrh. In any event, she heads for the tomb, and finds the stone rolled away from the tomb entrance.

In verse 2 Mary hotfoots it back to Peter and the Beloved Disciple, telling them “they have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him.” Whether this ‘we’ is an echo of the more numerous women in the synoptics is hard to say.

In Jn 20:3-10 we find the following interesting business which stems from Mary’s alarming report: Peter and the BD have a footrace to the tomb, which the BD wins; BD looks into tomb, sees wrappings, does not enter; Peter pants his way up to the scene, and enters the tomb first, seeing that the wrappings are lying about with the head wrappings in a place by themselves; BD enters the tomb, sees, and believes. Then the two men head home. The point of the race I think is to assert the superiority of the Beloved Disciple over Peter, while Peter entering the tomb first probably derives from a piece of tradition. But BD of course ‘gets it’ first, because he sees and believes.

Meanwhile, Mary Mags has returned, and is weeping outside. We are to suppose that she never entered the tomb, and has not ‘seen and believed.’ GsJn's redactor is stuck with a tradition concerning the women that he doesn’t much like, and must bend it to his purposes. This gospel most certainly will not have a gaggle of women running away and telling no one as in Mark, nor getting the “He has been raised from the dead” news first as in Matthew, nor arriving en masse to clue in the disciples as in Luke.

If there has to be a woman, it will be Mary Mags alone, she will be not enter the tomb first nor will she understand what has happened or come to belief first.

The whole business from verse 2 to verse 10 is evidently an insertion, and verse 11 follows clumsily. Mary weeps and stoops to look in the tomb, and sees two angels. There must have been a tradition about women-and-angels, and so the angels have to make their appearance, but not in such a way to upstage the BD (which would be offensive to the redactor but not offensive to the evangelist). So the angels can only appear on Mary Mag's second trip to the tomb, because if she'd seen them the first time the angels perforce would have blabbed about the resurrection. Angels ask Mary, “Woman, why are you weeping?.” Note that form of address, familiar to us as the way J talks to his mom. Mary replies with her earlier complaint that they (?) have taken away the body she knows not where. The angels cannot answer her however or else the upcoming scene with Jesus would be robbed of its content.

Therefore at this moment she turns around, thus looking out into the garden rather than into the tomb, and sees Jesus whom she mistakes for the gardener, and now it is Jesus’ turn to ask her why she is weeping, and who she is looking for. Mary (not recognizing J yet, cf. disciples at Emmaus) asks where the gardener has put the body (f he took it). The distraught woman no doubt does not reflect on the question of why the gardener would want a three day old corpse, and why (if he really did want it) he would give it to her, or what, in the event he did give it to her, she would do with it. These practical considerations are far from our evangelist’s thoughts.

Here comes the good bit: In verse 16 Jesus calls her name “Mary!” and our text reports “She turned and said to him in Hebrew ‘Rabbouni!’ which means Teacher.” So though he had spoken to her already, the veil is lifted with J saying her name. This detail is similar to the recognition scene at Emmaus (Lk 24:13 ff.)

Why she again turned is not clear, but it does read well, so we’ll let that pass.

In verse 17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch him, but go to tell his brothers he is ascending to the Father, which she does.

In the case of Lazarus, the resurrected body was just reanimated. The corpse was made to live again (we assume). Much more is involved with Jesus. He has some kind of ‘Spirit Body’, something like what Paul tells the Corinthians they will get in order to meet J in the air. In GsJn it seems that J has to ascend to the Father first-- brief visit!-- then, after his return to earth, he can be touched by Thomas, or eat fish or whatever is required. This is a way to have your Gnostic-style docetism and eat your fish too.

If we take out the footrace scene, the original story would be Mary Mags at the tomb, the scene with the angels and gardener, and her message to “the brothers.”

All this is preparation for J’s dramatic appearance to the disciples in the locked room.

The most touching moment is perhaps best appreciated in translation from Aramaic:

Jesus: “Miriam!”

Mary Mags: “My master!”

Last Supper Scene in John: This Is My Satan-Filled Bread

2011-04-22T08:48:00.007-04:00

JOHN 13: [18] I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, `He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' [19] I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. [20] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me." [21] When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." [22] The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. [23] One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; [24] so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." [25] So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?" [26] Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. [27] Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly."

No communion? No 'this is my body'? No words of institution of the eucharist? What's going on here? The bread is far from a positive. On the contrary, it is the very vehicle for Satan entering into Judas.

That can't be good.

Let's see the instruction for the eucharist in the Didache, an early Christian community's summary of beliefs and doctrines.

DIDACHE Chapter 9. The Eucharist.
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Looks to me like the body-and-blood symbolism is not known to the Didache community, though they (presumably) are in possession of traditions about a meal obviously.

Here's what I think. Later church practice involved a eucharist which came to be thought of as involving bread-and-wine = body-and-blood. This was read back into the story by GsMark, and picked up and continued with modifications by Matthew and Luke. It was the story known to Paul and recited as liturgy in 1 Cor 11:23-26-- "do this in remembrance of me" etc. But that something seemingly so critically important as this institution of the eucharist should elude some early Christian groups seems quite incredible, and testifies to the body-and-blood theme being known to and/or invented by one group without others ever hearing of it.

The Johannine folks may have actually wanted to 'debunk' the Masrkan story, and so turned the bread into the satanic vehicle we find there.

But the John and Didache story is more original, I think. Or to put it another way, the Last Supper was not such a big deal.

There was a last meal with disciples. Judas was there, and Peter was there and the Beloved Disciple was there, but we are not told in GsJohn if all of Twelve were there or if only disciples of the Twelve were there. Something about the betrayal was said. Bread was served and we assume wine also, though GsJohn does not say so. Could have been Welch's grape juice if they were Presbyterians.

Tea Party Art

2011-04-19T16:01:00.006-04:00

http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm
Click on link for key to this picture.

The figures on the viewer's right: looks like JFK in the center just to the right of George Washington, pointing with slight disapproval at the Constitution being trampled; just behind him is Lyndon. Is that Tricky Dick behind and to the right of LBJ? Bush makes a foolish and ambiguous gesture, to the left of Obama, but Clinton claps, as do FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. Woodrow Wilson lurks behind FDR. That must be little Jemmy Madison who is so upset with his Constitution being stepped on. Abe Lincoln, the greatest trampler of the Constitution ever and God grant for all time, is making some point about the schmo on the bench (who represents Us). Reagan, Jefferson , and GW also are concerned about the guy on the bench. Scattered on the ground are parts of the Constitution, but also bills not so well-liked such as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and "ObamaCare". There is also a lot of US currency, disregarded by all as it is worthless trash (get it?). I did not find the various torturers-in-chief like Alberto "The Torture Guy" Gonzales or Dick Cheney. Maybe there are in a secure undisclosed location.

Jesus Likes The Pledge

2011-04-19T15:59:00.000-04:00

Lost Letter of the Beloved Disciple

2011-04-19T13:25:00.003-04:00

Lazarus to Justus, greeting.

A number of your letters have reached me in Ephesus at the same time, but I will try to reply as fully and freely as may be, without leaving out anything or exaggerating the event of which you asked, which I am fully aware would be beyond the belief of anyone not of The Way.

The Lord was at all times full of love toward me and my sisters and would say in a most endearing and heartfelt way, “You are my beloved disciple” and such things and sometimes others would be jealous I think, but it was none of my doing. I was sensible not to impose upon the Lord nor presuppose that I was in any way deserving of his special favor for in truth Justus I was not.

It came to pass that there was fever in the land around Jerusalem and especially in Bethany, and it fell out that I myself took ill with the fever. Martha and Mary were for sending word to the Teacher but I forbade them to do so for I did not want to presume to trouble him, as aforesaid. And I got more feverish with every hour that passed, and at last I passed to another place entirely.

If you will think what it would be like to be in a well of light you will get some idea of this place, where the walls were of brilliant light and the well itself filled with a blinding liquid sort of light. And in this medium I was floating upwards. I considered for a moment that I had surely died of fever, and I was afraid. Yet I reflected that I was no longer filled with aches and the terrible thirst of the fever, which at the least was an improvement over being ill.

I made myself ready for whatever might happen, feeling very peaceful and full of love and optimism in myself, as if to say that all my earlier fear was quite misplaced. And at that point I seemed to come up from the well of light and, still in a complete ocean or mist of light, I saw my little sister Dinah who died in her childhood at age eight. She reached out her hand to me and I experienced a wonderful feeling of tranquility.

At that moment, just before Dinah’s hand would have reached me, another strong hand took mine and the voice of the Lord said “Lazarus, come out.” And I was back out of the well of light and among the living, if indeed I was dead before. The Lord gave me some water to drink and said softly to me that it was not my time and that he had more for me to do and that all will become plain to me at last. And the time from when I last recalled being at home in bed sick with fever and the time when the Lord took my hand and told me to come out of the well was about twelve hours, no more.

The community here is strong with resolution and lifted up by the Spirit of Truth, our blessed advocate and constant encourager. My sister Mary has a bad attack of rheumatism. She sends her love and best wishes to you and your sister and mother : and so does my little darling Rachel. Take care of yourself, and don't forget me. Your devoted friend.

Six Opponents of the Johannine Community

2011-04-15T08:56:00.005-04:00

A very interesting aspect of the Fourth Gospel is the sense one gets of the Johannine community feeling embattled, with everyone against them. Six groups of opponents can be identified in the GsJohn and the three other writings, called epistles, though 1 John is plainly not actually a letter.

Here are the six (as enumerated by Raymond E Brown):

1. "The World": Jesus was from heaven, not of this world, nor was the Johannine Community of this world in their own view.

2."The Jews": Jewish non-believers who kicked the Johannine Christians out of the synagogue for their forthright proclamation of Jesus as being the Man From Heaven, a divine man, and not just a gifted rabbi, or even a prophet. Jesus was rejected by "his own" but in particular by the synagogue authorities booted the Johannine Christians out for their claim of Jesus' divinity, after which they no longer considered themselves as "Jews", but instead cultivated a bitter polemic against "the Jews."

3. The followers of John the Baptist (the Beloved Disciple was formerly one), who considered JBap as the man sent by God, and thus in the GsJohn community were thought to have totally missed the point.

4. The Crypto-Christians, still in the synagogue and too chicken-hearted to proclaim their true belief in Jesus.

5. The Jewish Christians, who we may imagine as those of inadequate faith in the view of the Johannine community, like the community of James. They came to the party late, and never properly understood who Jesus was.

6. Apostolic Christians, organized in churches founded perhaps by Peter, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, etc.--- not completely despised by the Johannine folks, but considered to be of inferior understanding. The Paraclete, not apostles, has been provided as the teacher, advocate, encourager, and wonderful counselor for the people of God. The apostolic churches have no clue about Jesus' pre-existence, and emphasize too much the structure of the church and official teaching and leadership roles.

We can see that in the end the Johannine Community merged with this last group, bringing with them their high Christology and their doctrine of pre-existence, their highly spiritual gospel, and their three little letters.

After a secession from the group represented by "the Presbyter" who authored the epistles 2 John and 3 John , their wayward brothers and sisters who rejected the proto-orthodox teachings went on in the direction of that high Christology which lends itself so well to Gnosticism, or perhaps also joined with or inspired apocalyptic groups in Asia Minor such as that of Montanus, whose the prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and accepted the GsJohn.

Stations

2011-04-12T15:34:00.000-04:00

Miss Bennett

2011-04-04T11:45:00.004-04:00

The social evening was held in the restaurant in the basement. The tables were put on one side so that there might be room for dancing, and smaller ones were set out for progressive whist.

"The 'eads 'ave to get there early," said Mrs. Hodges.

She introduced him to Miss Bennett, who was the belle of Lynn's. She was the buyer in the 'Petticoats,' and when Philip entered was engaged in conversation with the buyer in the 'Gentlemen's Hosiery;' Miss Bennett was a woman of massive proportions, with a very large red face heavily powdered and a bust of imposing dimensions; her flaxen hair was arranged with elaboration. She was overdressed, but not badly dressed, in black with a high collar, and she wore black lace gloves, in which she played cards; she had several heavy gold chains round her neck, bangles on her wrists, and circular photograph pendants, one being of Queen Alexandra; she carried a black satin bag and chewed Sen-sens.

"Please to meet you, Mr. Carey," she said. "This is your first visit to our social evenings, ain't it? I expect you feel a bit shy, but there's no cause to, I promise you that."

She did her best to make people feel at home. She slapped them on the shoulders and laughed a great deal.

"Ain't I a pickle?" she cried, turning to Philip. "What must you think of me? But I can't 'elp meself."

~W. Somerset Maugham , Of Human Bondage

Paul and the Proto-Gnostics (not a pop group)

2011-04-01T10:08:00.003-04:00

Are not Paul's Christian opponents in Corinth preaching some sort of Wisdom Gospel different from the Gospel of Salvation Through Belief that Paul preaches? Might not this anti-Pauline teaching be an earlier form of the gnosticizing teaching of the Gs Thom? Paul is at once belittling the opponents' Wisdom Teaching as merely "the wisdom of men", but goes on to to claim for his own gospel a secret and hidden wisdom, which is taught by the Spirit not by mere men.

1 Cor. 2: [1] When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. [4] and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5] that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. [6] Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. [7] But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. ... [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

... 1 Cor 3:

[19] For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness..."

Thomas & the Canonicals (not a pop group)

2011-03-30T10:16:00.007-04:00

It occurred to me in reading a commentary on Gs John that the Gospel of Thomas has a difference from the canonicals not just in form, but in purpose. As to form, Gs Thom is a sayings collection rather than a bios or a “life”, or a narrative salvation history like the canonicals. The purpose of the canonicals is to proclaim that Jesus was God incarnate who died and was raised again from the dead, and ascended to heaven and will come again in glory. This is the kerygma – message or proclamation—of the canonical scriptures.

Paul writes in 1 Cor 11: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. "

So the fact of the death of Jesus and the expectation of his return is all-important to the canonical evangelists and to Paul.

Not so in Gs Thom. There, the death of Jesus is never mentioned.

Jesus is “The Living Jesus.”

“These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.”

And again:

Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence, and whoever is living from the living one will not see death." The whole emphasis in Thomas is on the sayings themselves. Through these sayings the faithful may find eternal life. In effect, it is the logos or The Word Made Flesh of John, in reverse: it is the flesh preserved in words, in mystical sayings which if unlocked and deciphered and correctly understood will insure salvation.

In the orthodox tradition, as we might conclude from the very meaning of orthodox, correct belief is paramount. In the Gs Thom community, the central element is not about belief but rather about understanding the meaning of these sayings of Jesus. In other words, the Thomas community privileged knowledge over belief.

My supposition is that the Gs Thomas, or the sayings collection that developed into Gs Thom, was only subject to a gnosticizing tendency over time, having started out like the hypothetical saying gospel Q.

Of course now the sayings of Jesus, indeed the entire teaching of Jesus, has been eclipsed in modern Christianity by a theology of the cross and the resurrection, with Paul and his post-Easter message leaving very little room for the actual teachings of the living man from Nazareth.

Beloved Discipled

2011-03-23T12:26:00.008-04:00

One of the distinctive, and to me somewhat strange, aspects of the Gospel of John are the four references to the "disciple that Jesus loved." This Beloved Disciple is presumed by the church fathers to be John the Evangelist, author of the gospel.

The first thing that strikes me is the resonance with the Secret Gospel of Mark. In Secret Mark there is a story of a young man raised from the dead by Jesus, which has a similarity to the Lazarus story in John.

Secret Mark says that after the young man is restored to life "the man looked at him [Jesus] and loved him and he began to call him to his side, that he might be with him. " Later we have Jesus reciprocating the affection: "And the brother of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, as well as his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not welcome them." Put aside the faintly homoerotic flavor for the moment, and compare these passages to the four BD (Beloved Disciple) verses in John.

Jn 13:[23] One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus;

Jn 19:[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

Jn 20: [2] So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

Jn 21: [20] Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"

One problem for me, with the whole BD business, is this: I can't imagine the actual historical disciple John writing this gospel and putting himself in as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." It is at once too coy and too egotistical. Why not just come forth and annouce that the author is indeed the disciple John? There is some point to the whole BD thing but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it is. The only "John" mentioned in the Gospel "According to John" is John the Baptist! (Okay, the father of Simon Peter who was named John is mentioned but only by way we suppose of identifying Peter.) It's as if the author, if indeed intended to be understood to be the disciple John, modestly refraines from mentioning his own personal name in the scenes in which he appears, but is not so modest he hesistates to give himself the distinction of being the Beloved Disciple.

And it does have a homoerotic flavor, all that laying of head on breast, and the one Jesus loved and so on. Just a bunch of regular Jewish guys, wandering around together, laying heads on breasts, and turning water into wine, exorcizing demons, healing blind guys, ready for whatever comes along.

All very matey. And I'm not even going to bring in the naked man who ran away from the garden at the arrest scene in Mark. See how I didn't even bring that in?

At the end of the gospel there is an interesting bit:

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"

Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Okay, so first: Obviously this part was added at the time of the death of the BD, who was supposed by the community to be guaranteed to be alive at the parousia when J would return. He died, some people freaked out, so a "corrective" story was supplied.

Second: Who is this "we" that knows that the things the disciple wrote are true? Must be the community of the disciple.

Lastly: Who is the "I" who supposes the the world could not contain all the books? Must be the redactor.

Probably the same guy who put in the BD references in the first place.

I See Dead People: The Never-Ending Story

2011-03-16T12:47:00.002-04:00

Sid
Hey Skip, you said:
"If Lazarus, and the dead guy from Na'in, and the little girl, and Jesus, and the 'many' saints, and the woman Peter raised, and the young man named Eutychus Paul raised...were all raised from the dead...what's the big deal about Jesus being raised?"

The big deal is that the others who were raised up would go on to die again. They were, in a sense, raised for a temporary time. Jesus is raised up never to die again. The reason this is so important is by looking at the reasons for Jesus as the "last Adam," and having men, spirit, body and soul, to raise up as incorruptible and never to die again. Jesus was the first to be raised in this fashion, or as Paul calls it, He is the "first fruits."

But good question, though, thanks. Sid

Y'all know me well enough to know I'll reply:

Well Sid, how do we know all those other folks that were raised from the dead died later on, and Jesus didn't? Is that in scripture-- the ultimate fate of the little girl Paul raised? No. It's just an assumption. Maybe she's still around. Maybe she never ages. Anything is possible once you start dealing with MAGIC. And that's all it is really, just good old (pagan) magic. All that bumpf about first fruits, and last Adam, and raised up incorruptible never to die again is just so much theological doublespeak, which tries to mask the essential fact that all the raisings from the dead, Christian and pagan, are just implausible fictions. A guy dies of (let's say) kidney failure. Jesus comes along and raises him from the dead. Okay...so your idea is he dies a natural death... no doubt of kidney failure...shortly thereafter? Pretty pointless. I think as adults we can take these stories, that so impressed the ancients, for what they are: stories.

otro lector mas chimes in:
Actually the bigger deals are that only Jesus foretold this raising from the dead and only Jesus was raised without intercession. Every other person who was raised raised in the Scriptures or pagan myths resulted from another person's pleading to God (or gods).

1940-2010

2011-03-11T10:28:00.000-05:00

So long, Ronnie.

Proud to be... HEP C FREE!!

2011-03-10T13:32:00.002-05:00

My blood test of March 1 showed no detectable Hep C virus. Nine months since treatment ended.

Big East Tournament: Rutgers Beats Seton Hall in OT... Loses to St. Johns in Last Minute

2011-03-09T08:38:00.002-05:00

Murder

2011-03-08T09:56:00.003-05:00

My unconscious must be working out my hidden guilt. I dreamt that I had shot a crow with an air gun (killing it) and a voice screamed, "murder", -- a group of crows being not coincidentally, a "murder of crows"-- where upon it turned out I had not shot the crow with an air gun but rather had shot a human child with a rifle.

Next scene had me in a crew shell, guiltily considering whether to explain that I can only row well with a port side oar.

Herbs Bees Like

2011-03-06T14:11:00.006-05:00

Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith. ~Prov.15:17

MOTHERWORT (Leonurus cardiaca) Widely acclaimed bee plant, blooming most of the summer. Very easy to naturalize in waste areas. Honey is amber with a strong mint flavor. Honey remains liquid for months. Perennial.

SWEET CICELY (Myrrhis odorata), also known as Garden Myrrh, is a rare and hard-to-find Northern European heirloom with a sweet slightly anise flavor that can serve as a sugar substitute. The unripe seed is used in Scandinavia to flavor akavit and in Germany to flavor sausages and elsewhere to flavor pies and candies. A tall herbaceous perennial, the leaves are feathery and fern-like. It can reach 3'H x 3'D. It produces beautiful umbels of white flowers and slender seed pods.

SALAD BURNET (Sanguisorba minor) Salad burnet gives a nutty cucumber flavor to salads, vinegars, cream cheese and tomato juice. Grows to 1-foot tall with deeply toothed leaflets and thimble-shaped crimson flowerheads. Easy from seed. In China, it is known as "Di-yu" and is used in dressing wounds. Perennial.

BORAGE (Borago officinalis), also known as a starflower, is an annual herb originating in Syria, but naturalized throughout the Mediterranean region, as well as Asia Minor, Europe, North Africa, and South America. It grows to a height of 60–100 cm (2.0–3.3 ft), and is bristly or hairy all over the stems and leaves; the leaves are alternate, simple, and 5–15 cm (2.0–5.9 in) long. The flowers are complete, perfect with five narrow, triangular-pointed petals. Flowers are most often blue in color, although pink flowers are sometimes observed. White flowered types are also cultivated. The flowers arise along scorpiod cymes to form large floral displays with multiple flowers blooming simultaneously, suggesting that borage has a high degree of geitonogamy. It has an indeterminate growth habit which may lead to prolific spreading. In milder climates, borage will bloom continuously for most of the year.

DILL (Anethum graveolens) A popular annual, has bluish-green stems that contrast with finely divided, yellow-green, plume-like leaves and yellowish flowers. Dill grows about 2 to 3 feet high. Direct Seed. Plant 1/4 inch deep about 10 inches apart in a prepared bed. Does not transplant well.

THYME (Thymus vulgaris) is a drought tolerant perennial, that can be found growing on mountain highlands. It prefers a well-drained light soil, which should not be too rich in nutrients which will only make the plant 'leggy' and loose its compact shape. Being a native of the Mediterranean it needs a place in full sun.

LAVENDER (Lavandula) A flowering plant of the mint family.Lavender is a very bushy short shrub that grows wild in the sunny, stony habitats of the Mediterranean mountains. It also flourishes in Australia, and the United States. Lavender grows to a height of roughly 60cms and does best in moderately fertile, well-drained, alkaline soils in full sun. Once established this herb thrives on poor, dry, stony soils, but does not tolerate water-logging.

In Secret

2011-03-06T12:00:00.004-05:00

In Mt. 6:16 is the following interesting instruction: "And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your father who is in secret; and your father who sees in secret will reward you." (NRSV)

We've met with these hypocrites before in the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere in Matthew. You are instructed not to be like the hypocrites who ostentatiously pray in the synagogue or on the street corners (Mt 6:5). You are not to give alms in a public way designed to attract attention, but in secret (Mt 6:2).The hypocrites are clearly non-believing Jews, from whom Matthew is distinguishing his Jewish Christian community. When he means Gentiles (=pagans) he says so, as in Mt 6:7, where we are warned not to heap up empty phrases in prayer, babbling as the pagans are said to do.

The description of the fasting hypocrites as looking "dismal", or in a different reading "with a sad, gloomy, sullen looks", calls to mind the stock Greco-Roman figure of the wandering Cynic philosopher. We have already encountered a Cynic-like figure in the Gospel of Mark, where the kit the disciples are to take on Operation Unclean Spirits is minimal, and very like the wardrobe of famed Cynic, Diogenes. Jesus commanded "that they should take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belt" ( Mk 6:8). The gloomy peripatetic philosopher was a figure of fun in many ancient writings, both serious and comic. Plato criticizes (Symposium 206d) and Lucian satirizes (Demonax 6) this sort of "gloomy and stern philosopher" (Lucilius 754: tristis ac severus philosophus).

In antiquity the Jewish god was thought to be a sad god, and the Jewish Sabbath a sad occasion. Matthew's Jesus wants no part of this gloomy sham religiosity, but instead directs his followers to perform their normal everyday hygienic ablutions (wash face/put on oil), and engage in their religious activities inconspicuously. Give alms anonymously. Pray privately. Fast without public show.

The description of the Almighty as "in secret" or alternatively "hidden", or very literally "in the secret" or "in the hidden" , is unique to the Sermon on the Mount and provides a nice parallelism to the cultic instructions, the thrust of which is that the righteous believer should himself be concerned only with God knowing of his almsgiving, his forgiveness of others, and his prayer and fasting, which are done in secret only for the “father who sees in secret.”

Just as a side note, in the NT prayer and fasting is mentioned very often, practiced among others by Jesus himself. While prayer continues in Christian practice fasting has almost completely disappeared, remaining only in fossil form in such observances as “giving up something” for Lent, or eating no meat on Fridays (which I always suspected of being an arrangement created by the Catholic Fisherman’s Guild).

The Most Sacred Day

2011-03-04T13:33:00.003-05:00

As the winter begins to cautiously recede and the grass is more evident than the snow, our minds naturally turn to that most sacred day in the year, the day that marks our hopes of salvation, the day that most poignantly reaffirms our belief in miracles, and in the triumph of life and resurrection over the pain, punishment, and humiliation suffered at the hands of our enemies.

Easter??

Not even close!

OPENING DAY OF THE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL SEASON!

Spirits?

2011-02-25T15:12:00.003-05:00

1 Cor 12: [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

So what are the spirits that Paul tells the Corinthians they might have the gift of distinguishing between?

It can only be between the Holy Spirit, and other, not-so-holy spirits. In other words, unclean spirits.

Acts 19: [13]:Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches."

Paul himself speaks several times of "elemental spirits", as in Galatians.

Gal 4: [3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. ... [9] but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?

The message of Paul was that a Christian participates in the death and resurrection of Christ, and that Christ defeated or vanquished death and all the evil spirits. Why, if this is so, anyone should need to have a gift whereby to distinguish between spirits is not explained. Indeed, the theology of Paul is very much along the lines of a mystery religion, but this fact remains, that the unclean spirits seem just as active and dangerous after the resurrection as before it.

Col. 2 :[20] If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?

George Fox disputes with some Jesuits

2011-02-22T14:27:00.003-05:00

I had not been long in London, before I heard that a Jesuit, who came over with an ambassador from Spain, had challenged all the Quakers to dispute with them at the earl of Newport's house; whereupon some Friends let him know some would meet him. Then he sent us word, ‘he would meet with twelve of the wisest, most learned men we had.' Awhile after he sent us word, 'he would meet with but six:' after that he sent us word again, ‘he would have but three to come.' We hastened what we could; for fear that, for all his great boast, he should cancel it at last. When we had come to the house, I asked Nicholas Bond and Edward Burrough go up and enter the discussion with him; and I would walk awhile in the yard, and then come up after them. I advised them to state this question to him,'Whether or not the church of Rome, as it now stood, was not degenerated from the true church which was in the primitive times, from the life and doctrine, and from the power and spirit that they were in?' They stated the question accordingly; and the Jesuit affirmed, 'That the church of Rome now was in the virginity and purity of the primitive church.' By this time I had joined them. Then we asked him, ‘Whether they had the holy ghost poured out upon them, as the apostles had?' He said, ‘No.' ‘Then,' I said, ‘if you have not the same holy ghost poured forth upon you, and the same power and spirit that the apostles had, you are degenerated from the power and spirit which the primitive church was in.' There needed little more to be said to that. Then I asked him, ‘What scripture they had for setting up cloisters for nuns, abbeys and monasteries for men; for all their several orders; for their praying by beads and to images; for making crosses; for forbidding of meats and marriages; and for putting people to death for religion? If, (I said), you are in the practice of the primitive church, in its purity and virginity, then let us see by scriptures wherever they practiced any such things?' (For it had been agreed by both parties, that we should make good by scriptures what we said.) Then he told us of a written word, and an unwritten word. I asked him what he called his unwritten word? He said, ‘The written word is the scriptures, and the unwritten word is what the apostles spoke by word of mouth; which, (he said), are all those traditions that we practice.' I bid him prove that by scripture. Then he brought that scripture where the apostle says, 2 Thes 2:5. 'When I was with you, I told you these things. That is,' said he, 'I told you of nunneries and monasteries, and of putting to death for religion, and of praying by beads, and to images, and all the rest of the practices of the church of Rome; which,' he said, ‘was the unwritten word of the apostles, which they told then, and have since been continued down by tradition until these times.' Then I desired him to read that scripture again, that he might see how he had perverted the apostle's words; ‘for what the apostle there tells the Thessalonians, "he had told them before," is not an unwritten word, but is there written down; namely, that the man of sin, the son of perdition, shall be revealed before the great and terrible day of Christ, which he was writing of, should come; so this was not telling them any of those things that the church of Rome practices. In like manner the apostle, in the third chapter of that epistle, tells the church of some disorderly persons, "he heard were among them; busy-bodies, who did not work at all; concerning whom he had commanded them by his unwritten word, when he was among them, that if any would not work, neither should he eat: which now he commands them again in his written word in this epistle.' 2 Thes 3:10. So this scripture afforded no proof for their invented traditions, and he had no other scripture proof to offer. Therefore I told him, ‘This was another degeneration of their church into such inventions and traditions as the apostles and primitive saints never practiced.'

After this he [the Jesuit began speaking about communion] came to his sacrament of the altar, beginning at the paschal lamb, and the show bread, and came to the words of Christ, 'This is my body,' and to what the apostle wrote of it to the Corinthians; concluding, 'that after the priest had consecrated the bread and wine, it was immortal and divine, and he that received it, received the whole Christ.' I followed him through the scriptures he brought, until I came to Christ's words and the apostle's. I showed him, 'that the same apostle told the Corinthians, after they had taken bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's death, that they were reprobates, [sin still lives in them] "if Christ was not in them;" but if the bread they ate was Christ, he must of necessity be in them after they had eaten it. [which if reprobates, is impossible: Proof 1]. Besides, if this bread and this wine, which the Corinthians ate and drank, was Christ's body, then how has Christ a body in heaven?' [Proof 2]. I observed to him also, 'that both the disciples at the supper, and the Corinthians afterwards, were to eat the bread and drink the wine in "remembrance of Christ," and to "show forth his death until he comes;" which plainly proves the bread and wine, which they took, was not his body. For if it had been his real body that they ate, then he had already come, and was then there present, and it had been improper to have done such a thing in remembrance of him, if he had been then present with them, as he must have been, if that bread and wine which they ate and drank had been his real body.' [Proof 3]. As to those words of Christ, 'This is my body,' I told him, 'Christ calls himself a vine, and a door, and is called in scripture a rock. Is Christ therefore an outward rock, door, or vine?’ 'Oh,' said the Jesuit, 'those words are to be interpreted;' 'So,' I said, 'are those words of Christ, “This is my body."' [Proof 4]. Having stopped his mouth as to argument, I made the Jesuit a proposal thus: 'that seeing he said, "the bread and wine was immortal and divine, and the very Christ; and that whosoever received it, received the whole Christ;" let a meeting be appointed between some whom the pope and his cardinals should appoint, and some of us; let a bottle of wine and loaf of bread be brought, and divided each into two parts, and let them consecrate which of those parts they would. Then set the consecrated and the unconsecrated bread and wine in a safe place, with a sure watch upon it; and let trial be thus made, whether the consecrated bread and wine would not lose its goodness, and the bread grow dry and moldy, and the wine turn dead and sour, as well and as soon as what was unconsecrated.' By this means,' I said, 'the truth of this matter may be made manifest. And if the consecrated bread and wine does not change, but retain their savor and goodness, this may be a means to draw many to your church; but if they change, decay, and lose their goodness, then you ought to confess and forsake your error, and shed no more blood about it; for much blood has been shed about these things; as in queen Mary's days.' To this the Jesuit made this reply, 'Take a piece of new cloth, and cut it into two pieces, and make two garments of it, and put one of them upon king David's back, and the other upon a beggar's, and the one garment shall wear away as well as the other.' I asked, 'Is this your answer?' 'Yes,' he said. 'Then,' I said, 'by this the company may all be satisfied that your consecrated bread and wine is not Christ. [Proof 5]. Have you told people so long, that the consecrated bread and wine was immortal and divine, and that it was the very and real body and blood of Christ, and do you now say it will wear away or decay as well as the other? I must tell you,"Christ remains the same today as yesterday," and never decays; but is the saints' heavenly food in all generations, through which they have life.' He replied no more to this, being willing to let it fall; for the people that were present saw his error, and that he could not defend it. Then I asked him, ‘why the church did persecute, and put people to death for religion?' He replied, ‘it was not the church that did it, but the magistrates.' I asked him, ‘whether those magistrates were not counted and called believers and christians?' He said, ‘yes;', why, then,' I said, ‘are they not members of your church?' ‘Yes,' he said. Then I left it to the people to judge from his own concessions, whether the church of Rome does not persecute, and put people to death for religion. Thus we parted, and his subtlety was confuted by simplicity.

The Mighty Wind

2011-02-22T08:41:00.008-05:00

Act 2:[2] And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.[3] And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.[4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Camping at French Creek, Pennsylvania I had one of those opportunities to do something good for a stranger, without them knowing I’d done it or even that anything good had been done for them. I won’t mention what it was, but in the course of this transaction I met with two state park rangers. I mentioned how few people were camping, considering that it was sixty degrees. “Wind advisory,” the ranger said. “Winds will hit fifty miles per hour. Don’t pitch your tent where a branch might fall”, he said, and after these kind words of advice the rangers took their leave.

I am no expert camper, but I got my little dome tent up, gathered wood, got my propane burner going, and had beef stroganoff with noodles, and some green beans. The day was still warm. I took my sweater off. I hiked around. I emptied my mind. There were lots of huge crows, and honking geese. The only sound you could hear was the sound of the Maryland astronomers chopping wood, and the occasional boom of a rifle shot off to the south toward the state game lands. The Maryland couple had a huge telescope, the barrel of which was the size of a paper picnic plate. They had a child's drum set from France on a picnic table, but no child.

After enjoying my fire for a while I crawled into my tent, got into my sleeping bag, and read a journal article about the identity of the New Testament’s Salome. The author contended that there were two women named Salome, one a disciple and a separate one the sister of Jesus. He cites various apocryphal gospel traditions in support (e.g., The Gospel of Peter); he argues persuasively; he contradicts Morton Smith (always a courageous move); he briefly deals with the Problem of the Many Marys. All in all, a very enjoyable read.

The sun was down. The wind picked up. It began to make a whining sound in the trees. Then I felt the temperature drop all of a sudden. It was as is I had stepped into a walk-in freezer. I don’t recall ever having experienced this before, but of course I’m not usually sleeping outside. But still.

The wind grew more and more intense. It developed a sort of personality, which seemed to me to be both mournful and domineering. A deep growling sound became the main theme, then a tremendous roar which sounded like a tractor trailer emerging from a tunnel at 80 miles per hour, with you standing about three feet away. That alternated with a jet aircraft sound. Low growl, ferocious roar, high pitched whistle whine: these sounds ebbed and flow continuously. Sometimes the tractor trailer sound would be off aways, sometimes it would go right over my tiny tent.

While this was going on I considered that it was impossible for my little nylon shelter to survive this onslaught. I had read of storms at sea, the tremendous noise of the wind, the utter futility of man’s efforts in the face of blind Nature’s relentless assault. The wind singing in the shrouds, oh yes, it made perfect sense.

Yet the tent merely shivered, and even the most powerful blasts just swayed it a bit to one side. Of course the actual tent itself could hardly be blown away, since it was a sealed nylon cocoon with me inside. It might collapse, but there was no way (I reasoned) that it could be picked up and whisked away. After all, I was in a forest. Surely the trees would … blunt, or divert or somehow diminish this fury. The aptly-named fly (which covers the tent and protects against rain) might literally fly away if it pulled free of its stakes, but the tent itself, no, it would be okay.

Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind

The verse does not say that there actually was a mighty rushing wind, but simply that there was a sound that such a wind might produce, and that this sound came “from heaven”. By this I take it Luke intends to convey the idea that the wind sound was supernatural. He does not say that all the crockery and chairs and Bible tracts which doubtless were in the house were swept away by the mighty rushing wind, or that the diminutive James the Less was nearly lifted off his feet, or that the ladies present modestly clutched at their garments for fear of the men discovering their nakedness. So what we have here is Sound without Fury.

The Greek word used is pnoEs or pneo (= BLOWing of blast), which is used in Greek in various forms both for wind, breeze, breath, exhalation, and so forth, as well as for spirit. God breathes life into Adam. He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." The divine breath gives Adam both life and soul, if you will. God is not recorded as breathing life into the animals or plants.

The sound of the wind is not the wind itself, but only an effect that comes from contact with some material object. The trees vibrate, and this propagates the vibration which we experience as sound. Blow a whistle and your breath passes through the constrained aperture: the resulting sound is the vibration thus created. If there were no material objects in the path of the wind there would be no sound. Of course you can’t test this since to put your head or a microphone there introduces a material object that will create perturbations in the wind and thus a sound.

The ancients had a muddled idea of how wind was created and even what wind was. They seem to have imagined that wind was a thing in itself, more than just air in motion. So you have Odysseus getting the bag of winds from Aeolus. Epicurus had the idea that the wind could go down in side the earth, through a cave perhaps, and that once there would cause disruptions such as volcanoes. Basically the wind gets into the bowels of the earth and the result is a terrific case of heartburn and flatulence.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The wind in verse 2 and the Spirit in verse 4 are the same root word: pneo/ pneuma. So the wind/Spirit entered the house, and entered the apostles, and they in turn spoke in tongues. They spoke: again an out-breathing of the Spirit that had in-dwelled them.

AND
there-became
suddenly
OUT
OF-THE
heaven
RESOUND
AS-EVEN
OF-beING-CARRIED
BLOWing
of-blast
FORCible
AND
it-FILLS
WHOLE
HOME
where
THEY-WERE
AND
WERE-VIEWED
beING-THRU-PARTED
TONGUES
AS-IF
OF-FIRE
is-seated
BESIDES
ONE
EACH
OF-them
ALL
OF-spirit
HOLY
AND
THEY-begin
TO-BE-TALKING
to-DIFFERENT
TONGUES
according-AS
THE
spirit
GAVE
TO-BE-FROM-UTTERING

Of course in the morning I found my frail little tent completely unharmed, and now I know that the wind was no enemy at all. The tent’s shape allowed all to flow over it without harm.

Next time I will have more faith in my little tent.

Light Bulb Jokes

2011-02-15T10:21:00.004-05:00

Q: How many charismatics does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One, since his hands are in the air anyway.

A: Three, one to cast it out and two to catch it when it falls!

A: Twenty one, one to change it, and twenty to share the experience!

Q: How many Calvinists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. God has predestined when the lights will be on.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: 10, as they need to hold a debate into whether or not the lightbulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the lightbulb they may not go ahead and change it for fear of alienating those who use fluorescent tubes.

Q: How many Anglo-Catholics does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. They always use candles instead.

Q: How many evangelicals does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Evangelicals do not change lightbulbs. They simply read out the instructions and hope the lightbulb will decide to change itself.

Q: How many Atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One. But they are still in darkness.

Q: How many Brethren does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change?????

Q: How many Pentecostals does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: 10, one to change it and 9 others to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Q: How many TV evangelists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One. But for the message of hope to continue to go forth, send in your donation today.

Q: How many independent baptist's does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Only one, anymore than that would be considered ecumenical.

Q: How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: 10. One to actually change the bulb and 9 to say how much they liked the old one.

Q: How many Pentecostals does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: 25. One to screw in the new lamp. Two dozen to bind the powers of darkness.

Q: How many Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Well, it should require about five committees to review the idea first. If each is staffed with half a dozen members, that's what ... 30?

Q: How many members of the church of Christ does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: 5. One to change the bulb, 4 to serve refreshments.

Q: How many conservative Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Three. One to change it and two to storm out in protest if the person changing it is a woman!

Q: How many Calvinists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. If God wants the lightbulb changed He will do it Himself!

How many Quakers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A.At the next meeting for business, Clerk discerns a sense of the meeting among Friends and attenders that meeting should do the following:
1. Remove the burned out bulb from the socket, but not disposed of. It shall be kept on the mantle above the fireplace.
2. A new bulb, provided one need not be purchased, shall be placed into the socket, but not screwed in all the way so as not to use additional current. The decision as to when to screw the bulb in all the way is referred back to property committee which will makes its recommendation, after input from all the other committees previously involved, at a future meeting for business.
3. If a new lightbulb needs to be purchased, the matter will be referred to the finance committee to review and make a recommendation.

After a period of silence, an old, well respected Quaker scholar and weighty Friend rises to quote from George Fox, stating that, "It is not in thy power to change it. Thy task is to bring it to Christ and leave it there."

Mary Quite Contrary

2011-02-14T15:29:00.005-05:00

Were not there three women at the cross? Let's see!

(1)Mary Mags/(2)Wife of Zebedee = mother of James and John/(3)Mother of James and Joseph (Matthew)

(1)Mary Mags/(2) Mary Mother of James and Joses/ (3)Salome (Mark)

Now let's look at the account in John more closely:

John 19:25 is translated in the NAB as, "Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala."

The Greek says: heisteikeisan de para tw staurw tou Iesu hei meter autou kao hei adelphei teis meitros autou, Maria hei tou Klwpa kai Maria hei Magdalein. (transliteration by Cindy Smith, who says it is not so great)

At any rate, it isn't clear in the Greek whether three or four women are meant here.

Version 1: (1)The mother of Jesus ;(2)His mother's sister;(3) Mary the wife of Clopas;(4) Mary Magdalene

Version 2: (1)The mother of Jesus ;(2) His mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas
(3)Mary Magdalene

Version 3: (1)The mother of Jesus, Mary wife of Clopas; (2)His mother's sister Mary Magdalene

How about that last one!! YIKES!

So that would lead us to:

Virgin Mary = Mother of Jesus= Wife of Clopas= Mother of James and Joses = Sister of Mary Mags!

How about that for a universal solvent?

It sure would clean up the 'too many Marys' problem.

Anthrakia

2011-02-09T10:19:00.001-05:00

Anthrakia: Greek for "a fire of burning charcoal," is used twice in John's Gospel: first, to describe the fire, where Peter warmed his hands and denied knowing Jesus three times(18.18); second, to describe the burning coals our Risen Lord lit to prepare breakfast for his disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (21.9). Here we invite you to warm your hands, prepare something for others to chew on, and eat whatever Jesus prepares for you.

Excuse Me While I Beat This Dead Horse

2011-02-09T08:47:00.003-05:00

This issue starts on the following website:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/doctrine-afterlife.htm

QUESTION BY PERCEPTIVE AND INTELLIGENT READER:
My question is concerning what happens to people after they die. The belief from traditional Christianity is that when an individual dies, his soul immediately travels to some afterlife, be it heaven, hell, or what have you. But after a little studying I have arrived at the idea that this doctrine is not biblical. What is apparent to me is that New Testament writers had an idea of death similar to that of Old Testament writers. Both believed in a place known as Sheol (or Hades in the Greek), which was the place where souls would travel to and sleep. On numerous occasions, the Bible mentions people dying and "sleeping with their fathers". In John 11:11, Jesus says that Lazarus was "sleeping" to mean that he was dead. It seems to me that the biblical idea of death is that people go to Sheol, or "fall asleep", when they die and then stay there until the Messiah comes to resurrect them in a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15 is an ideal instance of this idea; it mentions nothing about people being conscious in any sense during death, but being asleep the entire time. Verses 29-32 of that chapter voice how pointless and tragic it would be if Christians were to follow Christ and not be resurrected someday; but why would those circumstances be so tragic if Christian souls were to enjoy bliss in Heaven immediately after they died? Is there any biblical evidence for the doctrine of afterlife immediately after death, or is it just a modern theological fabrication?

ANSWER ON BIBLE STUDY SITE FROM BAPTIST PASTOR
Luke 16:19-31 clearly states that when people die they immediately go to heaven or hell. Also, when Jesus was on the cross He told the thief beside Him, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Sheol and hades both basically mean the same thing-the grave. It is not a place where people temporarily go and sleep, it simply means they are dead. There is no pergatory (sic), that is another false teaching from the Catholics. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is arguing the resurrection. He is asking why are they baptized upon the article of the resurrection of the dead and upon the hope of the resurrection and deny the resurrection of the dead? He asks why do we risk our lives if there wasn't going to be a resurrection? In verse 32 he says if there will be no resurrection then lets just give up and die. When we die our soul immediately goes to heaven or hell, it's our choice. Our body, which goes to the grave, will be resurrected some day.

The answer above was so inadequate and so unresponsive to the question that of course I had to put in my two drachmas. The expert Pastor seemed to miss entirely the central point: if you immediately go to heaven or hell, the whole Day of Judgment and resurrection of the body is a travesty.

SKIP'S REPLY TO THE QUESTIONER
The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (not the dead guy, brother of Martha, that Jesus raised, another of the same name): this is teaching a moral lesson, not expounding doctrine, and in any event the Rich Man suffering in Hades presumes that he has been judged a sinner, and as we all know this occurs on Judgment Day, not in the moments after death. Here is what Paul says, which plainly rules out the notion of dying and going to heaven:

[since I just quoted these at length in a recent post I'll apologize for the repetition here]

1 Thes 4: [13] But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. [14] For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. [15] For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. [16] For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; [17] then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. [18] Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Phil:3 [8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; [10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

The ability to be "always with the Lord" begins on the Day of Judgment, and in the meanwhile I do not suppose Paul thought the dead in Christ were relaxing in Paradise with Jesus. The remark of Jesus to the Penitent Thief, though of a legendary character, is interesting. First, is "Paradise" the same thing as heaven? Paradise was the earthy abode of Adam and Eve. Did John Milton write "Heaven Lost"? No, he did not. "The Heavens", by way of contrast, is where God was imagined chiefly to reside. Of course God is everywhere... but nevermind. The ancients had a three-story universe with the underworld below, the earth in the middle, and the heavens above. Remember Paul gets caught up to the third heaven, according to 2 Corinthians? Where that might be I know not, nor did Paul.

So let's leave it like this: Paul plainly did not believe in an instantaneous trip to heaven or hell. He believed in death, 'sleep' in Christ, resurrection, judgment, glorious spirit-body for the winners. Jesus, on the thin evidence of the remark to the thief, might have a 'heaven right away' idea. Other ancients-- Jews, Christians, and pagans-- had a variety of ideas, most including a realm like Hades or Sheol where everyone went. This was a gloomy and by all accounts very dull place. Modern folks like to think of Aunt Annie and Uncle Joe in heaven wearing a nighty and plucking a harp, or perhaps "walking & talking with Jesus. " This last wish is very popular, and I have no doubt that the waiting list is impressive. Anyway, there is no scriptural basis for that idea, and I suppose we can wait and see, or, believe whatever makes you comfortable.

The Nan-Shan About to Get Underway

2011-02-07T16:33:00.006-05:00

His brusque "Come along, John; make look see" set the Chinaman in motion at his heels."Wanchee look see, all same look see can do," said Jukes, who having no talent for foreign languages mangled the very pidgin-English cruelly. He pointed at the open hatch. "Catchee number one piecie place to sleep in. Eh?"

He was gruff, as became his racial superiority, but not unfriendly. The Chinaman, gazing sad and speechless into the darkness of the hatchway,seemed to stand at the head of a yawning grave.

"No catchee rain down there--savee?" pointed out Jukes. "Suppose all'eesame fine weather, one piecie coolie-man come topside," he pursued,warming up imaginatively. "Make so--Phooooo!" He expanded his chest and blew out his cheeks. "Savee, John? Breathe--fresh air. Good. Eh? Washee him piecie pants, chow-chow top-side--see, John?"

With his mouth and hands he made exuberant motions of eating rice and washing clothes; and the Chinaman, who concealed his distrust of this pantomime under a collected demeanour tinged by a gentle and refined melancholy, glanced out of his almond eyes from Jukes to the hatch and back again. "Velly good," he murmured, in a disconsolate undertone, and hastened smoothly along the decks, dodging obstacles in his course. He disappeared, ducking low under a sling of ten dirty gunny-bags full of some costly merchandise and exhaling a repulsive smell.

~"Typhoon", Joseph Conrad

Really Excellent Message from Joel Osteen

2011-02-04T15:12:00.003-05:00

A few months ago, I met a young man and his girlfriend after a service. They had more tattoos and piercings than anybody I´d ever seen. The man had tattoos up his arm to his neck, even on his face, and the young lady must have had a hundred different piercings. To be honest, at first, a critical spirit tried to rise up inside. I had thoughts like "Why do they look like that?" and "Boy, they must have a lot of problems, a lot of issues." But instead of staying there, I took out my critical eyes and put in God´s eyes. When I did, I had a different perspective. I was glad that they felt comfortable coming to church. I was glad that they took time to honor God.

Come to find out, he was the leader of a very successful heavy metal band. They just had a big concert in an arena here in Houston the night before. He said to me, Joel, I have never been in church one day in my life before. This is the first time I have ever set foot in a house of worship." He then gave me one of their CD´s and said, "Listen to track number seven. That´s a song I wrote after listening to you."

After visiting with them, I found that they were not anything like I expected. They were some of the kindest, most genuine people that someone could ever meet even though on the outside, there were a thousand reasons to be judgmental and critical.

I´ve found that people today are so quick to judge others by their outside appearance and quick to find fault. If somebody is not just like them, if they´re just a little bit different, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt, they look them up and down and start to pick them apart thinking thoughts like "Well, I would never dress like that." "I would never drive that car." "Well, if I were them, I wouldn´t have taken a vacation in this economy." "If I were them, I wouldn´t send my kids to that school." "If I were them, I wouldn´t wear that much jewelry." But here´s the thing, you´re not them. You don´t really know what you would do because you haven´t walked in their shoes. Don´t judge others because you don´t know what they´ve been through. You don´t know the life they´ve lived and the obstacles they´ve faced. They might have a thousand tattoos covering them or wear jewelry from head to toe; they might not dress the way you would like them to, but it doesn´t give you a right to judge. You have never lived their situation.

When you´re tempted to be critical and find fault in others, remember the enemy is called the accuser of the brethren. Recognize where the source is coming from. He´s the one that wants you to be critical. I don´t know about you, but I´m not going over to that side. I´m going to stay on God´s side. I´m going to believe the best in others. There may be a thousand things that I can see that´s wrong with them, but I´m going to look and look until I find at least one thing that´s right. I´ve been forgiven much, so I´m going to love much. And if I err, I´m not going to err on the side of judgment. I´m going to err on the side of mercy. After all, where would we all be without the mercy of God? If I hadn´t had good parents and been raised in a good church, who knows where I would be today? I´m not going to be condemning. I´m not going to be a faultfinder.

How somebody spends their money, where they go on vacation, how they raise their children, or what kind of car they drive, I´ve learned that is none of my business. I don´t know about you, but I have a hard enough time trying to run my own life without trying to run somebody else´s life!

One of the best ways that we can keep a pure heart free from judgment is to learn to mind our own business. If somebody takes four vacations a year, that´s none of my business. If they drive around town in a limousine or come to church in a boat, that´s none of my business. If they wear rings on every finger and every toe, that´s none of my business.

Be careful not to fall in this trap of being judgmental of others. It will rob you of your joy and peace and allow the enemy to have a foothold in your life. Comparison, jealousy and strife have room to enter whenever we entertain these thoughts.

Jesus put it like this, "Don´t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults - unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging." Matthew 7:3-5 (The Message).

Decide to live judgment free in your life. If you do, you´ll not only live with more peace, but God will bless you, and your relationships will be blessed because the Bible says that in the same measure we judge, we too will be judged.

I´ve learned to not pass judgment on others. There are too many other things in life that need our focus, and I don´t know about you, but I need to use all the focus I have on what God has called me to do.

~ http://www.joelosteen.com/

Dead & In Heaven

2011-02-04T09:39:00.007-05:00

A pastor named James McDonald, on a radio program called "Walk in the Word", had a sermon on Christian joy and faithfulness this morning, using as his text Paul's Epistle to the Phillipians. This good topic was marred by statements that went from bad to silly to woefully inapposite to the topic.

Dr. McDonald said that Jesus never taught that anger was a sin. He then purported to use Paul's Letter to the Ephesians as a proof text. Paul, who never knew the earthly Jesus and from his [Paul's] genuine writings knows scarcely anything about what Jesus taught. And Ephesians-- not even one of the undisputed letters of Paul.

Genuine or not, we rather like Ephesians. Here is what it says on anger:

Eph 4: [26] Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, [27] and give no opportunity to the devil. [28] Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need. [29] Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. [30] And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. [31] Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, [32] and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

...

Eph 6: [4] Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Does it seem like Paul thinks anger is okay? He recognizes it as part of our fallen state, but surely is not neutral on the moral element. Anger is no virtue.

In 2 Cor. 12:20 Paul writes "For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, and that you may find me not what you wish; that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. "

In Gal:5 Paul provides one of the absolute best things he ever wrote:

[16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. [17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. [18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

But enough of Paul. What does Jesus say? Well, he is not ambiguous in the least.

Matt 5:[21] "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' [22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

That's plain enough for even the meanest understanding.

Dr. McDonald also summarized part of Paul's message to the Phillipians as saying that Paul soldiered on with his missionary work with the Phillipians, but would rather be dead and in heaven with God. Here is the verse he cites:

Phil. 1:[22] If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. [23] I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. [24] But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

Dr. McDonald then talks about the Good Thief of Lk 23:43, "And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.'"

Nothing is more certain than that Paul knew nothing of this doubtless fictional conversation.

So does Paul really believe you die and go straight to heaven?

Does Paul believe that the DEAD go to heaven?

Did Paul even have a concept of heaven, as opposed to God's Good Kingdom with all the believers in spirit-bodies like the Risen Lord?

Nope. He believes that the righteous dead are raised at the Last Day. Paul might die, and Paul did die, but he will not beat a single believer through the Gates of Heaven. Not even you, my dear ones.

Here is what Paul says, which plainly rules out the notion of dying and going to heaven:

1 Thes 4: [13] But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. [14] For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. [15] For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. [16] For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; [17] then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. [18] Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Phil:3 [8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; [10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

Paul may want his Spirit Body badly, but he has to take a number and wait with the rest of us.

The ability to be "always with the Lord" begins on the Day of Judgment, and in the meanwhile I do not suppose Paul thought the dead in Christ were relaxing in Paradise with Jesus.

Here endeth the lesson.

Re-Post: Why the Middle East Doesn't Matter

2011-01-31T10:24:00.002-05:00

Why the Middle East Doesn't Matter

Western analysts are forever bleating about the strategic importance of the middle east. But despite its oil, this backward region is less relevant than ever, and it would be better for everyone if the rest of the world learned to ignore it.by Edward Luttwak.

Why are middle east experts so unfailingly wrong? The lesson of history is that men never learn from history, but middle east experts, like the rest of us, should at least learn from their past mistakes. Instead, they just keep repeating them.The first mistake is "five minutes to midnight" catastrophism. The late King Hussein of Jordan was the undisputed master of this genre. Wearing his gravest aspect, he would warn us that with patience finally exhausted the Arab-Israeli conflict was about to explode, that all past conflicts would be dwarfed by what was about to happen unless, unless… And then came the remedy—usually something rather tame when compared with the immense catastrophe predicted, such as resuming this or that stalled negotiation, or getting an American envoy to the scene to make the usual promises to the Palestinians and apply the usual pressures on Israel.

We read versions of the standard King Hussein speech in countless newspaper columns, hear identical invocations in the grindingly repetitive radio and television appearances of the usual middle east experts, and are now faced with Hussein's son Abdullah periodically repeating his father's speech almost verbatim.What actually happens at each of these "moments of truth"—and we may be approaching another one—is nothing much; only the same old cyclical conflict which always restarts when peace is about to break out, and always dampens down when the violence becomes intense enough. The ease of filming and reporting out of safe and comfortable Israeli hotels inflates the media coverage of every minor affray. But humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000—about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.

Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded. For decades now, the largest Arab oil producers have publicly foresworn any linkage between politics and pricing, and an embargo would be a disaster for their oil-revenue dependent economies. In any case, the relationship between turmoil in the middle east and oil prices is far from straightforward. As Philip Auerswald recently noted in the American Interest, between 1981 and 1999—a period when a fundamentalist regime consolidated power in Iran, Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war within view of oil and gas installations, the Gulf war came and went and the first Palestinian intifada raged—oil prices, adjusted for inflation, actually fell.

And global dependence on middle eastern oil is declining: today the region produces under 30 per cent of the world's crude oil, compared to almost 40 per cent in 1974-75. In 2005 17 per cent of American oil imports came from the Gulf, compared to 28 per cent in 1975, and President Bush used his 2006 state of the union address to announce his intention of cutting US oil imports from the middle east by three quarters by 2025.

Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia, nor would it assuage the perfectly understandable hostility of convinced Islamists towards the transgressive west that relentlessly invades their minds, and sometimes their countries.Arab-Israeli catastrophism is wrong twice over, first because the conflict is contained within rather narrow boundaries, and second because the Levant is just not that important any more.

The second repeated mistake is the Mussolini syndrome. Contemporary documents prove beyond any doubt what is now hard to credit: serious people, including British and French military chiefs, accepted Mussolini's claims to great power status because they believed that he had serious armed forces at his command. His army divisions, battleships and air squadrons were dutifully counted to assess Italian military power, making some allowance for their lack of the most modern weapons but not for their more fundamental refusal to fight in earnest. Having conceded Ethiopia to win over Mussolini, only to lose him to Hitler as soon as the fighting started, the British discovered that the Italian forces quickly crumbled in combat. It could not be otherwise, because most Italian soldiers were unwilling conscripts from the one-mule peasantry of the south or the almost equally miserable sharecropping villages of the north.

Exactly the same mistake keeps being made by the fraternity of middle east experts. They persistently attribute real military strength to backward societies whose populations can sustain excellent insurgencies but not modern military forces.In the 1960s, it was Nasser's Egypt that was mistaken for a real military power just because it had received many aircraft, tanks and guns from the Soviet Union, and had many army divisions and air squadrons.

In May 1967, on the eve of war, many agreed with the prediction of Field Marshal Montgomery, then revisiting the El Alamein battlefield, that the Egyptians would defeat the Israelis forthwith; even the more cautious never anticipated that the former would be utterly defeated by the latter in just a few days. In 1973, with much more drama, it still took only three weeks to reach the same outcome. In 1990 it was the turn of Iraq to be hugely overestimated as a military power. Saddam Hussein had more equipment than Nasser ever accumulated, and could boast of having defeated much more populous Iran after eight years of war. In the months before the Gulf war, there was much anxious speculation about the size of the Iraqi army—again, the divisions and regiments were dutifully counted as if they were German divisions on the eve of D-day, with a separate count of the "elite" Republican Guards, not to mention the "super-elite" Special Republican Guards—and it was feared that Iraq's bombproof aircraft shelters and deep bunkers would survive any air attack.

That much of this was believed at some level we know from the magnitude of the coalition armies that were laboriously assembled, including 575,000 US troops, 43,000 British, 14,663 French and 4,500 Canadian, and which incidentally constituted the sacrilegious infidel presence on Arabian soil that set off Osama bin Laden on his quest for revenge. In the event, two weeks of precision bombing were enough to paralyse Saddam's entire war machine, which scarcely tried to resist the ponderous ground offensive when it came.

At no point did the Iraqi air force try to fight, and all those tanks that were painstakingly counted served mostly for target practice. A real army would have continued to resist for weeks or months in the dug-in positions in Kuwait, even without air cover, but Saddam's army was the usual middle eastern façade without fighting substance.

Now the Mussolini syndrome is at work over Iran. All the symptoms are present, including tabulated lists of Iran's warships, despite the fact that most are over 30 years old; of combat aircraft, many of which (F-4s, Mirages, F-5s, F-14s) have not flown in years for lack of spare parts; and of divisions and brigades that are so only in name. There are awed descriptions of the Pasdaran revolutionary guards, inevitably described as "elite," who do indeed strut around as if they have won many a war, but who have actually fought only one—against Iraq, which they lost. As for Iran's claim to have defeated Israel by Hizbullah proxy in last year's affray, the publicity was excellent but the substance went the other way, with roughly 25 per cent of the best-trained men dead, which explains the tomb-like silence and immobility of the once rumbustious Hizbullah ever since the ceasefire.Then there is the new light cavalry of Iranian terrorism that is invoked to frighten us if all else fails. The usual middle east experts now explain that if we annoy the ayatollahs, they will unleash terrorists who will devastate our lives, even though 30 years of "death to America" invocations and vast sums spent on maintaining a special international terrorism department have produced only one major bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1996, and two in the most permissive environment of Buenos Aires, in 1992 and 1994, along with some assassinations of exiles in Europe.

It is true enough that if Iran's nuclear installations are bombed in some overnight raid, there is likely to be some retaliation, but we live in fortunate times in which we have only the irritant of terrorism instead of world wars to worry about—and Iran's added contribution is not likely to leave much of an impression. There may be good reasons for not attacking Iran's nuclear sites—including the very slow and uncertain progress of its uranium enrichment effort—but its ability to strike back is not one of them. Even the seemingly fragile tanker traffic down the Gulf and through the straits of Hormuz is not as vulnerable as it seems—Iran and Iraq have both tried to attack it many times without much success, and this time the US navy stands ready to destroy any airstrip or jetty from which attacks are launched.

As for the claim that the "Iranians" are united in patriotic support for the nuclear programme, no such nationality even exists. Out of Iran's population of 70m or so, 51 per cent are ethnically Persian, 24 per cent are Turks ("Azeris" is the regime's term), with other minorities comprising the remaining quarter. Many of Iran's 16-17m Turks are in revolt against Persian cultural imperialism; its 5-6m Kurds have started a serious insurgency; the Arab minority detonates bombs in Ahvaz; and Baluch tribesmen attack gendarmes and revolutionary guards.

If some 40 per cent of the British population were engaged in separatist struggles of varying intensity, nobody would claim that it was firmly united around the London government. On top of this, many of the Persian majority oppose the theocratic regime, either because they have become post-Islamic in reaction to its many prohibitions, or because they are Sufis, whom the regime now persecutes almost as much as the small Baha'i minority. So let us have no more reports from Tehran stressing the country's national unity. Persian nationalism is a minority position in a country where half the population is not even Persian. In our times, multinational states either decentralise or break up more or less violently; Iran is not decentralising, so its future seems highly predictable, while in the present not much cohesion under attack is to be expected.

The third and greatest error repeated by middle east experts of all persuasions, by Arabophiles and Arabophobes alike, by Turcologists and by Iranists, is also the simplest to define. It is the very odd belief that these ancient nations are highly malleable. Hardliners keep suggesting that with a bit of well-aimed violence ("the Arabs only understand force") compliance will be obtained. But what happens every time is an increase in hostility; defeat is followed not by collaboration, but by sullen non-cooperation and active resistance too. It is not hard to defeat Arab countries, but it is mostly useless. Violence can work to destroy dangerous weapons but not to induce desired changes in behaviour.

Softliners make exactly the same mistake in reverse. They keep arguing that if only this or that concession were made, if only their policies were followed through to the end and respect shown, or simulated, hostility would cease and a warm Mediterranean amity would emerge. Yet even the most thinly qualified of middle east experts must know that Islam, as with any other civilisation, comprehends the sum total of human life, and that unlike some others it promises superiority in all things for its believers, so that the scientific and technological and cultural backwardness of the lands of Islam generates a constantly renewed sense of humiliation and of civilisational defeat. That fully explains the ubiquity of Muslim violence, and reveals the futility of the palliatives urged by the softliners.

The operational mistake that middle east experts keep making is the failure to recognise that backward societies must be left alone, as the French now wisely leave Corsica to its own devices, as the Italians quietly learned to do in Sicily, once they recognised that maxi-trials merely handed over control to a newer and smarter mafia of doctors and lawyers. With neither invasions nor friendly engagements, the peoples of the middle east should finally be allowed to have their own history—the one thing that middle east experts of all stripes seem determined to deny them.

That brings us to the mistake that the rest of us make. We devote far too much attention to the middle east, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science or the arts—excluding Israel, per capita patent production of countries in the middle east is one fifth that of sub-Saharan Africa. The people of the middle east (only about five per cent of the world's population) are remarkably unproductive, with a high proportion not in the labour force at all. Not many of us would care to work if we were citizens of Abu Dhabi, with lots of oil money for very few citizens. But Saudi Arabia's 27m inhabitants also live largely off the oil revenues that trickle down to them, leaving most of the work to foreign technicians and labourers: even with high oil prices, Saudi Arabia's annual per capita income, at $14,000, is only about half that of oil-free Israel.

Saudi Arabia has a good excuse, for it was a land of oasis hand-farmers and Bedouin pastoralists who cannot be expected to become captains of industry in a mere 50 years. Much more striking is the oil parasitism of once much more accomplished Iran. It exports only 2.5m barrels a day as compared to Saudi Arabia's 8m, yet oil still accounts for 80 per cent of Iran's exports because its agriculture and industry have become so unproductive.

The middle east was once the world's most advanced region, but these days its biggest industries are extravagant consumption and the venting of resentment. According to the UN's 2004 Arab human development report, the region boasts the second lowest adult literacy rate in the world (after sub-Saharan Africa) at just 63 per cent. Its dependence on oil means that manufactured goods account for just 17 per cent of exports, compared to a global average of 78 per cent. Moreover, despite its oil wealth, the entire middle east generated under 4 per cent of global GDP in 2006—less than Germany. Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia—places where hard-working populations are looking ahead instead of dreaming of the past.

The Voyage Out

2011-01-31T08:54:00.008-05:00

Directly Helen was left alone for a minute she was joined by St. John Hirst, who had been watching for an opportunity.

"Should you mind sitting out with me?" he asked. "I'm quite incapable of dancing." He piloted Helen to a corner which was supplied with two arm-chairs, and thus enjoyed the advantage of semi-privacy. They sat down, and for a few minutes Helen was too much under the influence of dancing to speak.

"Astonishing!" she exclaimed at last. "What sort of shape can she think her body is?" This remark was called forth by a lady who came past them, waddling rather than walking, and leaning on the arm of a stout man with globular green eyes set in a fat white face. Some support was necessary, for she was very stout, and so compressed that the upper part of her body hung considerably in advance of her feet, which could only trip in tiny steps, owing to the tightness of the skirt round her ankles. The dress itself consisted of a small piece of shiny yellow satin, adorned here and there indiscriminately with round shields of blue and green beads made to imitate hues of a peacock's breast. On the summit of a frothy castle of hair a purple plume stood erect, while her short neck was encircled by a black velvet ribbon knobbed with gems, and golden bracelets were tightly wedged into the flesh of her fat gloved arms. She had the face of an impertinent but jolly little pig, mottled red under a dusting of powder.

St. John could not join in Helen's laughter.

"It makes me sick," he declared. "The whole thing makes me sick. . . . Consider the minds of those people--their feelings. Don't you agree?"

"I always make a vow never to go to another party of any description," Helen replied, "and I always break it."

She leant back in her chair and looked laughingly at the young man. She could see that he was genuinely cross, if at the same time slightly excited.

"However," he said, resuming his jaunty tone, "I suppose one must just make up one's mind to it."

"To what?"

"There never will be more than five people in the world worth talking to."

Slowly the flush and sparkle in Helen's face died away, and she looked as quiet and as observant as usual.

"Five people?" she remarked. "I should say there were more than five."

"You've been very fortunate, then," said Hirst. "Or perhaps I've been very unfortunate." He became silent.

"Should you say I was a difficult kind of person to get on with?" he asked sharply.

"Most clever people are when they're young," Helen replied.

"And of course I am--immensely clever," said Hirst. "I'm infinitely cleverer than Hewet. It's quite possible," he continued in his curiously impersonal manner, "that I'm going to be one of the people who really matter. That's utterly different from being clever, though one can't expect one's family to see it," he added bitterly.

Helen thought herself justified in asking, "Do you find your family difficult to get on with?"

"Intolerable. . . . They want me to be a peer and a privy councillor. I've come out here partly in order to settle the matter. It's got to be settled. Either I must go to the bar, or I must stay on in Cambridge. Of course, there are obvious drawbacks to each, but the arguments certainly do seem to me in favour of Cambridge. This kind of thing!" he waved his hand at the crowded ballroom. "Repulsive. I'm conscious of great powers of affection too. I'm not susceptible, of course, in the way Hewet is. I'm very fond of a few people. I think, for example, that there's something to be said for my mother, though she is in many ways so deplorable. . . . At Cambridge, of course, I should inevitably become the most important man in the place, but there are other reasons why I dread Cambridge--" he ceased.

~Virginia Woolf

Christian Joy by John A. Broadus

2011-01-27T13:02:00.002-05:00

Rejoice in the Lord always! and again I say rejoice. Philippians 4:4

A person who reads this letter of Paul to the Philippian Christians will hardly fail to observe, how often the apostle speaks of joy; how often he alludes to his own sources of joy; how often he bids his brethren to rejoice. There must be significance in this. The apostle Paul was not a man to use many words without meaning; and that divine Spirit, that guided him in what he wrote, never speaks for naught. When we read again and again injunctions like this, "Finally my brethren rejoice in the Lord," or "in all things by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, make your requests known," etc.; or when he says, "for your furtherance and joy of faith," "that your rejoicing may be more abundant," "I joy and rejoice with you all; for this cause also do ye joy and rejoice with me"; or, in the text, bids them "rejoice in the Lord alway," repeating the injunction with unusual and very marked emphasis, "and again I say, rejoice"-when we read all these passages and more than these, in one very brief letter, we may be assured that the writer was very earnest in his own rejoicing, and was quite anxious that his brethren should rejoice too, and was certain that they had ample cause of rejoicing.

It is well too to observe what was the condition of him who thus constantly tells of joyfulness, and what the condition of those upon whom he urged the duty of rejoicing and thankfulness. When Paul wrote to the Christians at Philippi, he was a prisoner at Rome; liable not merely to be tried upon the accusations made against him by the Jews (which were not likely to condemn him), but liable also to punishment for preaching a new religion which was not tolerated by the laws of the state, and more especially since it had a direct tendency to break down the religion of the state. He knew all this-he knew that his life was in danger; and yet still he rejoices, for he is confident that whether by his life or his death, Christ will be glorified, and he feels that to him (as he says) "to live is Christ, and to die, gain." He can rejoice too that his imprisonment has been the means of drawing attention to the religion he preaches, and that many have waxed bolder in preaching the gospel by reason of his bonds.

And thus he, who was a prisoner, and could not know his fate, yet found abundant matter of thankfulness and rejoicing. The Philippian Christians, to whom he wrote, had to bear more than ordinary trials. The apostle himself, when first preaching there, had been grievously mistreated; and the zeal and hatred of the Jews had made them continue to wage an unremitting warfare against the few disciples there of the true faith. They had adversaries, they had opposition, they had persecutions. Yet Paul says, "rejoice." Surely, then, when we see an apostle rejoicing in bonds, and again and again saying "rejoice" to a feeble body of injured and persecuted men, we may know that thanksgiving and rejoicing is a great Christian duty, and an exalted Christian privilege. Therefore, I desire to speak now of Christian thankfulness and Christian joy.

An unthankful and complaining spirit is an abiding sin against God, and a cause of almost continual unhappiness; and yet how common such a spirit is. How prone we seem to be to forget the good that life knows, and remember and brood over. its evil-to forget its joys, and think only of its sorrows-to forget thankfulness, and remember only to complain. The ox will graze all day in green pastures, and know of nothing but the moment's enjoyment; and many a man will enjoy the blessings that are so spread out before him, the pleasures that are so thickly strewed along his path, and never have one moment's thought of the bountiful Being that gave them, that good and gracious One who is "kind to the unthankful and the evil." But then let trouble come-want or suffering, disappointment or anxiety, remorse or dread, and how soon he grows dissatisfied with life, how soon he complains of his hard lot, and murmurs against the God that made him.

Is it not lamentable that men will never thank God for the countless blessings he confers upon them, and then remember him only to complain of the evils which they have brought upon themselves, and which are never half so great as their misconduct deserves? And if in those who care nothing for him that made them and preserves and blesses them, those who neglect or hate him, this conduct is so strange, how is it with those who have yet more to thank God for, who are his children by the new and spiritual birth, who are made heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ? And yet, my brethren, how many an earnest Christian is grievously wanting in thankfulness for his Heavenly Father's goodness, and suffers himself often to complain and be peevish and fretful at the little trials of life; forgetting how much more there is even in the midst of trials, how much more joy than sorrow in his lot, and forgetting too the command of him who has said, "In every thing give thanks." We need to watch and pray concerning this disposition. We need to strive to change our ways of thinking and feeling about it. Let a man be reminded of the many blessings God had given him, and he will say at once, "Ah, but this one trouble destroys all my happiness, mars all my enjoyment"-and he will turn away his eyes from everything pleasant around him, and gaze moodily or fretfully at this source of trouble. If he does not carry it so far as this, he will be sure to let this discomfort prevent all thankfulness. Now I say we need to change here. Our feeling ought to be, that though we have troubles, yet these shall not prevent our being glad and thankful at the many blessings, the more numerous and rich and undeserved blessings we enjoy. "In every thing give thanks." Thank God for your enjoyments-they are the gift of his goodness.

Do you really, my Christian hearer, look upon the blessings, I mean the temporal blessings, you enjoy as the gift of God? Do you really thank him with the heart, even when your lips are uttering words of thankfulness? My brethren, I have sometimes feared that with many of us there is three times a day a solemn mockery practiced. How often it happens that a family gather time after time around their table, spread with that abundant and pleasing food which, in the good providence of God they have been enabled to provide, and seem to thank their Heavenly Father for these blessings, and yet they do not thank him-and yet no heart of all those gathered there feels one emotion of gratitude to God. The grace before meals is necessary and proper, they believe, but neither he that speaks again nor they that hear again the oft-repeated words have any real feeling of thankfulness at all. I do not say this is so with all-I do not say it is always so with any; but is it not too often so? And if here, when you are professing to give thanks, you feel no thankfulness, alas how must it be in those unnumbered hours when you neither think nor speak of gratitude.

I say then that with reference to temporal blessings, to earthly good, to the ordinary course of affairs in life I fear you are sadly lacking, my Christian brethren, in the gratitude to God which you ought to cultivate and cherish. It is a poor return to make for that goodness which crowns your life with so many blessings, to be complaining constantly because something goes wrong. You say to a child who complains of what is given him, that he ought to be glad it is so good; it is far better than he deserves. And so might it be said to every professed child of God-however few comparatively may be your advantages and however many comparatively your troubles, you ought to be thankful it is no worse, you ought to remember that it is far better than you deserve.

But the rejoicing contemplated by the text amounts to very much more than gratitude for temporal mercies. Indeed, ample as I have tried to show is the ground for gratitude on the score of earthly blessings, and sadly remiss as we are in that we do not cultivate more of the spirit of thankfulness for present good, yet all these are at last but our Father's meaner gifts, and all such sources of pleasure are as nothing when compared with that higher rejoicing to which the Christian is here invited. It is to rejoice on account of spiritual blessings.

I know that in calling upon Christians to rejoice over their religious privileges and blessings, one is met by the danger of spiritual pride. I remember the Pharisee, who thanked God (at least he said he did-I doubt if he did really feel any thankfulness at all) that he was better than other men. I have not forgotten how sinful a feeling like this must be-how unworthy of creatures such as we are, who have no good in us, whose righteousness must be altogether the gift of another. This very consideration is sufficient to counteract every tendency to spiritual pride. If a man really is a Christian, he knows that all the good in him is of God; he knows that he has to thank God for every privilege he enjoys, and he cannot deserve credit for that which is the gift of another-and his gratitude to the giver would better make him humble than proud. No, the true Christian may rejoice over what the Lord has made him, without forgetting that he owes it to the Lord-"by the grace of God I am what I am." In the world, the proudest men are commonly those who have least to be proud of, and so in religion the man who has much of it is in very little danger of being proud thereof, for that religion whose essence is humility will always teach him to "rejoice with trembling."

I repeat then that the text looks properly to a spiritual rejoicing, and on the score of spiritual blessings. There are many reasons why Christians should rejoice, should rejoice in the Lord. Here are some of them.

I bid you rejoice, my dear hearer, because you have at least been awakened to a sense of your sins-that you are not a careless, nor a hardened sinner. It is a good thing for a man to be aware of his condition, because he is then more likely to seek relief. if a man finds he is in danger, there is hope that he will strive to escape. If one knows that he is diseased, and feels it, there is hope that he will seek the physician. And the fact that a man feels that he is a sinner shows that he is beginning to have more correct ideas of what sin is, and what holiness is, of what is his own character, and what that character ought to be. An awakened sinner is no more free from sin than he was before. But then he is more likely to seek the Saviour and thus be forgiven and purified. An old writer has said that a bucket which is being drawn out of the well is not felt to be heavy, till it begins to rise out of the water; that a man who is under water does not feel the weight of the tons that may be above him, so much as he would feel the weight of one little tubful of water on his head when he is out. So when a man feels the weight of his sin it seems as if he is not so wholly immersed in sin as he was before; he is coming out of it.

It is a lamentable thing that so many men and women are living without seeming ever to think of their being sinners. They not only enjoy God's bounty without ever thanking him, but they incur his displeasure without fearing him, they heap up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath without taking time to think what they are doing. Do you want to find the most lamentable, the most pitiable and deplorable spectacle on earth? Do not tell me of one who thinks he will soon recover and live many years, when consumption has fastened its grasp upon him and tomorrow he must die. Do not tell me of him who sails gaily down the quickening current and forgets the cataract that is before him. But come and look upon the careless and reckless sinner, who is going on without one moment's thought to eternal death; who is standing upon the slippery places of earthly life, while the fiery billows of death and perdition roll beneath his feet, and yet does not seem to know where he is; who has in truth nothing be-fore him but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries, and yet moves on as if the present were all bright and he had nothing to fear. But there is the hardened sinner-who has eyes that seeing see not, and ears that hearing hear not-who hardened the heart till now nothing can move, till God's wrath cannot alarm, nor his love attract, till his threatenings and his invitations fall alike unheeded on the ear, till the story of the bleeding, dying love of Jesus can never move. Oh, may God in his mercy deliver you, my dear hearer, from being a hardened sinner! Whatever else befall you, God forbid that you should be a hardened sinner! And my brethren I say I rejoice, and I bid you rejoice, that you are at least awakened-that you are not careless, not hardened.

But there is greater cause still for rejoicing. My Christian brother, can you not rejoice that you have faith in Christ and enjoyment of religion, communion with God and hope of glory? You have faith in Christ. You have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. You have found him who was exalted a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins. You have found him who was lifted up to draw all men unto him. You know him who is the chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely. You have traced out something of the unsearchable riches of Christ. You have found the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price. You have learned that there is balm in Gilead, that there is a great Physician there; he has checked your fearful, mortal malady, and you shall live. You have looked to the brazen serpent, you are healed. You have sprinkled your door post with the blood of God's atoning Lamb, and the angel of destruction will pass you by. You have fled to the city of refuge, and the destroyer cannot come near you. You have laid your sins by faith on your substitute and he has borne them away into the wilderness. You have bathed in the fountain that was opened in the house of King David for sin and for uncleanness, and the defilement of guilt has been washed away. You have brought to Jesus the writing that bound you as a servant of sin, and he has annulled it by nailing it to his cross.

In a word, you believe on the Saviour, and to you that believe he is precious. And my brother, if all these things be true of you, if Jesus is yours and you are his, have you not cause for rejoicing and praise and thanksgiving and love? We are told that on one occasion the disciples whom Jesus had sent out, returned with rejoicing, saying, "Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name." And the Master replied, "Rejoice not in this, that the devils are subject unto you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven." And, my brethren, if you be true believers in Jesus, you may well rejoice that your names are written in heaven. It may amount to but little that your names are written on an earthly record as Christians, for that does not prove it true; a man may have a name to live and be dead. But if they are written in that blessed book, the Lamb's book of life, then may you rejoice indeed.

Again, you have the enjoyment of religious privileges. You have within your reach continually those delights which religion alone can afford. You can feed on the bread of life which came down from heaven, and drink sweet draughts from the wellspring of salvation. You can read the blessed teachings of God's holy word, you can walk to the house of God in company with those you love, and hear the sound of the glorious gospel, and rejoice that being mixed with faith in you that hear it, the word preached profits you. You can gather together for united prayer and feel that you sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. You can lift your voices together in hymning the praises of your glorious Redeemer. And is there not in privileges like these matter for great and continual rejoicing?

Then you can enjoy communion with God. My hearer, have you ever felt what is meant by communion with God? Or is it only a something you have read of in the Bible and heard of from the pulpit, without understanding it? If you be a real, earnest Christian, you have felt what it is. You are able to call God Father. Although by sin men are separated from him and can look to him only as an offended Lord and a righteously angry Judge, yet you may rejoice at knowing that you have been adopted into the household of faith, and have received that spirit of adoption whereby you cry, "Abba, Father," and can in humble faith and earnest confidence lift your prayer unto him who is our Father in heaven. You can pray without ceasing unto him. As you hunger and thirst after righteousness, you can go to him and know that you shall be filled. As you feel yourself weak, you can hope for strength from him.

It is especially a privilege to pray to him alone, to commune with him in secret-to enter into your closet and shut the door and pray to your Father which is in secret, as knowing that your Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward you openly. You can pour out there before him your heart's inmost sorrows, your spirit's own peculiar wants. You can wrestle there alone with your God, for the blessings you need, and know that asking you shall receive. You can confess every sin, of word or deed, of thought or desire, and ask for forgiveness through the Saviour in whom you trust. You can pour out your soul there in earnest supplication for those you love who love not Jesus; you can spread out all their sad case before your God, and implore him to stop them and turn them and rescue and save them. Oh, the privilege of private prayer, the joy and peace that flow to the true believer from personal, spiritual communion with the Father of his spirit!

But there is not only faith in the Saviour, and the enjoyment of religious privileges, and communion with God, but as if these were not enough to make the heart overflow with joy, we have more-there is the hope of glory. It is a bright and beautiful change when the water of some little muddy pool is drunk up by the sun, leaving be-hind all its earthly defilements, and when it appears again in rain-drops is clothed, as the sunbeams shine through it, in all the bright hues of the rainbow. But this is nothing, compared with the change from a sin-defiled dweller on the earth, to a glorified inmate of the Paradise of God. How blessed will be that change! when they who have entered the strait gate and walked the narrow way through the troubles and trials of earth, shall pass through the pearly gates and tread the golden streets of the New Jerusalem, the glorious city of our God; when they who have groaned in sickness and sighed in sorrow, they who have languished in pain and borne the agony of death, shall pass into that blest abode where "sickness and sorrow, pain and death, are felt and feared no more." Christian brother, I bid you read humbly, and yet rejoicingly, the soul-inspiring descriptions which are given us in the book of Revelation-the descriptions of the glorious city, the river and the tree of life, the robes of white, the harps of gold, the chorus of redeemed spirits, the song of Moses and the Lamb-I cannot tell what all these mean, but I know they mean and are intended to mean, all that is glorious and gladdening and bright and beautiful. Read it, humbly and thankfully, and let your heart swell with devout rejoicing, and your bosom heave with humble gratitude to him who has "given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace," the hope of immortality and eternal life, the hope of heaven, the hope of glory.

Happy art thou, O Christian, if such joys, such privileges, such cheering, gladdening hopes, are indeed experienced. How much our Heavenly Father has given you of temporal good, how much more of spiritual enjoyment and soul-sustaining hope. How much the Lord of life and glory has done on your behalf. Go tell one that is able to understand you, of his parents' tenderness and care; of his father's yearning fondness, his mother's unutterable love; of all their anxiety and uneasiness and privation and suffering on his account, and if he is not moved to love and gratitude, you call him a thankless wretch. Has not God loved you with more than a father's, more than a mother's love? Has not Jesus suffered for you unspeakable anguish and agony, has he not died for you? Will you be thankful for all goodness and mercy? When he, who has done so much for you, who has given you all those exalted privileges and blessed joys and glorious hopes on which we have been dwelling, when he bids you rejoice in him, rejoice always in him. Cultivate a spirit of thanksgiving, a spirit of rejoicing, and devote your life to his service, that all your life should be one ceaseless song of joy, one constant hymn of praise, "to him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father!" "Finally, brethren, rejoice in the Lord."

Snow Day

2011-01-27T11:46:00.004-05:00

I have a longish post written on the Lord's Prayer and similar prayers in pagan antiquity, but I'm too worn out right now to type it in. Mea culpa.

A Thing Woven

2011-01-27T11:42:00.002-05:00

John Broadus in his treatise on sermons calls attention to the importance of careful and honest explication of the text. He especially deplores the practice of wrenching a verse out of context in order to make a point in no way congruent with the scriptural author’s meaning.

Broadus writes, “…using a text, and undertaking to develop and apply its teachings, we are solemnly bound to represent the text as meaning precisely what it does mean.” The word text, Broadus points out, derives from the Latin textus or textum, denoting something woven, as in the case of writing “the web of discourse.”

Broadus gives numerous examples of the sorts of errors in the use of texts in sermons, and some of these asre exemplified by absurdly humorous examples. I will give a few.

A Virginia preacher selected for his text “Enoch walked with God and he was not” (Gen 5:24 in the KJV). He then occupied himself with all the things Enoch “was not”: he was not a drunkard; he was not a profane swearer; he was not a liar; he was not an adulterer. Some of the translations completed in the 20th century would have precluded this silliness, since the verse is rendered “Enoch walked with God and was seen no more” (Revised English Bible). The RSV preserves the KJV reading however.

Another humorous example of an inapposite text is the use by a minister of Psalm 72:7 at a wedding, wishing the young couple “An abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.” Even though the psalm means the figure to mean ‘forever’, as it plain from its context, this not evident in the way the minister used it, which seems to suggest a month or less of marital tranquility.

Rev Broad has the honesty and good sense to point out several notoriously spurious passages contained in the King James Version, and to advise against their use in sermons. As examples he cites Acts 9:6 “Lord what will thou have me do”; the KJV verse 1 John 5:7 with its notoriously interpolated support on the doctrine of the Trinity; and the passage in Acts 22:10. The Revised English Bible wisely omits the spurious without renumbering the verses following, so if verse 7 is omitted, verse 6 is followed by verse 8.

John A. Broadus

2011-01-27T11:40:00.005-05:00

The talented Baptist preacher John A. Broadus, often called “the American Spurgeon, was called to a pastorate in Charlottesville, Virginia (where I was born), and after the Civil War was a professor in the Baptist Theological Seminary in Charleston, SC. In 1870 Professor Broadus published his Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, an excellent book with much to offer speakers of all sorts, and those who appreciate sermons in particular.

One of the reasons I am interested in Rev Broadus is a personal one. My great grandfather earned his A.B. degree at Mississippi College in 1872, and the M.A. degree the following year at Washington and Lee University, where Robert E. Lee had been president. Great Grandfather had been studying law at the University of Virginia when he (like Broadus-who was also a UVA law school defector) , received the call to the ministry. He was awarded the D.D. degree by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville KY 1n 1876, and from 1876 to 1878 was pastor at the Baptist church in Lexington VA. After many years as a pastor, in 1900 at the age of 53 Great Grandfather was named Professor of Biblical Instruction and Pastoral Duties at the Louisville seminary.

These two men follow so much the same path and yet are of so distinctly different generations that I imagine Broadus as my Great Grandfather’s role model. While Rev Broadus was chaplain to Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, my Great Grandfather was a lowly cavalry regiment private, being only 18 when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse. Unfortunately for all, Lee died in 1870 prompting General Ewell to remark, “The greatest man in America lies dying in Lexington today.”