Alright, chapter 3.
1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This
man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You
are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do
unless God is with him.”
I know that the Gospels are all read together, but if we're taking John as a separate text, written with reference to the others but on its own, I have to wonder what miracles and signs we're missing that are so impressive. First Nathanael was super impressed by Jesus knowing about him sitting under a fig tree and now, after one wedding where Jesus turned water into wine (something that likely wouldn't have gotten around because who knew? who told?) and running a whole bunch of people out of the Temple, we have someone highly placed in the Jewish hierarchy sneaking out at night to meet Jesus and tell him that he must be from God.
Now, 'from God' does not necessarily mean that the claim of Jesus as being the Word or being God himself are supported or believed by Nicodemus at this point. Prophets were sent from God. Kings and righteous men were sent from God.
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The
wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot
tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born
of the Spirit.”
The section above is clearly referring to baptism. Which, I should point out, is not a new concept. While, from my understanding, there is not a concept of rebirth involved in the Jewish mikveh and the cleanliness associated with it, it is not something that should be ignored.
Jesus came out of the Jewish people. He was raised in an observant household. I know that, while it is different, I always feel *new* and refreshed after getting out of the ocean or the pool. There's something about being completely immersed in water that is relaxing and freeing. Is it a call back to when we lived in the liquid environment of the womb? I don't know. But it's no stretch at all for me to see the emotional and physical connection between being immersed in water and feeling *reborn* in some way or another.
Then we have his cousin John who was performing baptisms in the Jordan. What was he baptising for? What did his followers think was happening?
I believe it must be a kind of mikveh, a ritual cleansing. A rededication or a dedication to God. John was an apocalyptic preacher. He was preaching the end of the world, the coming of the messiah to bring war and eventual supremacy of the Jewish people over their own lands once again. People who followed him would want to be spiritually prepared, ritually cleansed.
You see the same thing in revivals here in the US. A preacher rolls in, stirs up the congregation with a lot of very impassioned and fiery rhetoric. Usually it involves the end of the world and 'Where will you be, when the devil comes?!?!?' and all that. And people, caught up in the moment, caught up in fear or passion or whatever the preacher stirs in them, rededicate their lives to Christ. They answer an altar call (a call for people who want Jesus to come into their hearts or words to that general effect) and/or get baptised (or rebaptised in some cases).
It's hardly something new or unique. The emphasis on it being necessary for salvation is new though, as far as I can tell.
I think this passage might also be used for the Christians who are against infant baptism, though the connection is a bit weak. There's no mention of the believer making a choice or age. Only that there must be two births, one of the body and one of the spirit.
12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He
who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is
condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God. 19 And
this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
I'm not really sure how baptism and rebirth is an entirely earthly thing. It seems to me like it is a heavenly thing. Having to do, with, I don't know, the getting into heaven of it all.
Verse 13 is one of those that's commonly used to show that no one gets to heaven but through Jesus. After all, how many good, righteous men and woman had died up until this point? We have the prophets, the patriarchs, King David, King Solomon...though what about Elijah? He was 'taken up into heaven' in the Old Testament. So either the Bible cannot be taken literally (shock!) or someone else did get into heaven aside from the Son of Man.
The Moses & snake reference is, of course, meant as a foreshadowing (or a prophetic statement) of the crucifixion. In the desert, Moses formed a serpent out of bronze and placed it up on a pole. Anyone who was bitten by a snake looked at the bronze serpent and was healed.
Keeping in mind that it was God who instructed Moses to do this, it is presumably not a sign of creeping polytheism but an instrument of faith. The people believed that God would heal them and that the serpent was a sign to remind them of this promise.
One could say that likewise, God would save those who looked upon the sign of the crucifixion. But does that make Jesus God? Was the serpent god?
Verses 16 through 21 are where Lewis' 'liar, lunatic, lord' question comes into play. We have here an example of Jesus seeming to claim directly that he is divine in some way. So you have to look at verses like this and ask if Jesus was lying? Was he running some sort of a scam? Was he trying to build an army on false belief? Or was he a lunatic? Did he really believe that he was divine but was only a man? Or was he lord? Meaning that what he said was true and that he was God incarnate.
Of course there's always another option.
That Jesus didn't say these things at all.
All of Christian faith is predicated on the belief that what is recorded about Jesus in the Bible is true. Certainly there is quibbling about details and how accurate is accurate, etc. but anyone who claims Christianity as a faith believes that essentially the important bits are correct.
But what if they're not?
John is the most explicit Gospel in regards to the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.
John is also the last Gospel of have been written. I think it's generally dated around 90/100 AD which is at least 60 years after the death of Christ.
The oldest copy found is about 100 years older than that, so around 200 AD.
From what I understand, most Biblical scholars agree that John the Apostle was not the actual author of the text.
So it's not as if we have a signed copy of the text with a picture of John the Apostle on it, hugging Jesus.
Of course those who believe believe and there's the faith aspect of it. If you believe that Jesus is God then you can also believe that the text was kept from error by divine will.
It's a matter of choice, in so many ways.
I don't know how people can be expected to believe unless they have some sort of...experience.
I have no trouble believing in things I can't prove or necessarily see. I believe in ghosts (though I have seen them, I believed in them before that). I believe in God because things make the most sense with a creator at the center of them.
I'm just not sure I believe in this specific interpretation of God, if that makes sense.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Monday, June 2, 2014
John 2
I know I'm only two chapters in but I'm finding the Gospel of John kind of odd. I realize that I didn't read it as much as I did the synoptic Gospels, in the past. Those are the ones that really stick in my mind, with at least a short recounting of Jesus' life prior to his ministry. John begins after that point, just sort of dropping into the story with Jesus going to John the Baptist and following from there.
But it also contains some of the stories that are most iconic from Jesus' ministry. The second chapter contains the Wedding at Cana and the Cleansing of the Temple, which I feel like anyone who attended Sunday School as a child remembers, no matter what their faith life may have been like after that point.
5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
Two things strike me about this story. Aside from it being the first 'sign' or miracle of Jesus, I mean.
First, there are many groups of Christians who are teetotal. They don't drink at all, condemn it, etc. Which is fine for them. If you don't want to drink, for whatever reason, then by all means do not drink. There is limited health benefit from certain kinds of alcohol (or so I am told) and there are a lot of bad effects of alcohol. But these denominations generally go back to the Bible for their reasoning as to why alcohol is bad. And it's true that the Bible decries drunkenness. Yet here we have an example of Jesus, not only drinking wine, but making sure that there was more of it. And some good stuff too, if the master of ceremonies is to be believed.
We have later (in the timeline) example of Jesus drinking wine with his disciples. I know the argument that the wine at the time was not as strong, etc. etc. but the fact remains that the Bible does not condemn alcohol in and of itself. It condemns excess and drunkenness.
For most people a glass of wine, or even a cocktail, is not a big deal. They're not going to get drunk off of it. Certainly there are some people for whom that one drink is the pebble that starts the avalanche, and obviously those people should not be encouraged to have 'just one'. But I can't see that that has anything to do with a general prohibition on alcohol.
Second, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but John never refers to Mary as *Mary*, does he? It's always 'woman'. Which feels so disrespectful to me. But I've heard that the actual word used in these instances translates better as 'madam' or 'ma'am', which is more respectful but still something rather weird to call your mother in this instance. Like I wouldn't ever respond to my mother asking me for something by saying, 'Ma'am, how is this my problem?'
I'd say 'Yes ma'am', because I was not raised in a barn.
I always feel like this exchange is missing something because it goes from Jesus saying, 'Not my department' to Mary (unnamed though she is) telling the servants to help Jesus get the party rolling.
I feel like we're missing the part where Mary grabs him by the ear and tells him that he is not too big to be taken over her knee.
Then she walks away, smiling, telling the servants to just go be dears and help Jesus out, he's gonna take care of this whole thing.
And how did Mary know he could do something about it anyway? Did he have a habit of turning water into milk as a child? Inquiring minds want to know.
I mean we have the Infancy Gospels (which aren't canon) that tells us that Jesus performed miracles even as a child. But without those, her assumption that Jesus could take care of this seems kind of strange.
9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”
I feel like this is supposed to be a message about how Christianity is not the 'inferior' wine. Because the bridegroom is typically a symbol of Jesus (the Bride being the Chuch) and so the good wine would be the New Convenant while the original wine (one assumes it was good wine since it makes no sense otherwise as a historical story) is the Old Covenant and Mosaic Law.
And then we have the Cleansing of the Temple.
13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”
Okay. So, in the first place, this is not Jesus' first trip to the Temple at Jerusalem. At the very least, he was there once as a child (the story of Jesus getting 'lost' in the Temple). And I'm certain that he was *aware* of this stuff going on. It's not like he went there, was shocked, and overcome with righteous anger.
Righteous anger? Sure, sure. I can see that. But I feel like he went in with it. That this was, not just a cleansing, but a demonstration. A specific, thought out act.
This also brings up the question of the church stores that some churches have. If Jesus was peeved about these people doing business in the Temple, what would he think of the stores? Selling religious items, of course, Bibles and books and whatnots (and I know that they're there to raise money for the church and operating expenses, don't get me wrong here) but then so were the people in the Temple. You couldn't sacrifice without the proper animal and the Temple only took money that didn't have the Emperor's face on it (since the Emperor was considered a god/demi-god and that doesn't mesh well with monotheism).
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
Now it must be remembered that the Gospels were all written well after Jesus' death and resurrection, so there's a lot of stuff that is included in hindsight, as it were. Like this. The whole 'temple of his body' bit. I assume, at the time that this was said, nobody thought he was talking about rising from the dead.
Who's to say that the disciples didn't take him literally? After all, man turned water into wine. Maybe they believed that he really could put the Temple back together if it got physically destroyed. It's only in retrospect, with Jesus dead that the thoughts turn to a different kind of Messiah-ship. After all, the Jewish people (at least some of them) were expecting a Messiah. A King David kind of Messiah who would give them back the land that God had promised them. A warrior-king-priest.
Jesus wound up not being exactly who they thought they were looking for.
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. 24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, 25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.
I'm going to be honest, I'm not really sure what is trying to be said here. Jesus didn't commit himself to these people who believed in him because...they were people? But so are his disciples. What does 'commit himself' mean in this context? He 'had no need that anyone should testify of man'? But they wouldn't be testifying of *man*, they'd be testifying of him.
Really. I don't get this part. There're no notes for it in my Bible or on the Biblegateway site. So.
Thoughts? Guesses? Suppositions?
Dirty limericks?
Probably no dirty limericks. I can't see how they'd apply, really.
But it also contains some of the stories that are most iconic from Jesus' ministry. The second chapter contains the Wedding at Cana and the Cleansing of the Temple, which I feel like anyone who attended Sunday School as a child remembers, no matter what their faith life may have been like after that point.
2 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”
4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
Two things strike me about this story. Aside from it being the first 'sign' or miracle of Jesus, I mean.
First, there are many groups of Christians who are teetotal. They don't drink at all, condemn it, etc. Which is fine for them. If you don't want to drink, for whatever reason, then by all means do not drink. There is limited health benefit from certain kinds of alcohol (or so I am told) and there are a lot of bad effects of alcohol. But these denominations generally go back to the Bible for their reasoning as to why alcohol is bad. And it's true that the Bible decries drunkenness. Yet here we have an example of Jesus, not only drinking wine, but making sure that there was more of it. And some good stuff too, if the master of ceremonies is to be believed.
We have later (in the timeline) example of Jesus drinking wine with his disciples. I know the argument that the wine at the time was not as strong, etc. etc. but the fact remains that the Bible does not condemn alcohol in and of itself. It condemns excess and drunkenness.
For most people a glass of wine, or even a cocktail, is not a big deal. They're not going to get drunk off of it. Certainly there are some people for whom that one drink is the pebble that starts the avalanche, and obviously those people should not be encouraged to have 'just one'. But I can't see that that has anything to do with a general prohibition on alcohol.
Second, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but John never refers to Mary as *Mary*, does he? It's always 'woman'. Which feels so disrespectful to me. But I've heard that the actual word used in these instances translates better as 'madam' or 'ma'am', which is more respectful but still something rather weird to call your mother in this instance. Like I wouldn't ever respond to my mother asking me for something by saying, 'Ma'am, how is this my problem?'
I'd say 'Yes ma'am', because I was not raised in a barn.
I always feel like this exchange is missing something because it goes from Jesus saying, 'Not my department' to Mary (unnamed though she is) telling the servants to help Jesus get the party rolling.
I feel like we're missing the part where Mary grabs him by the ear and tells him that he is not too big to be taken over her knee.
Then she walks away, smiling, telling the servants to just go be dears and help Jesus out, he's gonna take care of this whole thing.
And how did Mary know he could do something about it anyway? Did he have a habit of turning water into milk as a child? Inquiring minds want to know.
I mean we have the Infancy Gospels (which aren't canon) that tells us that Jesus performed miracles even as a child. But without those, her assumption that Jesus could take care of this seems kind of strange.
9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”
I feel like this is supposed to be a message about how Christianity is not the 'inferior' wine. Because the bridegroom is typically a symbol of Jesus (the Bride being the Chuch) and so the good wine would be the New Convenant while the original wine (one assumes it was good wine since it makes no sense otherwise as a historical story) is the Old Covenant and Mosaic Law.
And then we have the Cleansing of the Temple.
13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”
Okay. So, in the first place, this is not Jesus' first trip to the Temple at Jerusalem. At the very least, he was there once as a child (the story of Jesus getting 'lost' in the Temple). And I'm certain that he was *aware* of this stuff going on. It's not like he went there, was shocked, and overcome with righteous anger.
Righteous anger? Sure, sure. I can see that. But I feel like he went in with it. That this was, not just a cleansing, but a demonstration. A specific, thought out act.
This also brings up the question of the church stores that some churches have. If Jesus was peeved about these people doing business in the Temple, what would he think of the stores? Selling religious items, of course, Bibles and books and whatnots (and I know that they're there to raise money for the church and operating expenses, don't get me wrong here) but then so were the people in the Temple. You couldn't sacrifice without the proper animal and the Temple only took money that didn't have the Emperor's face on it (since the Emperor was considered a god/demi-god and that doesn't mesh well with monotheism).
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
Now it must be remembered that the Gospels were all written well after Jesus' death and resurrection, so there's a lot of stuff that is included in hindsight, as it were. Like this. The whole 'temple of his body' bit. I assume, at the time that this was said, nobody thought he was talking about rising from the dead.
Who's to say that the disciples didn't take him literally? After all, man turned water into wine. Maybe they believed that he really could put the Temple back together if it got physically destroyed. It's only in retrospect, with Jesus dead that the thoughts turn to a different kind of Messiah-ship. After all, the Jewish people (at least some of them) were expecting a Messiah. A King David kind of Messiah who would give them back the land that God had promised them. A warrior-king-priest.
Jesus wound up not being exactly who they thought they were looking for.
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. 24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, 25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.
I'm going to be honest, I'm not really sure what is trying to be said here. Jesus didn't commit himself to these people who believed in him because...they were people? But so are his disciples. What does 'commit himself' mean in this context? He 'had no need that anyone should testify of man'? But they wouldn't be testifying of *man*, they'd be testifying of him.
Really. I don't get this part. There're no notes for it in my Bible or on the Biblegateway site. So.
Thoughts? Guesses? Suppositions?
Dirty limericks?
Probably no dirty limericks. I can't see how they'd apply, really.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
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.
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:
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.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
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.
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.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
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:
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:
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Now is the time where I ask odd questions.
If Islam is a religion of intentions, what is Christianity a religion of?
Saturday, May 17, 2014
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?"
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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
