John 1

Today we start the Gospel of John, or the Gospel According to John, whichever way you prefer it.

The plan is to read and post about a chapter a day throughout June, which should work out fine even building in a couple of days of forgetting or not having time. Because these things happen.

I'm reading John out of my Orthodox Study Bible (because it's my favorite) but all of the portions of text quoted here will come from Biblegateway.com, using the New King James version of the text since that's what was used in my hard copy Bible.

I think the first verse of John is possibly one that everyone knows if they know anything about the Bible at all.

1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John is, as I recall, the most explicit Gospel in putting forth the doctrine of the Trinity. The others are a little more...interpretable, but John is fairly explicit. But we'll get there.

The first five verses of John are highly poetic in their language.

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 nothing was made that was made. ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

It does sound very nice, doesn't it? 

We have a mention of John the Baptist (not to be confused with John the Apostle - the one who this Gospel is attributed to) who was sent as a warner and a precursor to the Word (also referred to as the Light) being 'in the world'.

¹¹ He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. ¹² But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: ¹³ who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

'He' being the Word/Light. I find this interesting, honestly. We all 'know' that Jesus was rejected by the Jewish people.

Only...he wasn't. Not entirely. Where do you think his first followers came from? His disciples? Up until after his death, Jesus actually kept the Gospel from being spread to the gentiles. It's only in Acts (I believe) that the order is changed. So all of the people following Jesus in the Gospels have to be...well...Jews. Was he rejected by the elite? It seems so. The priests and the people in higher society don't seem to have liked him much, generally. But there does seem to have been a significant portion of the population that *did* respond to his message and follow him.

At least until it all went horribly wrong, from their point of view.

The last couple of verses remind people reading that their inclusion in the covenant with God is entirely dependent of Jesus himself. After all, in the Old Testament the only agreement made with God is between Him and the Jewish people. Gentiles and all others need not apply. (Though of course you can convert to Judaism and get in on the covenant that way, but I don't know, historically, how many people took that path. The restriction of lifestyle probably kept all but the very serious from it.)

¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The incarnation. Bam. The Word, a thing that proceeds from God and is eternal like God, became flesh. This is the basis of belief in Jesus as the second part of the Trinity. 

If there is only one God, and Jesus is a part of God, then he must still *be* God. Even though he was separate enough to incarnate and act on his own. 

I wonder at the word 'begotten' though. We say that God the Father *begat* God the Son (Jesus) but deny that there was any 'begetting' in the commonly used sense. The definition of 'beget' is as follows:

1. (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).

2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

We tend to think of the first definition because of the human aspect of Jesus and the description of God as 'Father'. The anthropomorphic aspects of our language in relationship to God cause us a stumble here. Because how can God *beget* and yet not *beget*? How can God create a Son that is at once Himself and someone else?

This ignores the second definition; 'to cause; to produce as an effect'. If we follow that the Word/Light is a product of God, not Father, not Son, but simply *power* or energy, then it makes more sense. God, being a being of omnipotence, omniscient, eternal and uncreated, speaks. And the Word is so powerful that it has a certain life of it's own. Because it is a part of God. But can that Word have so much life of it's own that it is a separate(but not) Person?

¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

But if Jesus is the Son is the Word is God, then haven't we seen God? Or at least those who were alive at the time have seen God. Because, from what I understand of what I have been taught, the hypostatic union of Jesus God and Jesus Man is eternal and irreversible. So Jesus (Word) has been with God from the beginning. But if, at a specific point in time, he took on a physical body, then does that physical body also belong to him for all time? Was he a physical presence in the Garden of Eden then? 

In John 29 through 42 we learn that Jesus gains his first followers from out of John the Baptists flock. Andrew was a follower of John the Baptist who, believing John's declaration that Jesus was the one he had been speaking about, a greater one than he who had been before John but would also come after (a reference to Jesus being God but also being born after John the Baptist). Andrew goes to his brother, Simon and I have to assume that Simon was also a follower of John the Baptist, given the speed with which he goes with Andrew and is convinced. Simon, of course, becomes Cephas aka Peter. 

At the end of the first chapter of John, Jesus has five followers. Three of which I feel were already followers of John the Baptist. Andrew, the unnamed second disciple of John the Baptist who came with Andrew, Simon Peter, Nathanael and Philip. 

I find myself questioning Nathanael's...gullibility when, from the text, all it takes is Jesus mentioning that Nathanael was under a fig tree for him to believe that Jesus is 'Son of God' (a title applied to several people in the Bible) and 'King of Israel'. After all, Nathanael is friends with Philip who spoke to Jesus before we ran off to tell Nathanael about Jesus. If it was, as the notes in my Bible speculate, their habit to meet under a fig tree, isn't it possible that Philip casually mentioned something along these lines while talking to Jesus? 

Even Jesus seems to be like, 'Really?'

⁵⁰ Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe?...

Of course he ends with, if you liked that, you'll love this.

...You will see greater things than these.” ⁵¹ And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

And that's it for chapter one.

It's kind of like a poll, but with more opinions

I'm wondering what ya'll's thoughts are on God being able to change His mind. Does it happen? Does it not happen? How do you arrive at either conclusion?

Small backstory:

My Dad and I were talking over (and after) dinner the other night and amongst other topics we came to this. He is of the opinion that God does and has changed His mind. For example, the 'adoption' of the Gentiles into the covenant with the Israelites. My Dad's thinking is that up to a certain point, God gave zero cares about what other peoples and tribes did. But then the Israelites kept messing things up and so God changed His mind and decided to include other peoples via Jesus.

Or, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham argued with God to spare the cities if even one righteous person could be found.

Though I argue that that doesn't count since Lot, a righteous man, was in the city and rather than spare it on his behalf God has the angels get the man the heck out of dodge and then proceeds to get all smite-y anyway.

But I digress.

My thinking is that God, being omniscient, has no reason to change His mind. He knows what's going to happen. He knew before He kick started the whole magilla who was going to do what and when. So there is no 'changing' His mind because this was the plan all along, due to Him knowing what He was doing.

My Dad argues that this is pre-destination.

I say thee nay, since omniscience does not negate free will. Knowing that something will happen does not equal *causing* it to happen.

I can know that if my cat eats too fast she will puke. I know this because, not omniscience, but I have seen her do this her entire life. This doesn't mean I cause it to happen.

if you evangelize by force you're doing it wrong

It came out in a discussion on a Facebook post recently that I am rather outside the bounds of Christianity at the moment. That I have lost my taste for blood and someone elses' sacrifice being my ticket into heaven.

Several people on the feed seem to think that re-reading the Gospel of John will fix (or start to) that whole problem.

So let's see. John is what, 21 chapters long?

I'll read it in June, try for a chapter a day.

See if it makes a difference.

I leave this here because it amuses me:

Now is the time where I ask odd questions.

If Islam is a religion of intentions, what is Christianity a religion of?

An Illustrated Story

This one's for Heather. :D

Warnings: There's a rude gesture at the end. Picture quality is variable. Life is hard. Water is wet.

~~~

*wanders onto a Muslim messaging board*

"Salaam! My name's Amber and I'm a recent convert. I'm very happy to have found you all and I hope you'll have patience with me as I try to learn more about my faith."

"Salaam! Mashallah sister, welcome!..."

"...but sister, where is your hijab? Where is your haya? Please, sister, consider Allah's instructions in the Qur'an, this is best for your iman."

~~~

"Salaam! There aren't a lot of Muslims where I live and I have been having trouble learning how to perform salaah properly. I was wondering if any of you had advice on where to look online?"

"Salaam, sister! Mashallah, you look beautiful in your hijab! But is that make-up? Astaghfirullah! Such adornments should be for your husband only! They draw too much attention and invite fitnah!"

~~~

"Salaam! I am struggling to make the five daily prayers, especially fajr. Is there any advice for what I can do to help motivate myself? I know that the prayers are beneficial, and I love them, but no matter what I do I can't seem to get up consistently."

"Salaam, sister. Your hijab...there is too much color. The sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) shows us that black is the best color. I tell you this for the good of your iman and so that you are not a fitnah to others."

~~~

"Salaam, I'm still hoping to get some advice about my salaah. Especially going into Ramadan I want to make an effort to solidify my practice."

"Salaam, sister, I say this with the best of intentions, but even your face is an attraction. We are told to lower our gaze, but sister, you must take responsibility as well. Your adornments are only to be for your husband, sister."

~~~

"Salaam, I have found a masjid in the next town over but I'm having a hard time finding a way to fit in. I'm shy, unfortunately, and there aren't many converts at the masjid."

"Salaam, sister. The color. It's not appropriate. The sunnah is black. And your niqab is not proper. There is still too much temptation."

~~~

"Salaam, I was wondering if any of you had ideas about how to approach my HR department about prayer space at my work? I usually use an empty conference room but the other day someone walked in on me and it was a little awkward."

"Salaam, sister. Your eyes are too alluring."

~~~

"Salaam, I - "

"Sister, you should not be speaking to non-mahram men. Ask your husband these questions and please, for the sake of your haya, be silent with other men. Also, sister, your name. You should change it to a good Arabic name."

~~~

"Salaam. I will not be changing my name. There is nothing un-Islamic about Amber.

"Also, dear brothers, who have been offering me such unsolicited advice, I would like you to reflect on a verse from the Qur'an.

"'Say to the believing men to cast their gaze down and guard their modesty; that is purer for them; verily God is all-Aware of what they do.' Surat an-Nur, ayah 30.

"You worry about your gaze and I'll worry about mine. Capiche?"

The 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' and what that means (to me)

I'm sure most of you are aware of the scrap of papyrus that came to light a couple of years ago. It hit the news because the translation revealed Jesus saying, 'My wife...' which freaked plenty of people right out due to the Christian tradition that Jesus was not married and therefore celibate for the 33 years of his life.

It was in the news and then it went away because nothing came of it at the time. Scientists and scholars were reviewing and testing the materials and judging the writing style, etc. to determine if the scrap was a modern forgery or what.

It's come back into the news because the scientists have finally come back and declared that the papyrus is authentic.

And many people around the net promptly lost their shit. Again.

Not everyone, because there are far too many reasonable people who understand that just because the scrap has been judged authentic doesn't mean that the discussion is over. Or who realize that simply not being a modern forgery (or an ancient forgery for that matter) doesn't make the content of the scrap authentic. There are the people who look at how little text this scrap actually contains and admit that we're not really able to tell what is being said in this document because not enough of the document survives. I've linked here to one article about the scrap that contains a translation of the text.

There are plenty of people who also say, 'So what? What difference does it make if Jesus was married?' and I would mostly fall in with that crowd on this. For me, personally, it makes no difference if Jesus was married, for the most part.

But reading some of the reactions to the very idea of Jesus being married has made me see that it does make a difference, that it can make a difference to how we think not only about Jesus but about some very fundamental parts of being human.

I have seen far too many comments that essentially boiled down to, 'My God would never sully himself with anything so disgusting and sinful as *sex*!'

Which reflects nothing more than the fact that Christians have a long way to go to rid themselves of the flawed belief that sex is a sin or something dirty and shameful. I'm not arguing that the Christian belief in sex being something that should only be between husband and wife, I'm against the idea that some Christians have that even then sex is only something that should be done to have children and even then it's one of the more distasteful aspects of being human.

Because, if we look at this practically, what would Jesus having been married change? Does it change anything that he said in the Gospels?

I, personally, can't think of anything that it would change.

Should we still resist temptation and reject the evil of the devil? Of course.

Should we still do good works, clothe and feed the poor and the hungry, try to elevate the status of humanity? Of course.

Care for the planet and the animals on it with the knowledge that we're only stewards and not the owners of the place? Of course.

Worship only God? Of course.

Certainly I am not the be all and end all of theological or biblical knowledge, and if anyone can think of something that would be changed by Jesus having been married, please point it out to me.

Now. There is the tradition that Jesus was unmarried (and therefore celibate since as God Jesus would never have sinned). Where would this have come from? Assuming that it is not simply the truth, that this scrap is an actual reference to an actual wife, why would we as humans have decided that Jesus could not have been married.

It falls, I think, to two problems.

The first is that we do tend to view sex as something rather animalistic in our natures. We have tied it in to the sins of lust and adultery to the point where we're unable to separate them.

There is nothing wrong with sex. There is nothing *filthy* about sex. If you believe that God created humanity and that He stamped us with the 'Good' that he stamped all of creation, then you have to accept that there is nothing intrinsically wrong or evil with our natural functions.

We can, of course, misuse our nature and our bodies, but at their heart there is nothing sinful about them. The urge for sex is no more inherently sinful or wrong than the need to use the bathroom. Culturally, morally, religiously, we have times and places and circumstances where these actions are inappropriate, but the *need* for them is natural and not a sin.

The thought of Jesus, who according to Christian tradition and theology is both fully man and fully God, having such needs does not fill me with the horror that it fills others. If he did not have these needs he would not have been human. He would have been something else, possibly something more akin to the angels than to humanity.

But there is a shying from, a horror of, the idea of Jesus, as *God*, having to perform the 'baser' aspects of human life.

If Jesus was a man, then he did everything that we have ever done. This means that he was sick at some point. He threw up, he sweated, he had bad breath. He had to pee at some point. He had to poop. Someone had to change whatever passed for a diaper back in ancient Israel for him at some point. He was breastfed. He probably kept his mother up half the night crying from an ear infection or just because he was teething. Think of the worst, most out of control thing that your body has ever done to you. As a man Jesus would have been susceptible to the same illnesses, the same weaknesses as anyone else.

I've been reading a book lately about the Islamic concept of tawheed, the oneness of God. It's interesting, if not exactly what I thought it was going to be. But I came to a realization upon reading the chapter that the author wrote on transcendence.

The author in this chapter is talking about the idea that God is in everything/one and how people naturally recoil from the idea of God being present in 'filthy' things being proof that we know this is not true.

Thinking about this, I realized that we do shy away from thinking about Jesus as a man. We say that he was fully man - it's the doctrine of the incarnation after all and the only way that we can reconcile God being born to a human woman - but we don't think about him having to do the things that we find distasteful or secretive. We don't think about him having *been* a man.

Because God cannot have been so base.

A man, certainly, but an elevated one. A perfect one. Not someone who bled and ate and sweated and probably smelled by our standards and had scars from childhood misadventures or that one time Peter left a fish hook where it shouldn't have been.

But then, you know, a perfect man is not a real one at all.

The second issue, I think, is the fact that if Jesus was God and we say that he had sex we're walking even closer than usual to the polytheistic line. After all, some of the gods (Zeus, we're looking at you) were always coming down and having sex with human women. How is Jesus-God different from them if he does the same thing?

Trinitarian thought is hard enough to wrap your mind around in the first place without falling into polytheism. Three gods? No. One God, but He is three in that one. Three aspects that are different but all the same at the same time.

There are *tons* of metaphors and examples out there trying to explain how God can be three things at the same time while only being one. None of them hold up in the long run.

The clover is popular. Three leaves, which are each distinct, but all a part of the same plant. And yet each leaf is not, while being it's own leaf, the same as the leaves beside it.

Water. Water has three states - liquid, solid and gas. But a singular body of water cannot be in all three states at the same time.

I have run into people who would swear up and down that they are Christians but have a complete lack of understanding about what is meant when people say that Jesus is the Son and is one is substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is *painfully* easy to fall into polytheism when contemplating the Trinity.

It is absolutely clear why people outside of Christianity look at the Trinity and say that Christians are polytheists who can't see it.

Admitting that Jesus, as God, had sex with a human woman like all of the gods Christianity has decried as false, brings us closer to that edge.

So. Was Jesus married?

I don't know. No one does. All this scrap proves is that people were having conversations about marriage and the role of women in the church back to the beginning. Which shouldn't be a surprise.

Does it make a difference if Jesus was married? In practical terms for what Christians are supposed to do in the world according to the Gospels? No. It shouldn't.

Does it make a difference to how we think about Jesus and his relationship to our humanity? His relationship to God?

Maybe it should.

No Longer Bakin'...

My friend Eve had her son Friday night.

He was born around 6 pm, with a very good set of lungs on him. :D

I was lucky enough to be in the delivery room with her and her husband and while I am sure labour is very hard it is also a beautiful thing.

So Baby Bakin' is no longer baking and has been dubbed Bilbo due to a confused brain over breakfast the next morning. This is, of course, not his real name.

Which we will not discuss because I don't like his real name. But he's not my kid, right?

While I've said this before, I'm going to try and get back into the swing of posting.

I'll try and come up with more interesting things to talk about than baby Bilbo.