Rob Penn's a stage name

It's been a while

2010-12-29T15:25:00.001-08:00

a LOOONG while. Here's what's up.

I got married to Amanda. We were hitched in August. Being married has been very little of what I thought it would be, but it's wonderful.

I graduated earlier this month. B.A. in psychology, which means I spent a butt-ton of money and 6 and a half years of my life on a worthless piece of paper unless I go to Grad school.

I'm a Youth minister, and it's awesome. I have concluded that I am in ministry because I don't have a strong enough faith to be a layman in the church with a "secular job." I just need to be forced to grow, and ministry does that for reals.

What am I doing right now? Reading a psychology book. Lame, nerdy, but I am enjoying it. It's called "stages of faith," and builds on Piaget's and Kohlberg's work on developmental Psychology. The author, James W. Fowler, actually was a college of Kohlberg's, whose work on moral development I've studied in 3 or 4 different psychology classes. So far, it has succeeded in challenging how I even define the word "faith."

The book is the result of empirical studies done in a similar style to Kohlberg's interviews. The operant definitions he takes from past teachers and thinkers, and those definitions are strikingly different from what I operate under currently.

In this study, Faith =/= Religion =/= Belief. Weird.

These definitions he draws from all say that Faith is basically what we focus our lives on. Religion is a collection of "cumulative traditions" that expressed the faith of people in the past. Belief is the "holding of certain ideas," and this is a way that Faith can express itself.

So, take for example, Paul.

Paul's faith was in the Gospel, "power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16, NLT) Everything about Paul's life after meeting Christ was focused on spreading the Gospel, being a living example of the Gospel, studying the implications of the Gospel, and defending the Gospel.

His religion was a collection of traditions established by Christ and the Early Church (communion), as well as some much older traditions from the Hebrews (intimate knowledge of the Torah).

He had beliefs that were expressions of his faith. His faith in the Gospel was expressed in the belief that Jesus Christ is who he said he is, the Messiah, the Son of God. He experienced something transcendent, became very loyal to that transcendent something, and developed concepts and propositions about it. Those concepts and propositions are "beliefs."

How does this change my notion of Faith, Religion, and Belief? Well, it makes my definition of the last two a LOT less ambiguous, but I'm just not sure what to think about their definition of Faith. Faith, as I define it now, is "the assured knowledge that what we hope is going to happen will, in fact, happen." That is a very different definition from "What we focus our lives on."

Catch up and communal minds

2008-12-29T19:50:00.000-08:00

I'm not quite sure what happened. I thought this blog was going to be a regular thing when I started it up.

Oh Well.

Well, here I am right now.

I'm at my mother's house. Up in the mountains. It's pretty cool. I've been hangin out with my awesome nephew. His name's Luke, and he's two years old.

Yesterday, I taught him how to play the bass guitar. We've been playing this other cool game, where he stands up on the bed and I push him over. He laughs and laughs and gets back up for another go. It's great. ^_^

I've also been seeing a lot of friends. Really special friends. I've been catching up with the people who first influenced me toward Christ. My old youth minister Danny Joe. One of my best friends in the universe, Josh. I can't get enough of these people.

I've been talking to my lady on the phone a lot. She's moved off for a semester or four, so we're probably going to be doing a lot more talking on the phone. I hate talking on the phone. But, I love Amanda, so it's really not all that bad. I guess I hate talking on the phone to MOST people.
Everything here makes me think of her, it seems. Josh is engaged and getting married this May, so he and his fiance make me think of Amanda and me every time I see them. My friend David has a g/f named Amanda. Geez, even the commercials on TV make me think of Amanda. I don't know how I managed to con her into thinking that I'm something cool.

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about community. All semester long, it seems, I have been thinking about community. Everything has a communal aspect. Or, at least, everything I've thought of and encountered this past semester. Do you ever just look at the church (that is, the universal church) and try to picture it as a community? I try to do that some times, but it takes a LOT of effort. We're so fractured. Yes, I'm talking about denominations. I think that there are some good things to a denominational type system. I mean, if some one says "I'm Southern Baptist," then you automatically have a pretty good idea of what they believe. But it's sad to see denominational disputes that end with "you don't believe like I do, so you're clearly not a Christian."

I haven't experienced that since I've been here, so don't think that at all. Just the opposite. Josh has been a shining example to me. He was talking about a book that he read to Danny Joe, and told me that I'm not allowed to read it because, as he says with a wink and a smile, "It'll just fuel some of your crazy theological ideas." That, however, in the same day that he calls me brother and worships beside me. I still remember what was at that point in my life a CRAZY idea, when Josh's father Bob stood up in front of the church with leaders from other denominations and churches in the city, holding hands with all of them, and saying "Unity, not uniformity."

But, that too seems to me to be something a bit off. Not the unity part, but the part about "not uniformity." I mean, there has to be a line somewhere, that's not even a question. However, I think it's more than just believing in the authority of Christ that is important to the community here. How far are we to take Paul's urgings to be of one mind?

But, of course, this brings us right back to the point where I feel it's wrong to say "If you don't believe as I do, then you must not be a Christian."

I don't think that this post was actually going anywhere. It's just what's on my mind right now.

Nonmagic

2008-11-20T22:55:00.000-08:00

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Romans 8:28

That doesn't include non-believers.
But it could include you. And he wants it to. It just takes love, dude.

That's all he's told me to say. ^_^

For any who may be looking for me...

2008-10-13T21:32:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted anywhere in a few days. It's because there's some real mess going down where I am.

The campus ministry I am a part of is in a state of mourning. One of our guys shot himself Sunday night/Monday morning and is dead. His brother, who's been in our ministry longer than he has, was in the house when the gun went off, and was the one who found him.

There's a core of the leadership team getting ready to take a crash course in grief counseling or what the heck ever. Our campus minister's wife is working on her dissertation in Psychology, so she's going to do that for us.

Personally, I didn't know the guy very well. We were acquainted, but that's about it. I know his g/f, though. She's on the leadership team. She's doing about as well as can be, as are the others here who were closest to him. And even though I didn't know him, there's still a different timbre to the sound of the students massing in the living room. Like taking a string quint piece and transcribing it for brass quint. It's the same music, but it still sounds different.

It's weird here. No one knows exactly what to feel. We were all blindsided. His g/f was with him just last night doing laundry at his house. She says she had no clue anything was wrong with him.

It's weird how these things change the way you look at your faith. All those cliche "Why's" and what not. I wonder, if I didn't have a faith that answers so many of those "Why's," what would I feel now? Would things be harder? Would it be easier?

I saw some one talking about the loss of a friend, who posted that she imagined that the Christian Faith seemed like it might be comforting in these times. I disagree, though. Knowledge doesn't change the feelings that come when these things happen. People have asked me "why does an all loving God allow bad things to happen? Why the possibility for hurt?", and I have always had an answer to that question. I was taught how to answer that question before it was even asked of me. However, that knowledge doesn't make the hurt or discomfort go away. There's still a voice missing, there's still people who miss him.

Days like these are the ones where people develop intimate knowledge of their shoes, and the paths that they walk.

Speech Therapy

2008-09-19T11:12:00.001-07:00

Let's talk like she isn't there.

No, screw that. Let's bite our thumbs and frown instead.
It just seems more satisfying that way, like we've actually done something for it.

Who cares whether or not the law is on our side?
All that matters is that we're on the same page here, any way.

These tongues wouldn't look quite so forked in a private space,
but, hey, it's a style.

And while she's licking her wounds,
We'll stick them in her. She's done.

It seems that we just don't know how to talk

Well, crap.

2008-09-14T23:22:00.000-07:00

I posted this on the Raytractor's blog yesterday.

So, I had a conversation with God earlier today.

It started off at church. Four weeks ago, we started a study of 1 Corinthians, and got to chapter 4 this morning.

Here's a small excerpt of what we read:

5So be careful not to jump to conclusions before the Lord returns as to whether or not someone is faithful. When the Lord comes, he will bring our deepest secrets to light and will reveal our private motives. And then God will give to everyone whatever praise is due.

So God says, "Look, you can disagree with Ray all you want. That's fine. But take another look there at that verse. That one's for you right now."

So, I said to God "Yeah, but didn't you specify in the gospels that there's a difference between judging and being judgmental? I'm not judging hypocritically, which is the thing you have a problem with, right?

Aren't you? What have you said about ministries?

I have said many times that if one ministry is harming another ministry and taking away from it, it needs to shut down.

And besides that, Ray is being faithful to his calling in the way he best knows how. It's not the way I would do it. I disagree with the way he does it. Dislike it, even. But the fact of the matter is, that's not my place as I read this morning.

I can disagree with Ray all I want, but as long as I'm part of a group of people whose sole purpose for banding together is to "Detract" from him, then I can't call myself a faithful follower of Christ.

I will still comment and post on Ray's site. I'll still disagree with Ray. I'll still admit openly that most of you are smarter than I. I'll still tell you the ways that you're cool and actually try to explain how my views are different from yours and why. But I can't do it here any more.

I hope you all find the truth about Jesus. But you know that already. I've never kept that a secret.

And I hope that maybe the college and/or youth kids that I train in the future will know their faith well enough to be able to hold a conversation with you without loosing sight of how cool you are.

Another (really longs) conversation about God.

2008-09-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

It's like this;
A really smart man whom I don't really know all that well (except that he's obviously pretty intelligent) posted this treatise at Ray Comfort's Blog.

He also posted it at the Raytractors.

I posted my response over at Ray's, but felt that since my response really had nothing to do at all with Ray Comfort, it wasn't appropriate to post at the Raytractors blog. So, I'm posting it here instead, and hoping that people might see it.

Anonymous:
I'm feeling a bit philosophical at the moment, so I'd like to make points against a few of your beliefs and where they lead, Mr Comfort.

Please note: the following is way out of line for me. I usually limit my comments to scientific claims, because I really don't have an objection to modern christianity. But occasionally, I decide to tell it like I see it. I don't actually want to spark any deconversions here, though it may seem that way, but I do want to make it clear why I don't consider christianity any better than any other religon.

This comment is directed at anyone who shares Ray's beliefs.

You believe that all humankind is tainted by sin, and that the only way to remove that sin (and gain eternal peace) is by accepting your Lord into our hearts. We are miserable, pathetic, sinful wretches, living out a meaningless temporary existance on a tainted world before passing into eternal punishment. Only His mercy and sacrifice can spare us this fate, and bring us to eternal peace in heaven.

What hope is there for the future then? None on this planet, certainly. Indeed, your bible portrays an enless spiral into sin, until finally God steps in on Judgement day and destroys it. Our decendants cannot hope for a better life than ours: they will be born into a progressively more and more sinful world, until the final generation is burned off of the earth in God's final act.

So all of your hope is regulated to the afterlife: where God will purge you of your sins and keep you in eternal peace. This existance, means nothing compared to that, right? You have sold the only life you will ever have to slavery to religon, to an invisible Lord, in return for the promise of eternal life. But you have no way to ensure that promise is kept: you have no way to ensure that promise was even made in the first place. Even worse, as part of this slavery, your Lord demands that you do not question the promise, condemning any doubts rather than allaying them.

You claim we are all miserable sinners: worthy only of hatred from God, and eternal punishment. How then can you love another human? Rather than seeing them as beautiful, you see them as hateful sinners, evil by nature. God can forgive us only with eternal mercy: do you claim to have the same level of mercy for your loved ones? Do you compare yourself to Him?

Love is a shared respect for the other individual, an accceptance of everything that they are, including their 'sins'. To steal a quote from the 2004 Hellboy movie: "we like people for their qualities but we love them for their defects." How can you accept anothers sin, when even God's infinite mercy can only go so far as to forgive it, and even then only if we accept Him first? I hate to ask this, but are you even capable of love?

What about logic, and reason? The only feature that sets us human apart from the animal kindom is our brain, and your Lord expressly forbids using it. Look at Adam and Eve's tale: they ate from the tree of knowledge, and they and their decendants were cursed for all eternity with the very thing your God so despises: sin. If this isn't a metaphor for the promotion of blind obediance to authority, nothing is.

In comparison, those philosophies based on atheism generally promote the use of logic, reason and curiosity. The modern scientific endevour decended from those philosophies. Us atheists see hope in progress, in the ability to make life better for those who come after us, or at least not make it worse.

We don't see life as wretched, the twisted result of perfection lost: instead we see it as beautiful, something complex that has come out of the relatively simple laws of nature to make the universe its own.

Our life is the only one we have: it is something that cannot be replaced. In that we find value: how can we justify taking something impossible to replace? Where you see something temporary and meaningless compared to eternity, we see something that, despite it's brevity and seeming insignifigance, has more meaning than anything else in the entire universe.

You have sold your only life, your hope for the future of this world, your logic and reason and your ability to love another to the dictates of a 2000 year old book, in exchange for an empty promise from someone you can not meet in this world that He will spare you from punishment after death. You hang every speck of your hope, not on the beauty and nobility that is life, but on death, and the afterlife beyond it.

It is your choise to continue to worship death. I choose life.

Me:
Firstly, let me tell you that I don't agree with a lot, if not most, of what Ray posts here. If you were to look at the continuum of Christianity, Ray would be pretty far right and I would be just to the right or left of center. Haven't figured out which yet.

Having said that, your post does pertain to things that I believe.

Though I do not hold to original sin, I do believe that it is impossible for any human being to live long in this lifetime without sinning. Not that we are born with sin, but we are born as less than what we were originally designed to be and cannot avoid sinning because of our brokenness.

A thing gets value from who made it, and how much some one is willing to pay for it. Humans were made, in my belief, by God. And God was and is willing to give everything for it, even his son/self.

God loves me and God loves humans, even though we are broken. Not that he loves our brokenness, but he loves us in spite of it. That's the true love. Where you say "This and this and this are terrible, horrible things about this person. And yet, even though all of that is there, I don't want to experience life without them."

And you know what? It's not hard to see why. Look at the coolness that people are capable of, and have the potential for! Art, Music, Dancing, Humor, Love, Friendship (also love,) philanthropy, discovery, whit, intelligence, beauty, invention, strength, passion, ingenuity. And that's not even an exhaustive list.

That is the kind of love that makes marriages last to death, and the kind of love that makes friendships truly potent, and the kind of love that every disciple of Jesus is capable of (though many, for some reason or another, choose not to exercise such power.)

It's the kind of love that drives to protect, and heal, and nurture. Even at the cost of one's own life. It's the kind of love found incessant and unlimited in Christ. And it never gives up.

Love is a shared respect for the other individual, an accceptance of everything that they are, including their 'sins'. To steal a quote from the 2004 Hellboy movie: "we like people for their qualities but we love them for their defects."
Have you given up on humanity already? Where is the hope that people can Grow? Where is the hope that the people who we love so much can become something greater than what they are?

Am I to believe that my defects will never change, and that I should simply expect every one to live with the things that I do wrong? Should I be expected to accept the wrongdoings of people around me, and give up the hope that it will ever change?

Dr. Carl R. Rogers states that in order for therapeutic personality change to happen, there must be a therapist.
The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Therapeutic Personality Change
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training
2007, Vol. 44, No. 3, 240-248
Any one can be a therapist. If I can counsel some one in a way that will help them grow, it would be horrendous of me to simply "love their flaws." That is an injustice to that person more than any thing else.

My hope for humanity's future comes from Christ, from the promise that Christ can make all things new, that God can "call a thing that is not as though it were, and give life to the dead."

Is the greater love that which accepts what it sees, or that which accepts what it sees and then compels it to grow into something better?

The problem with your perception of how Christians view the world is that you seem to think that it stops at sin in this lifetime. It doesn't. God is capable of taking a world of broken vessels and turning them in to an elaborate mosaic. Things heal. Things live, grow, and give life.

To steal from a song that I haven't heard in a long time:
It's a beautiful world. What a great idea! Your beautiful song is all I can hear! Your beautiful colors surrounding me! Your beautiful life is all I can see!

I am not under the impression that this world is horrid and nasty and it's just a matter of when's daddy coming home. Though there are nasty, horrid things in the world, there are also beautiful and brilliant things in the world, and to miss that is to miss something that God has given to us to enjoy. The beauty that the Earth can hold is the Rose in God's hand as he whispers sweet nothings into our ear.

Christianity that focuses on the afterlife and never sees this life is a sad tale indeed. It's so easy to fall into, and so hard to get out of. It's really another way that the church universal has painted itself into a corner. People forget that Christ said "The Kingdom of Heaven is near."

Study that word a bit. It's not "The Kingdom of Heaven is on it's way, and it'll get here soon so be ready." It's proximity. The Kingdom of Heaven is close. Reach out your hand and touch it. Everywhere Jesus is, so is the Kingdom of Heaven. And if Christians have him in their hearts and lives, then they are living in that Kingdom now. Why not enjoy it? That's not to say that we will all have it easy. There's still bills, there's still hurt and sickness, and there's still evil and bad things around us as long as we're in this body. But we have something that others don't, and so many times Christians want to hide that away and down play it's worth in this existence.

You seem, also, to think that our hope for the future stops at the end of the world as we know it. That's a bit more near-sighted than the picture that God has painted for us. There is a hope for the future, and it's a future that I get to see. When there is no more war, no more sickness, no more suffering, no more death, and nothing that comes in between me and the beauty that surrounds me. While it is a shame to think only of the after life and not ever of the beauty that encircles us every day, it is also a shame to forget that this beautiful world will not be destroyed. It will be cleansed, and restored to the perfection it was destined for all along.

As for logic and reason, God never condemns this. Nor does the Bible. The tree of knowledge is not the tree's name. It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge of anything. Before Adam and Eve knew the difference between right and wrong, they were innocent. They ran naked like a baby might in it's house. Or like my 2 year old nephew might like to do anywhere at all. Absolutely nothing came between them and God. When they ate the fruit, they hid like criminals. They tried to pass the blame onto each other. The whole story is a metaphor for a loss of innocence, not a loss of ignorance.

You are right about one thing, though. I am a slave. Not just a slave, but a bond servant. The difference is that a bond servant says "Hm, this master's pretty cool. I think I'll stick around," and serves out of choice. I choose to serve the master who shows me his love for me on a daily basis. I choose to serve a master who speaks to me. I choose to serve a master who is real and who I have met in this world.

God has never made a promise to me that he hasn't kept. And one of the foundational truths that I'm learning in my classes is that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. There is nothing about this collection of books, letters, songs, and proverbs that he inspired that gives me any reason to distrust it. Not when it's handled responsibly, which is something I've been trying to do for a couple of years now.

Not that I've been a believer in Christ for just a couple of years. But that I've actually gotten up off of the couch, questioned the faith of my parents, and put effort into following the command in 2Tim 2:15.

My faith has not, as you suggest, quelled my hopes and dreams and ability to think and sight for the beautiful in the world. Ultimately, my faith in Christ gives me an enhanced experience of this life, an obligation to exercise what logic and intelligent thought I'm capable of, a near-sighted love for this world and the inhabitants therein, and a far-sighted hope for the future.

It is your choice to continue to exist until death. I choose to live more abundantly than anything I could have anywhere else.

So much beauty

2008-08-10T21:55:00.000-07:00

I went to a wedding yesterday. A friend of mine and a woman who may as well be my sister were married. On a steam boat. How's THAT not cool?

It was beautiful. I have never seen so many truly beautiful women gathered in one place.

Most of the bride's maids were women that I knew. One of them was an ex-girlfriend, and two of them were girls on the student leadership team with me in my campus ministry. My girlfriend helped with decorations, but she wasn't part of the wedding party.

It's hard to describe what I saw, except to say that it was beautiful. Such an empty word, it seems. Some how, the color that they wore instantly became their best color in ways that it wasn't before. Somehow, their smiles were different. Some how, their eyes were brighter. There was something intangible that came from a knowledge of who they are that was clearly visible. They were relaxed, and so happy looking. I have never cried at a wedding before in my entire life. I didn't cry at this one, either, but my eyes were hot for a couple of seconds.

I danced at the reception. They had a live band playing music that I could dance to. They didn't play anything latin, though. I didn't get to cha-cha. I got to swing, but the only thing I can remember of that is the basic step. I got to Rumba, but it wasn't with latin music, and I can't remember anything but the basic step for that either.

I danced with my girlfriend. She doesn't know how to follow my lead, but she was happy and I am happy and she was radiant. Another hollow word. I danced with a few of my friends. It was SO much fun to dance again. I need to get back into the swing of things.

Every pun intended.

Since it was asked...

2008-07-31T21:26:00.000-07:00

What makes my beliefs different than Ray's?

I do not believe that the Creation Story of Genesis necessitates a literal interpretation.

The first chapter of Genesis is written in the style of an Ancient Hebrew poem. Because of it's poetic nature, it doesn't have to be seen as literal in order to remain faithful to scripture.

That's the nature of poems. They aren't always literal. See "The Road Less Traveled."

The second and third chapter are the same story. Story. As in, "once-upon-a-time." Yeah, the ancient Hebrews had stories, too, and this one has all the ear-marks. Because of it's story-like nature, it doesn't have to be seen as literal in order to remain faithful to scripture.

Interestingly enough, this belief is also a rational approach to the reason why the order that things were created is different between the first two chapters of Genesis.

There is plenty to learn from them without making them a dissertation full of detailed play-by-plays of the beginning of the universe.

1) God did it. Alone. He didn't slay a celestial beast that was causing a ruckus. He didn't knock up with some sweet goddess that he picked up at the pub. He did it by himself, regardless of what methods (be they supernatural or natural) he used.

2) God made Mankind differently. Mankind was the only thing that God was inspired to make (let's make something like us!). Mankind is the only thing in the story that God put his hands on and got his hands dirty. He breathed life into man. The Hebrew word for "Breath" and "Spirit" are the same word, btw. Think about the theological implications of THAT.

3) Humans are powerful. God gave us the ability to have original thoughts and ideas; the ability to create. In ancient Hebrew tradition (the very same tradition that this story was entrusted to), a thing wasn't a thing unless it had a name. A things name defined some minute, but vital part of that thing's essence. A rose by any other name is not longer a rose, regardless of what it smells like.

Who named the animals? Adam did. Mankind did. God left the animals incomplete, and gave Adam the privilege of finishing his work.

4) Women have a special place in creation. Think about it, God starts making simple things and gets more and more cool and complicated as he goes along. What is the finishing touch to the universe, the thing that is the coolest and most complex? Eve. Women are the crowning jewel of creation.

5) Humans were made perfect and flawless, along with the rest of creation. God was there, in person, unfiltered, with Adam and Eve. Then, humans broke some extremely simple rule, and along with it broke themselves and the universe.

oops.

So far, I like Open Theism

Open Theism works like this. God creates man, and gives man the ability to create. We have free will, just like God has free will. God knows everything, so he knows what I'm going to do every second of every day for the rest of my life, right? He knows what tomorrow will look like, right?

Tomorrow isn't set in stone.

What if omnipotence doesn't mean "to know everything?" What if it means "To know everything in the universe that there is to know?" People view time as a segment, and the present is somewhere between the beginning and the end.

Beginning-------------Present------end
<--past future-->

I look at time as a ray. It doesn't have a defined end; it grows. And the Present is on the edge of it.

Beginning------------------Present-> Future

God doesn't know tomorrow because tomorrow isn't there until we create it with him.

Now, God's a GREAT guesser, to say the least. He knows every human being better than they know themselves, and can guess with pretty good accuracy what they are going to do. And he's still God. He can take away our free will at any moment if it suits his plan (like he did with Pharaoh after the first time he told Moses "no.")

He can proclaim that an event will happen in the future, and it will have no choice but to happen. And he has the power, if he wants, to take back our "creative spark" that gives us the ability to choose, see what we're gong to do in the future, and then give that spark back and tell us what's going to happen in the future. We call these "prophecies."

He knows everything there is to know. Tomorrow doesn't exist yet, because we haven't made it with him yet, so he doesn't know it. Therefore, he's still omniscient; knowing everything there is to know.

He's doing it of his own will. Because he wants to. Nothing is forcing him to except himself, so he's still Omnipotent.

"Well, the Bible says that God knows you even before you're born!"
Yes, but how long before you're born does it say he knows you?

You will not find any of this in the Bible. Neither will you find anything that goes against it.

Maybe this is why God says things like "I wish I hadn't done that" in the Bible...

People can be good without knowing God

"Good" does not mean "Righteous." Righteous doesn't mean good. Holy doesn't mean good, or something that belongs to God. Apple doesn't mean Orange.

I believe the same thing that Ray does. People can't be righteous (right with God), nor can they meet God's standards, without help. The only help that works is Jesus. Switching the word Righteous for Good is a semantics game, so let's define a few words.

Good = meeting the standards set by the general populace that define as such. I.E., hard worker, not a murderer, helps old ladies across the street, etc.

Righteous = being right with God.

Meeting God's standard = to be perfect. Every one has sinned in their lives and become less than perfect, but one can attain help from Jesus Christ to meet God's standards and become righteous in spite of that.

Jesus did NOT implement the same methods of evangelism for every situation.

He talked about Hell to the people who were supposedly already followers of God. He talked about love to people who needed his love. He knew their hearts' needs and acted accordingly.

I don't believe that the Bible is Inerrant

Not in the most literal meaning of the word. However, it's not chock-full of screw-ups, either. I know of two contradictions. One is the order of creation, that I mentioned before. The other is in the Gospels.

When Jesus casts out "Legion" into the herd of pigs, one of the gospels (I think it's John...) says that there were two demoniacs, while the others say that there was only one.

Why am I ok with this? Well, the number three was used to show importance. A thing repeated three times (or a figure) was emphasized. Sometimes, that was shortened down to two. This may have simply been the author emphasizing the importance of the story.
Even if it isn't that, what does it change? Jesus is still the same person. God is still the same. The demons are still the same, and still come to him first begging for mercy. it doesn't change any theological teachings in the Bible.

The Bible is perfect for teaching and correcting. It's our measuring stick, our standard, by which we measure ourselves and the teachings we hear.

People can have a real, living, breathing relationship with Christ and then walk away from it.

Bart Erhman is one of them. We can't loose our salvation, but we can walk away from it.

Paul says:
6Our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. 7For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.

Romans 6:6 & 7

Later, to those same people, he says this:
Don't you realize that whatever you choose to obey becomes your master? You can choose sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God and receive his approval.

Romans 6:16

"You're not slaves to sin any more, but you can choose to be a slave to sin again."
The Bible says that nothing can pluck us from God's hand. It never says we can't jump.

Having said that, I must concede that "false converts" do exist. I was one for quite some time. However, I usually just like to call them "fakers." And I am not in a position to judge any one's relationship with Christ unless I really know them well. If some one who I don't know except by blogs on the internet says "I was a Christian, but I'm not any more," then I am in no position to say that they never were.

I know where the cuss word in the Bible is.

Five points to the first person who guesses where. Five points to the first person to adequately explain what that means for Christians. Fifteen if the first person gets both in one shot.

So it's been a while.

2008-07-30T00:11:00.000-07:00

Where have I been? Well, I've been everywhere, man.

That's a lie. I've been in the same place since my last post.

Any way, I haven't been blogging very much. There simply hasn't been much going on in my life. It's been pretty boring.

The student leadership team at our campus ministry is headed to a conference this weekend. I'm super excited. Our minister just went into the hospital (which is why I'm still awake), and I'm not surprised. Something like that happens every time an important spiritual event is coming.

I haven't blogged at Raycomfortfood in a while. I bop in and out every once in a while to see what's what, but I've got some things to look up before I make a reappearance there. Namely some stuff about predictive prophecies. I was looking there today, hopped a few links and found a bunch of people called the Raytractors.

It's a blog where people contribute their angst about Ray Comfort. I didn't get past the first page, but that whole page makes me sad. I mean, there's a lot of intelligence there. There's also a lot of mudslinging, though. I know that it made me sad when Ray devoted an entire post to me about all the reasons I'm Hell-bound. Ray's got a whole blog devoted to him.

So, then, why have I emailed the one in charge and asked permission to contribute? well, because I have issue with a lot that Ray says and does. Also, I feel as if I can intelligently discuss it without calling Ray and his fan names and berating them (something that, if that first page is any indicator, the blog needs).

I've given the guy my blog's link. I'm actually kind of hoping he'll come and read this post.

My purpose in starting THIS blog was to show people that there are Christians who think. If I could get a word in on this blog, where EVERY ONE is an Atheist who is angry at thoughtless Christians (at least, I didn't recognize any of the contributors as Christian), then how much would that do for God?

Plus, there's quite a few people on the Raytractors blog that I am fond of. Flinging Dust. Weemarryanne. Celtic Chimp. That's not an exhaustive list, mind you. It'd be nice to completely by-pass Ray's censorship and semantics and just talk about what I believe without fear (mostly) of those kind of games.

My first sermon

2008-06-20T22:37:00.000-07:00

When I was a young lad, I was the one who always volunteered to do the sermon on youth day. You know, that one Sunday out of the year where the youth do everything. Music, Sermon, plate passing; everything.

However, whenever I did, I always ripped my sermons off of the internet. I always managed to find free websites with pre-prepared sermons. This one is the first one that I have ever written and developed MYSELF. I will be speaking this up coming Wednesday to my fellow students who are involved with our campus ministry.

Some things to note:

There is some rather personal information here. I don't mind sharing it, but bear that in mind.

Our Campus Ministry is going through a major change; we're getting a new minister. My mentor has not yet left, but his office is very weird and bare looking. He was minister here for 12 years.

I have a pattern of anonymity. I'm keeping it that way, so there will be some missing names here.

There is a day in my mind, about a year back, which I can look back on and call a turning point in my life in Christ.

I had just come from watching my young cousins march in a parade, and was helping my Grandfather (we call him Pappasugar) rebuild a house that had burned pretty badly. I was talking to my Pappasugar about the thing that we had talked about pretty much all summer; God. He's a preacher in the American Baptist Association, and I was trying to figure out if God was calling me into ministry. What else were we going to talk about?

I still remember him up on a ladder, looking over the top of a door frame through the... um... support things... (a lot of help I was...), as he said to me "Son, God's not calling you into 'campus ministry' or youth ministry. He doesn't do that. He calls people into Pastoral ministry, or missions work. That's it."

Let me tell you something about my pappa-He's hard core. My Pappasugar's title is Dr. [anonymous]. He is (or was at the time, I don't know if he still is) on the faculty of a brand new seminary that recently opened up in [city, state]. He has his doctorate in Biblical Languages. He gets up at about 5 or 6 EVERY MORNING and studies for 2-4 hours. He's literally forgotten more sermons and lessons that he's written in his collection of folders and binders and works than I have heard.

He is a BIG man in the ABA. He once stood up to the whole lot of them, the ENTIRE ABA, because some people from LOUISIANA MISSIONARY BAPTIST INSTITUTE & SEMINARY were starting some stuff at one of their yearly associational conferences. You know what happened? They backed down. And you'd be hard pressed to find a tougher guy; Men, when we're done, ask me about the time he got kicked by a horse. *shudder*

I remember looking up at him through those... support things... with all of these things and more going through my mind like BANG BANG BANG BANG, at the speed of thought. I was looking Dr. [anonymous] in the face with all of these thoughts, feeling a bit angry, and a bit offended, and a lot sad, but NEVER confused, and in all of this was the realization that the day is not far off when I'm going to have to grow a spine and tell my Pappasugar that he's just wrong.

And that's ok.

A lot of people our age would be ok with that verbally, but not in practice. "Who am I to tell such a distinguished member of the Body of Christ about God?" "What is my learning compared to theirs?" Part of that, I think, comes from us. I was like that, and still am to some degree. "What if I'm wrong? They know so much more than I do. They're so much more experienced. They're so much wiser than I am."

Part of it, I think, comes from the church. Churches everywhere have this mindset that "they're the leaders of tomorrow, the future of the Church!" *fanfare* "So we'll keep them in this warehouse, and train them, and educate them, and grow them, and when we're dead and gone, they will take our place and be unleashed upon the world to do the works of God!" And they tell us that, all the way from middle school up into and through college.

But we're not the church of tomorrow. We're the Body of Christ now.

Acts 16:1-5
Paul and Silas went first to Derbe and then on to Lystra. There they met Timothy, a young disciple whose mother was a Jewish believer, but whose father was a Greek. Timothy was well thought of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium, so Paul wanted him to join them on their journey. In deference to the Jews of the area, he arranged for Timothy to be circumcised before they left, for everyone knew that his father was a Greek. Then they went from town to town, explaining the decision regarding the commandments that were to be obeyed, as decided by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in their faith and grew daily in numbers.

At the beginning of his second missionary journey, Paul met Timothy. That's about A.D 49. He went with Paul on the missionary journey, split up with Paul in Macedonia, and joined up with Paul later and went with him on his third missionary journey in about A.D. 54, where they first stopped at Ephesus and stayed for three years (Acts 20:31). Paul went From Ephasus to Troas and Macedonia, but Timothy stayed in Ephesus. Paul was later arrested, and by appealing to Ceasar was transported to Rome in about A.D. 60, where he waited for two years for legal things to happen. Some time after that imprisonment is when Paul wrote 1 Timothy, and Timothy is still a "young man."

1 Timothy 4:12
Don't let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you teach, in the way you live, in your love, your faith, and your purity.

Yeah, that's borring stuff nerdy stuff, but it gives us a clue about the thing I'm getting after; age. These are all clues as to about how old Timmothy was.

Keep in mind that, in the Hebrew tradition, a child was 13 years and under. They would be considered a "young man" until about 30 years old. You do the math, and you'll figure out that timothy started out with Paul at about 16 or 17 years old. At 16 or 17 years old, he was traveling about with Paul, strengthening the church in faith. And because of that, the church grew larger in numbers daily.

That means that 8 years later, when Timothy was running the church in Ephesus, he was about 24 or 25.

I'm 22. How old are you?

What does Paul tell Timothy to do at that age? "Teach."

1 Tim. 4:11
Teach these things and insist that everyone learn them.

1 Tim. 4:12
Don't let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you teach, in the way you live, in your love, your faith, and your purity.

1 Tim 6:2
Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

2 Tim. 2:2
You have heard me teach many things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Teach these great truths to trustworthy people who are able to pass them on to others.

2 Tim. 2:24
The Lord's servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone. They must be able to teach effectively and be patient with difficult people.

2 Tim. 2:25
They should gently teach those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people's hearts, and they will believe the truth.

We are not the church of tomorrow, we are the church now. We have lessons to teach, we have knowledge and wisdom to give, and I'll bet the money that I don't even have right now that [new campus minister] would LOVE to learn a thing or two from us when he gets here.

But we also have to be careful. There's a trap here, easy to see but still easy to fall into. Righ here. Right here.

Hubris. Arrogance. "I'm wise, I have things to teach, I don't care what you say."

There are some things that have to be in place before we can teach and be active in growing the body of Christ.

Acts 16:2
Timothy was well thought of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium,

Respect is earned. It doesn't matter what you know, no one will listen if they don't have a reason to. And we have to respect them, too.

1 Timothy 5:1-2
Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as though he were your own father. Talk to the younger men as you would to your own brothers. Treat the older women as you would your mother, and treat the younger women with all purity as your own sisters.

We have to study.

2 Timothy 2:2
You have heard me teach many things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Teach these great truths to trustworthy people who are able to pass them on to others.

2 Timothy 2:15
Work hard so God can approve you. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.

How can we teach what we don't know?

There's also one more thing.

1 Timothy

1:19
cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clean

4:7
Train yourself to be Godly.

4:12
Live your life so that you're an example of Godly living.

4:16
Keep a close watch on how you live, and on your teaching. Stay true to what is right for the sake of your own salvation and the salcation of those who hear you.

6:11
So run from all these evil things. Pursue righteousness and a Godly life, along with faith, love, and persevearance.

We have to live what we're teaching.

oops. Yeah, I've messed that up, too, but not looking behind me, I am trying SO hard to run the race in such a way as to win, and I can't do it alone. I need you to teach me. I need you to be my examples, and so do [anonymous adult] and [Chair of the Board of Directors] and [New Campus Minister]. The Body of Christ can't function right unless all of the parts work together, so as we are going through this transition between ministers, let's keep that in mind. One of the things I LOVE about our campus ministry is that I can see how many people actually take ownership of it; We know that [Former Campus Minister] wasn't the ministry, and [New Campus Minister] won't be either. We're the ministry. But, I think we can do better. I think that we can do SO much better than the awesomeness that we are right now.

That's a decision we all need to make now. That is your only option from this message that makes you faithful to God, and I truly believe that, even if it does sound incredibly manipulative. If you want to talk to some one about the specifics and details of how you can do that better, if you need some one to pray for you, there will be some people over there. I don't know who, but now some one is going to be there whether it was planned or not. We have all summer to prepare for the coming year. We have all summer to study and train; it's pre-season conditioning. Let's make the most of it.

Woe unto who?

2008-06-20T11:36:00.000-07:00

Ray Comfort's orriginal post

“I just wanted to thank you for the kind word about atheists. Glad to see there is one Christian here that can recognize that we're just good people like everyone else. Thanks for the compliment. I have no problem admitting that Atheists can be good people . . .. I think that men who don't have God can be good, normal people, just not perfect. Thanks again for the kind words.”

It deeply concerns me when I hear a professing Christian telling an atheist that he is a good person. There is a reason for my concern. Jesus said that there is no one good but God (see Mark 10:18). Anyone who says that human beings are good is calling Jesus a liar. My concern isn’t just that the atheist is being confirmed in his deception, but it makes me doubt the genuine nature of Christian’s salvation, because it seems that he has no biblical knowledge of sin himself. This deception comes when the Law is not used to bring the knowledge of sin (see Romans 3:19, 20), and to show sin to be “exceedingly sinful” (see Romans 7:13).

Not surprisingly, he believes that preaching the gospel simply means to tell people “Jesus loves you,” something for which there is no precedent in Scripture. Wherever the love of Christ is preached, it’s almost always in direct co-relation to the cross (see John 3:16, Romans 5:8, etc.), and the cross makes no sense without mentioning sin, and sin makes no sense without preaching the Law, for "sin is transgression of the Law" (see 1 John 3:4).

I thought I was a good person until I understood that in God's Book, "good" means to be morally perfect. The only just rule by which we can measure our morality is by the Ten Commandments. It was through the moral Law that I found that God considers lust to be adultery, and hatred to be murder. When I measured myself by that standard I realised am not good. At all.

It’s also not surprising that the atheist has kind words for the Christian. This is because he is not offended by his message. However, to fail to warn sinners of the terrible consequences of sin (damnation in Hell), and to instead tell them that they are good people, is the ultimate betrayal. Jesus warned, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26).

My Response:

See, Ray, not only did you take what I said to mean something entirely other than what it was communicating, you went on to completely put words in my mouth about what the Gospel is.

It deeply concerns me when I hear a professing Christian telling an atheist that he is a good person. There is a reason for my concern. Jesus said that there is no one good but God (see Mark 10:18). Anyone who says that human beings are good is calling Jesus a liar. My concern isn’t just that the atheist is being confirmed in his deception, but it makes me doubt the genuine nature of Christian’s salvation, because it seems that he has no biblical knowledge of sin himself. This deception comes when the Law is not used to bring the knowledge of sin (see Romans 3:19, 20), and to show sin to be “exceedingly sinful” (see Romans 7:13).

Firstly, I never said that it is possible for any one to meet God's standards without God. You even quoted me as saying that people can't be perfect without God. It's right there in your post!

I think that men who don't have God can be good, normal people, just not perfect.

The problem, Ray, is I wasn't talking to you. So I didn't use your language. Good to you is not the same as good to them otherwise, you wouldn't have posted this riddiculousness. (I believe the word Paul would have chosen in this situation is "Scubalon.")

When I say good to [anonymous], he understands that I mean "Beneficial to society, kind, giving, philantrhopic, etc." If I want to communicate to him the thing that you heard when you read "Good," the word I would have chosen would be "Righteous."

And no one can be Righteous without God. I've never ever said otherwise.

Now, if I wanted to communicate to you "Beneficial to society, kind, giving, philantrhopic, etc."; I might have chosen a group of words that communicate that they are not righteous, that they are without God, but that they are not societal ills. Maybe I would have chosen to say "Good Atheist people," but then you would have taken that and made it into something that it's not also, wouldn't you?

I have stated many times, where you have proofread and posted, that it is impossible for humans to recieve salvation on their own. I dare you to tell me where I said otherwise.

Not surprisingly, he believes that preaching the gospel simply means to tell people “Jesus loves you,” something for which there is no precedent in Scripture. Wherever the love of Christ is preached, it’s almost always in direct co-relation to the cross (see John 3:16, Romans 5:8, etc.), and the cross makes no sense without mentioning sin, and sin makes no sense without preaching the Law, for "sin is transgression of the Law" (see 1 John 3:4).

Secondly, haven't I always spoken about both halves of the gospel? That the Law is one half, Grace is the other, and that to preach one without the other is a false gospel? I have ABSOLUTELY advocated emphasizing one half over the other when the situation calls for it, even the law over grace!

I dare you to go back through your blog and find the post where I say "You don't have to repent of your sins." No quote mining allowed. If you can find it, point me to it, and post a link to it so that I can see, I'll buy your next DVD.

Lastly, you should look at the NAS translation for that particular verse from 1 John, because those translators handled it much better.

Sin is not transgretion, but transgretion is always sin.

A Transgretion (Anomia) is breaking a specific law that God has laid out.

A Sin (Hamartia) Is simply "missing the mark;" being less than perfect.

However, Anomia can also describe the state of being ignorant of the law.

So a better translation of that passage, one that doesn't confuse the words "transgretion" and "sin," is found in the NAS translation

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

A few other minor things I have wrong with that post.

However, to fail to warn sinners of the terrible consequences of sin (damnation in Hell), and to instead tell them that they are good people, is the ultimate betrayal.

If you think that I haven't Told [anonymous] that the dying without Christ will send him to Hell, then you have not been paying attention.

My concern isn’t just that the atheist is being confirmed in his deception, but it makes me doubt the genuine nature of Christian’s salvation, because it seems that he has no biblical knowledge of sin himself. This deception comes when the Law is not used to bring the knowledge of sin (see Romans 3:19, 20), and to show sin to be “exceedingly sinful” (see Romans 7:13).

Do you even read the posts that you "moderate?" Or do you let some one else do it for you and then just thumb through them later to find the ones that you can turn and twist into something you can complain about?

Jesus warned, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26).

Yes, he did, but we can see clearly that the only way to make me fit that category is to take what I have said out of it's context, change it around, and then turn it itno something that it isn't.

I've been intimidated by some skilled intimidators, Ray. You ain't one of them.

What am I doing?

2008-06-15T22:40:00.000-07:00

Early this past semester, I had decided that I was going to get a head start on seminary. I was going to actually study my faith. What happened to that?

Amanda and I went to see "The Happening" with our campus minister, his wife, and a married couple who are alumnus of our campus ministry. Ok movie, but not Shyamalans best, btw. Afterward, we went out and ate and talked and goofed off.

Well, when you get theology nerds together, it's hard to avoid a theology conversation. And three of them were graduates from Emanuel School of Religion. Way out of my legue, but I understand more than I used to.

Any way, my campus minister told me about a teacher that he had. He donated his books to ESR's library when they were getting started. It was like 5,000 volumes. And that's not all that he had.

He had a book shelf in every room and in his hallway. Full. He had a fire proof room with every wall linned with bookshelves and rows of bookshelves in the middle; a literal actual library in his house.

His belief was that if you're serious about studying, then you put your money into it. Tithing goes to the church, and another tithe goes into stocking your personal library.

Another of his teachers graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary with a degree in The Bible. Literally. He has a Doctorate in Old Testament, and a Doctorate in New Testament from Princeton. Wrote his discertation in one week on a manual typewriter.

I've got four or five books. And I haven't read one of them all the way through. I've all but finished my Metzger book, but I managed to let myself get side tracked. And when I read the stuff from Metzger's book, I manage to forget it as soon as I close it because I'm not doing anything with it. It's just in my head for a time.

I will probably never be the guy that writes his discertation in one week. There are certain genetic limitations on intelligence, and while my family's got brains, we ain't got alien technoledgy implanted in our skulls. I'll probably never be the guy who has a personal library that rivals Princeton's. But, I can be the guy that I had planned on being, that I had claimed that God is calling me to be. Not a genius, but serious.

I sit around and get bored. I get bored. How? If I'm doing what I say I am, how do I get bored? I play the same video games over and over again (because I can't afford new ones). I check my email about 30 times a day; not because I'm expecting something important, but because I enjoy talking to people on Ray Comfort's weblog about theolog. Many may think that this is an honorable endevor for one who is doing the things I say I'm trying to do, but is it really? What comes out of it? No one's comming to Christ on the internet. Especially if their image of Christianity comes from his blog. Ray's a bit conservative for my taste, and my dislike of his style doesn't mean anything of great value, but there are some REAL NUT JOBS there.

My campus minster once showed me his class notes from one of his M.Div. classes. The test is entirely concepts and ideas. EVERYTHING was fill in the blank, no word banks and short answer. No multiple choice. No true/false. My school is not likely to prepare me for that level of study. We can barely call our collection of books a real library, for cryin' out loud.

So what am I doing?

Ok, so I have a confession to make...

2008-06-05T16:51:00.000-07:00

I'm not a published musician. The only music I do are when I'm on the worship band, and in my school's concert choir. That's about it.

What I mean by the title is that even though I'm under an assumed name here, I'm making every attempt to be absolutely real without giving away any identifying information.

Sorry for the mix up, Jason.

As a side note, if I ever did fire performances, I would take Rob Penn as a stage name for that. I'm not QUITE good enough for that yet...

May it be said of me

2008-04-15T18:40:00.000-07:00

that he loved the same way a fierce warrior fights
that he loved the same way a skilled musician plays
that he loved the same way a master teacher teaches
that he loved the same way a talented artist creates
that he loved the same way an intelligent scholar studies

If I can't be remembered as intelligent, talented, masterful, skilled, or fierce, then let it be known that I loved

It seems to me that there's plenty of the rest

So here it is!

2008-04-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

I've not only got it on my blog now, but it's up in my Google Docs as well. Which is awesome, because I am loving Google Docs.

Any way, I have a couple of things to say before the main event:

1) I'm terrible at English. This is my third time in English 101, and it's taken me that long to get it right. Don't expect this to be an earth shattering work.

B) I had a teeny tine word count limit, so I couldn't put all of the things in here that I wanted. I had to cut it down to "Here's what to do," and leave most of the "Here's why you should do it," on the cutting room floor.

Well, any way, here it is...

Defining the Blanks to be Filled

In America, there are few people who are unfamiliar with The Bible. For better or for worse, our nation is saturated with its influences on Western culture. I say for better or for worse, because I must admit that there are adverse effects that the Bible has had on our culture. However, most, if not all of these adversities have sprung from misconceptions brought on by a lack of context. Reading biblical stories out of context changes the meanings and messages that the authors originally intended to communicate. In order to place these stories back into their defining contexts, we must know the author, his intended audience, and the bigger picture that the lessons of the Bible fit into. This is not merely a matter of “filling in the blanks,” it is a matter of figuring out what exactly the blanks are.

If you don’t know the author, then you can’t fully know his message. When the author writes, he writes through a set of assumptions and world views that aren’t necessarily conscious. These assumptions and world views are some of the blanks that we, as responsible students, must define, because if we do not define them we will always read his writings through the lenses of our own schema. Ben Witherington III, renowned theologian and professor at Asbury Theological Seminary says this of such assumptions, “To the extent that each human being is a product of a particular environment, culture, language group, education, and social and religious upbringing, this assumption is manifestly false,” (17). We can begin to understand this author’s schema, the way he views the world around him and the assumptions he makes about it, by learning about his history. You should understand where he’s coming from, where he is when he wrote the work, where he intends to be in the future, and where he actually ends up. His experiences will shape the way that he views the world, just like our experiences shape the way we view the world. The author’s writing styles and literary tools will also influence the way we understand his work. Artistic writing styles, such as poetry and “once upon a time” type stories, do not always necessitate a literal interpretation. It is especially important to know the author’s culture and beliefs, as these will clearly have the most effect on what he says and how he says it.

The same way you know the author, you must know his audience. The author will understand his audience because the author is always tied to his audience in some intimate way. Moses wrote to the Hebrew people, and he was their leader. Paul wrote to the Gentile people, and he shared intimate ties with them through his Roman citizenship, Greek education, and the fact that he was raised in a gentile city outside of Palestine. Such ties between the author and their intended audience are present in nearly every area of the books of the Bible. That understanding of the audience is another blank that we must define. Bruce Metzger, who was a professor emeritus for Princeton Theological Seminary and widely recognized as the leading expert in canonical studies, says, “It is not too much to say that every serious attempt to understand the Scriptures must be historically oriented. Only by being acquainted with the political, social, and religious background of the biblical era can the student understand the allusions to the contemporary culture that the biblical writers assume will be obvious to their readers.” (13). It is important to understand the history of the audience like it is important to understand the history of the author. Where did they come from? Where are they at the time they receive this book or letter? Where do they want to be in their future and where are they actually going to end up? The answers we find to these questions will influence how we interpret the message they were given. More importantly than these, in Metzger’s opinion, is the cultural context and religious beliefs of the day. He says, “Although it is needful for the student of the New Testament to know something of the political and social conditions of Palestinian Judaism outlined in the previous chapter, it is even more necessary to be acquainted with the cultural and religious background of Jesus and his contemporaries,” (43). While it is clear that Metzger wrote this specifically about the New Testament, it is true universally throughout the Bible, and will change the way we view the work at hand.

Once you know the author and his audience, the message is still meaningless unless you fir them and the scripture you are looking at into an even bigger context. The passage of scripture you are looking at needs to be placed into the context of the rest of the author’s writings. Does it blend well with them, or is there inconsistency and conflict? If there is inconsistency, what is it and may there be a reason or purpose for it? What does it reveal about the author’s beliefs? This will change the way we interpret the message even more. Similarly, it is important to place it into the context of the entire Bible, and not just the author’s contribution to it. After all of this is completed and you have in your mind a clear and accurate interpretation of the message that was meant to be conveyed, there is one final and most important question to ask. There is one final blank that has been left undefined. “What does this mean to me?” The world we live in today is most different from the world of the biblical era. How might these differences affect the way we apply the message to our own lives? This question is the most important of all, because unless we apply what we are intended to learn, then the purpose of the message is utterly lost on us.

If a student will follow this short and simple guide, they will come a great deal closer to placing the books of the Bible into their all important context. If their readings lack the proper context, then they will find themselves in lack of the proper meanings and messages, because context is what defines their meaning. It is the responsibility of the student to find out this context, and find out the meaning that it gives these stories and messages.

Works Cited

Metzger, Bruce M. The New Testament: It’s Background, Growth, and Content. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003

Witherington III, Ben. The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus.

Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998

So, I may be a Christian...

2008-04-12T12:12:00.000-07:00

But I've got this problem with procrastination.

I have the paper, it's on my jumpdrive, and it will be up on this blogg before I go to sleep tonight.

The only reason I post a blog to tell you that is because now I'm obligated to do it.

^_^

So, I wrote a paper in English

2008-04-08T13:48:00.000-07:00

It's about how to responsibly interperet the Bible. My teacher thinks I'm the most amazing thing ever, and so I cam pretty much do what I want and get away with it, including writing about God if I do it right.

Like, on one of the tests, I didn't know the answer, so I put a sarcastic kind of joke instead. I still got credit for that.

Any way, the highest possibl score was a 110. And I got a 109.

She was handing the papers back and sayd that my paper was excelent and told the other students to read it if they want an example of how it's done.

Hlly Crap and Wow!

2008-03-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

I got my FIRST comment today!

This is cause for celebration....

^_^

Thanks to Rita Martinez. Werd. ^_^

I'm seriously considering

2008-03-15T19:29:00.001-07:00

dropping the title of Christian.

Now, before you start throwing stones at me, hear me out.

There was a conversation in my civ class about Locke's social contract theory. Locke was a Christian, but he believed that humans aren't inherently good nor evil when they're born. A student questioned how Locke came to that conclusion from the Bible, as she subscribes to the Doctrine of orrigional sin.

The conversation isn't important to this post so much as the ending of it. Our teacher said "That's the thing I find so interesting-and disturbing-about Christianity and Judaism and Islam. They can't seem to get away from each other. They constantly intertwine because of their shared origens."

That got me to thinking. Ya know, at least with Judaism and Christianity, he's right. We do share similar origens. We do have a LOT in common with our teachings. What's the difference?
Well, of course, it's Jesus. I believe he is the Messaiah, the son of God, and that he took away the penalty of my sins.

But aren't there also Jews that believe this? They're called "Messianic Jews."

Christianity is simply the continuation of Judaism after the arival of the Messiah. So why are we called Christians? Why aren't we called Messianic Jews, like the Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

Part of me likes the idea of changing our title to Messianic Judaism because it's got a sort or ancient feel to it. Theres some intangible romantic (literary sense, not as in love) feel to it, some undefinable epicness about it that's just cool. Plus, it doesn't take any emphasis away from the fact that I believe that Jesus is the lord, the Messiah, and the son of God. I wouldn't be breaking any Jewish laws, because even Rabbis believe that in the Messianic age they will all be fulfilled and they won't be required to follow many of them any more.

And as a Christian, haven't I been "grafted onto the tree of Israel?" In Romans, Paul says, "And if a Gentile obeys God's law, won't God declare them to be his own people?" and "No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumsicion is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's spirit," and "For Abraham is the father of all who believe. That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, 'I have made you the father of many nations.'" I am a descendant of Abraham. I am one of God's people. Why am I not a Jew?

So, I'm seriously considering dropping the term "Christian" in favor of "Messianic Jew." Christianity is the continuation of Judaism after the arival of the Messaiah. Why not call ourselves Jews? Even if I call myself a Christian, all that really means is that I'm a convert to Messianic Judaism, so why not call it that?

What does Ben Witherington say about The Jesus Puzzle?

2008-03-09T23:26:00.000-07:00

Ben Witherington knows his stuff. You may remember when I posted his view of Zeitgeist. He's pretty much awesome, and I can only dream of doing doctoral work under him.

Alas, however, I don't even know if a doctorate is what God has in mind for me. It'd be nice to be Reverend Dr., but that's a lot of money. Besides that, I'm not really calling the shots here in my ministry. It's all up to God.

Any way, without further adue:

Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' -- An Exercise in Mythmaking

In a post-modern post-Christian age where atheism has gained some new life, it was to be expected that there would be some persons who thought it might now be possible to make Jesus and Christianity vanish without a trace through a certain kind of prestidigitation, or at least an enormous amount of revisionist history writing. One such effort is that of Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle', which draws on some of the tenets of G.A. Wells and others of their ilk. In response to too many requests here is the basic deconstruction of such unhistorical and even anti-historical myth-making.

The basic tenets of 'The Jesus Puzzle' are listed below in numerical fashion can be summed up as follows (my comments on each of its twelve tenets can be found in bold and in a different color):

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

THESE ASSERTIONS INVOLVE SUCH OBVIOUS BLUNDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1) FIRST OF ALL THE EARLIEST NT DOCUMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARE PAUL'S LETTERS (WRITTEN BETWEEN A.D 49-64 OR SO) IN THESE LETTERS NOT ONLY DO WE HEAR ABOUT JESUS AS A HISTORICAL FIGURE BUT ALSO PETER, JAMES, JOHN, AND A HOST OF OTHERS WHO WERE EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS' EXISTENCE, NOT TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE REFERENCES THAT HE PERFORMED MIRACLES, TAUGHT VARIOUS THINGS AND DIED ON THE CROSS. 2) IN THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY WE HAVE NUMEROUS SUMMARIES OF THE LIFE OF JESUS, NOT TO MENTION CLEAR REFERENCES TO MARY AND THE BROTHERS OF JESUS AS WELL. PAUL ALSO MENTIONS THESE BROTHERS CLEARLY ENOUGH IN 1 CORINTHIANS. IN SHORT, THERE IS NO SILENCE ABOUT THESE FIGURES IN OUR EARLIEST NT DOCUMENTS 3) FURTHERMORE, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS ARE BOTH MENTIONED NOT ONLY IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, BUT ALSO IN JOSEPHUS,' ANTIQUITIES, WRITTEN IN THE LATTER DECADES OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 4) TO THIS WE MAY ADD THE TESTIMONY OF TACITUS WHO REFERS NOT ONLY TO JESUS BUT TO HIS EXECUTION UNDER PILATE.

IN SHORT, THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ABOUT SUCH MATTERS, BUT RATHER PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. TO THIS SHOULD BE ADDED THE FACT THAT THE CANONICAL GOSPELS, WHICH ARE ALREADY KNOWN AND CITED BY CHURCH FATHERS IN THE SECOND CENTURY, WERE ALL EXTANT IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. AND ARE WRITTEN EITHER BY AN EYEWITNESS ( THE FOURTH GOSPEL) OR BY THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH THE EYEWITNESSES (MARK, LUKE, AND SOMEONE WHO KNEW MATTHEW). THIS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS AT THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. (SEE RICHARD BAUCKHAM'S JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES).

IN SHORT, MR. DOHERTY HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DO HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK ON THESE MATTERS.

Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO THESE MISTAKEN NOTIONS ABOVE, TO WHICH CAN BE ADDED TACITUS WAS NOT WRITING THE ANNALS IN 115 A.D. AND SHOWS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF HAVING CLOSE CONTACT WITH ANY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. AS FOR JOSEPHUS THOSE SCHOLARS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THE 'ANTIQUITIES' ARE QUITE CLEAR-- THE REFERENCES TO JESUS IN THIS WORK CANNOT SIMPLY BE WRITTEN OFF AS LATER CHRISTIAN INSERTIONS, EVEN IN TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM, WHERE THERE WERE SOME LATER CHRISTIAN ADDITIONS. DOHERTY'S CLAIM THAT IT IS 'UNIVERSALLY' RECOGNIZED IS SIMPLY A CANARD, WHICH SHOWS HE HASN'T BOTHERED TO EVEN READ THE SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXT CRITICISM ON JOSEPHUS' WORK. FAR FROM THE JOSEPHUS' REFERENCES BEING INCONCLUSIVE, THIS EVIDENCE IS DECISIVE. CONSIDERING THAT JESUS NEVER WANDERED FROM THE IMMEDIATELY VICINITY OF THE HOLY LAND IT IS NO SURPRISE AT ALL IN AN AGE BEFORE THE INTERNET THAT HE IS NOT WIDELY ATTESTED IN THE FIRST CENTURY. INDEED, THE SURPRISE IS THAT HE IS ATTESTED BOTH BY A JEWISH AND A ROMAN HISTORIAN WHO HAD NO AXES TO GRIND IN THE MATTER.

Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

THIS MUST BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS-- A BALD FACED ASSERTION WHICH COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE. GAL. 4 IN PAUL'S EARLIEST LETTER WRITTEN IN A.D. 49 OR SO WE HEAR THESE WORDS " BUT WHEN THE TIME HAD FULLY COME, GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF WOMAN, BORN UNDER THE LAW TO REDEEM THOSE UNDER THE LAW." IN ONE OF HIS LATEST LETTERS WE HEAR: "FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS, THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL."

IN SHORT, DOHERTY SEEMS TO HE CHANNELING THE MISINFORMATION OF THE LATER GNOSTIC GOSPELS, NOT THE EARLIER AND FAR MORE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED CANONICAL ONES. NOT ONLY DOES HE BADLY MISREAD PAUL, HE EQUALLY MISREADS THE CANONICAL GOSPELS ON THESE VERY MATTERS. IT IS PRECISELY THESE SORTS OF REMARKS WHICH SHOW SUCH IGNORANCE OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHICH LEAD NT SCHOLARS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, JEWISH FAITH, AND NO FAITH TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PURE POLEMICS OF DOHERTY--- HE IS NO HISTORIAN AND HE IS NOT EVEN CONVERSANT WITH THE HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE VERY MATTERS HE WANTS TO PONTIFICATE ON.

Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

HERE AGAIN THIS SORT OF ASSERTION BETRAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL'S WRITINGS, AND INDEED OF EARLY JEWISH DEMONOLOGY. IN EARLY JUDAISM DEMONS AND EVIL SPIRITS ARE INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN SPHERE AND IN THE HUMAN REALM, AS WELL AS IN THE HEAVENLIES. IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR MATTER. PAUL CERTAINLY DOES NOT SUGGEST JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. TO THE CONTRARY, PAUL RECITES THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CREED IN 1 COR. 15.1-5 THAT JESUS DIED AND WAS BURIED LIKE ANY OTHER MORTAL, AND THEN WAS SEEN ALIVE ON EARTH AFTER HIS DEATH. SINCE TACITUS AS WELL STRESSES JESUS DIED A MUNDANE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF PILATE, ON THE BASIS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROMAN RECORDS, IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO DISMISS SUCH EVIDENCE, OR PROJECT IT INTO A MERELY SPIRITUAL REALM. FURTHERMORE, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT JESUS SUFFERED AND DIED IN JERUSALEM, NOT IN SOME SPIRITUAL REALM ( SEE E.G. HEB. 13, OR HEB. 7-11). IT DOES REFER TO JESUS GOING TO HEAVEN AFTER HIS DEATH AND ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN. BUT HIS DEATH IS SAID TO BE A SACRIFICE ON EARTH, LIKE THAT OF A PASSOVER SACRIFICE. ONCE AGAIN. DOHERTY HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO INTERACT WITH ANY OF THE EXPERTS ON EITHER PAUL OR HEBREWS, AND CHOOSES TO MAKE UP HIS INTERPRETATIONS AS HE FEELS LED.

Piece No. 5: SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THERE WERE SOME EARLY JEWS AFFECTED IN THEIR THINKING BY PLATONISM. PHILO WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE, AND THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS MAYBE ANOTHER. HOWEVER, MOST OF WHAT IS SAID ABOUT HEAVEN AND EARTH AND SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ARISES NOT OUT OF REFLECTION ON THE WORKS OF PLATO BUT OUT OF EARLY JEWISH APOCALYPTIC THINKING WHICH BEGAN IN EXILE BEFORE ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR THE AFFECTS OF HELLENISTIC THINKING ON JEWS. IT IS TOTALLY ANACHRONISTIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. THE SOURCE OF OTHER WORLD AND AFTERLIFE THINKING IN THE NT AND IN MOST EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE IS CLEARLY ENOUGH BOOKS LIKE DANIEL, EZEKIEL, ZECHARIAH AND OTHER JEWISH APOCALYPTIC PROPHETS. THE 'HELLENISTIC' EXPLANATION OF THEIR OTHERWORLDLY THINKING COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EARLIER JEWISH LITERATURE, WHICH BTW WAS THE SOURCE OF JESUS' OWN SELF- UNDERSTANDING--- ESPECIALLY DANIEL 7 AND ZECHARIAH INFLUENCED JESUS.

Piece No. 6: A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS MISINFORMATION IN DETAIL IN MY POST ON THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE LAST FALL. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED HERE. SEE THAT POST (JUST TYPE IN ZEITGEIST MOVIE IN THE SEARCH FIELD FOR THIS BLOG).

Piece No. 7: THE INTERMEDIARY SON

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.

THIS COULD BE SAID TO BE A FAIR SUMMARY OF GNOSTIC THEOLOGY, THAT GOD WHO IS SPIRIT WHO CAN HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE MATERIAL WORLD, BUT IT BADLY MISREPRESENTS THE THOROUGHLY JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE NT WRITERS WHO NOT ONLY AFFIRM AN INCARNATION OF JESUS THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION ON EARTH BUT STRESS HE WILL RETURN TO EARTH TO BRING IN A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NT REFLECTS THE OT THEOLOGY ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF THE MATERIAL CREATION. THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE STRONG AFFIRMATION OF THE GOODNESS OF CREATION THAN THAT GOD'S SON WOULD TAKE ON A PHYSICAL AND GENUINE HUMAN NATURE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ATTEMPT TO READ A RADICAL SPIRITUAL /MATERIAL DICHOTOMY INTO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA AND ITS FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, AND AGAIN REFLECTS A TOTAL FAILURE TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES AS THEY EXIST.

Piece No. 8: A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

I MUST STRESS THAT WE NOW HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ACTS BEING A FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENT. I HAVE SEEN THE FRAGMENTS OF A COPY OF ACTS IN SYDNEY AT MACQUARRIE AND THEY DATE TO NO LATER THAN 125 A.D. IT IS CLEAR AS WELL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, BUT ONE OF MANY LATER COPIES. SO THE ATTEMPT TO LATE DATE ACTS WILL NOT WORK (SEE MY ACTS COMMENTARY). FURTHERMORE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NT SCHOLARS THINK THAT JOHN IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL STORY, INDEED IT CLAIMS TO BE AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (ON THE TRUTH OF WHICH--- SEE MY WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS?. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY ODD ABOUT THIS TENET OF DOHERTY'S IS THAT IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE THREE SYNOPTIC ACCOUNTS. THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST THEY ALL ONLY HAD ONE VERSION OF THE STORY. IT SUGGESTS THEY HAD SEVERAL, AND INDEED THE PROLOGUE IN LK.1.1-4 MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY--- LUKE CONSULTED BOTH EYEWITNESSES AND EARLY PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND INDEED HE ADMITS VARIOUS PERSONS HAD WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE GOSPEL STORY BEFORE HIM, NOT JUST MARK. I WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A REFERENCE TO AT LEAST MARK AND MATTHEW'S ACCOUNTS.

NOTICE AGAIN THE DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF THE USE OF GLOBALIZING LANGUAGE--- "NOW ALMOST A UNIVERSAL SCHOLARLY CONCLUSION". HE CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT NT SCHOLARS, OR CLASSICS SCHOLARS, OR ANCIENT HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD. SO WHAT SCHOLARS IS HE REFERRING TO. SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THIS SORT OF BRAZEN POLEMIC WHICH DOES NOT DEAL EITHER WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, OR WITH THE CAREFUL SCHOLARSHIP DONE FOR CENTURIES UPON IT.

Piece No. 9: THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN ONE OR TWO SCHOLARS OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS WHO SUGGESTED MIDRASH WAS INVOLVED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS TODAY, THIS SUGGESTION IS REJECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GENRE AND NATURE OF THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES. MIDRASH IS BY DEFINTION A FORM OF CREATIVE EXEGESIS ON A PRE-EXISTING JEWISH TEXT. IT IS NOT A LITERARY GENRE AT ALL. MOST SCHOLARS TODAY RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE THE GOSPEL WRITERS DO SOMETIMES CREATIVELY INTERPRET THIS OR THAT PIECE OF THE OT IN SERVICE OF EFFECTIVELY PREACHING CHRIST, THAT THIS IN NO WAY ACCOUNTS FOR THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CHRIST STORY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OT DOES NOT PREDICT A CRUCIFIED MESSIAH. NO EARLY JEWS READ ISAIAH 53 THAT WAY. FURTHERMORE, ISAIAH 7.14 DOES NOT PREDICT A VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IN THE GOSPEL SENSE OF THE PHRASE. WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GOSPELS IS EVENTS WHICH HAPPENED TO JESUS WHICH WERE UNEXPECTED, AND UNTIL FURTHER DILIGENT STUDY OF THE OT WAS DONE, NO ONE HAD THOUGHT SUCH THINGS WERE PREDICTED IN THE OT. AS RICHARD BURRIDIGE'S BOOK 'WHAT ARE THE GOSPELS' SHOWS AT LENGTH, THE GOSPELS ARE LIKE ANCIENT BIOGRAPHIES AND HISTORICAL MONOGRAPHS, NOT LIKE THE EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUE OF MIDRASH. YOU COULD NEVER HAVE CREATED THE JESUS STORY OUT OF THE OT ITSELF, BUT ONCE THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JESUS HAPPENED AS IT DID, THIS FORCED A RE-READING OF THE OT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVENTS OF JESUS' LIFE.

Piece No. 10: THE COMMUNITY OF "Q"

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.

Q IS A CIPHER FOR THE NON-MARKAN MATERIALS FOUND IN COMMON IN LUKE AND MATTHEW. THIS MAY REFLECT ORAL TRADITIONS THESE TWO GOSPEL WRITERS KNEW OF, OR AN EARLIER WRITTEN DOCUMENT, BUT WHICHEVER IT IS, I KNOW OF NO Q EXPERT WHO SUGGESTS THAT THE Q COMMUNITY INVENTED A JESUS FOUNDER FIGURE. IN FACT EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL Q SCHOLARS WOULD REJECT THIS ASSERTION AS PURE NONSENSE AND WISHFUL THINKING ON DOHERTY'S PART. TO THE CONTRARY, IF YOU STUDY THE Q MATERIAL CLOSELY IN THE GREEK, YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT THERE IS BOTH NARRATIVE AND SAYINGS MATERIAL IN THIS SOURCE, AND BOTH REFLECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE LIFE, EVENTS, AND TEACHING OF A HISTORICAL FIGURED NAMED JESUS OF NAZARETH.

AS FOR THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS A Q COMMUNITY, THIS IS DEBATED, BUT IT APPEARS THAT A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS EVER A COMMUNITY THAT HAD Q AS ITS ONLY CHRISTIAN SOURCE MATERIAL, OR THAT ONLY BELIEVED IN A JESUS THAT WAS A TEACHER. THAT IS RATHER LIKE ARGUING THAT THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY ONLY BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS IT HAD CREATED FOR ITSELF, NOT ALL OF THE OTHER SOURCE MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO IT.

Piece No. 11: A RIOTOUS DIVERSITY

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

I HAVE SHOWN AT LENGTH IN WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS HOW VERY WRONG THIS WHOLE THESIS IS. FIRSTLY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT WAS A TIGHT KNIT SMALL OFFSHOOT FROM EARLY JUDAISM. ITS LEADERS WERE CALLED APOSTLES AS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM PAUL, THE GOSPELS, 1 PETER, REVELATION AND OTHER SOURCES. NOT ONLY WAS THEIR A HIERARCHIAL LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE, WITH APOSTLES AND THEIR CO-WORKERS AT THE TOP, WE KNOW WHO WERE THE LEADERS WHO SPANNED THE EMPIRE AND HELPED BIND THE MOVEMENT TOGETHER--- PAUL AND HIS CO-WORKERS, PETER AND HIS, THE BELOVED DISCIPLE AND HIS CO-WORKERS, JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS AND HIS, AND SO ON. THE ATTEMPT TO PREDICATE THE LATER DIVERSITY FOUND IN THE LATE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH CENTURIES BACK INTO THE FIRST CENTURY JEWISH SECT CALLED CHRISTIANITY IS BOTH BAD HISTORY WRITING AND POOR RESEARCH. IT ONCE AGAIN COMMITS THE SCHOLARLY SIN OF ANACHRONISM-- READING THE TRAITS OF A LATER AGE INTO AN EARLIER PERIOD. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS ABOUT THIS WHOLE APPROACH IS IT IGNORES THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE OF ORTHODOXY AND ORTHOPRAXY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM THE START. THIS IS HARDLY A SURPRISE IN A MOVEMENT FOUNDED BY DEVOUT EARLY JEWS. ALL THE NT BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY SUCH JEWS, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF LUKE-ACTS AND 2 PETER.

Piece No. 12: JESUS BECOMES HISTORY

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

THIS FINAL TENET HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY THE DISCUSSION ABOVE. IGNATIUS I AM SURE WOULD BE TRULY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK OF A HISTORICAL FIGURE NAMED JESUS WHO LIVED AND DIED UNDER PILATE. NO, THIS WAS ALREADY WIDELY KNOWN FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE. NOTICE FOR EXAMPLE PAUL'S WORDS IN 1 TIM. 6.13-- "IN THE SIGHT OF GOD WHO GIVES LIFE TO EVERYTHING, AND OF CHRIST JESUS, WHO WHILE TESTIFYING BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE MADE THE GOOD CONFESSION..."

MR. DOHERTY UNFORTUNATELY IS A MERE POLEMICIST. HE HAS NOT DONE HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK, HE CLEARLY HAS NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE BROAD RANGE OF NT SCHOLARSHIP, AND OF COURSE HE COMES AT HIS STUDY WITH A STRONG AX TO GRIND.

A bit more about me.

2008-03-05T09:20:00.000-08:00

Not that all of you necisarily care.

I grew up in an uber-conservative family. My grand-father is a pastor for the American Baptist Association (ABA), as well as one of my uncles.

For those of you who don't know, the ABA split from the Southern Baptist Convention because they felt that the SBC wasn't strict or literal enough.

Any way, when I was somewhere around 3-5 (I can't remember), my mom and dad got a divorce. Mom woke me and my sister up in the middle of the night, put us in the car, and drove us to a city in Arkansas called Judsonia to live with the affore mentioned grandparents.

From that point on, I grew up hearing about God, Jesus, Hell, Heaven, and every Sunday School story you can think of. How all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and people who die without accepting Jesus as their savior will go to Hell, while those who do accept him will go to Heaven. I was getting ready to go to sleep one night and realized that this Hell place sounded pretty sucky and I didn't want to go there. So, I talked to God and said these words,
"Jesus, I know I've sinned and I've done wrong. I want you to forgive me and come into my heart."

Sinner's prayer as I've heard it all my life.

Sweet. Now, I'm not going to go to Hell. I went to the living room where all the adults were and said "I got saved," and every one was thrilled.
But nothing changed.

I was a good little boy. I learned to be polite, well behaved, and just good all around.

When I moved to Beebe with my mom and sister, we stopped going to church for a few years. It didn't occure to me that I should want to go if mom wasn't going until a friend from school invited me to the church that his Dad preached at.

I didn't know the difference between ABA and SBC at the time, but First Baptist was an SBC church.

I started to learn more about the Bible and God, but things still weren't changing. Why should they? I was a good boy, and I know I'm not going to Hell when I die.

That's what Christianity was about for me. Tell people about Jesus if I can, and get people out of Hell.
But fire insurance isn't what God is offering.

I didn't know that until the summer before my second or third year here at MSU.

I remember what started it. I was listening to Switchfoot's beautiful letdown album. The song was 24.

There was a line there that said "I wrestled the angel for more than a name," and that triggered a slow but steady process that started me off into REAL Christianity. The kind where you have a real, breathing, living relationship with Jesus. The kind where you're really following God, and not just doing what he says.
Yes, there is a difference.

I began to realize that Christianity isn't about some far off distant future. Yes, that's part of it, but that's not the end-all, be-all of it. There's an aspect of reality that has to be there, or it's not real.

...

Yeah, that last statement sounded less redundant and more epic in my head. Oh well. No use in pretending like I'm some kind of epic man.

Any way, it's true. If you spend your Christian walk focusing on the future, you miss the now.

"But master Yoda says I should be mindful of the future."
"Yes, but not at the expense of the present."

That is why I am so specific about the Gospel when I'm talking about it.

If you leave out the here and now, then Christianity is just fire insurance. That's not what God wants.

God wants a relationship. He created us with the capacity to love greatly because he wants to share love with us. That's why we are made! That relationship doesn't come in the future, it comes now! Yeah, it will be better in the future when we are all perfect, but we don't have to wait until then to have it.

My life with Christ became real when I realized that. Why would I share my Gospel, my good news, in any other way?

An ongoing conversation

2008-02-28T19:35:00.000-08:00

Anonymous: Listen, I am not interested in theological arguments because when you come to the core claims, the miraculous claims, what evidence is provided? Jesus, if the story is based in fact, could only expect those who witnessed his life, death and resurrection to accept what happened. To us it is hearsay, and there is no reason why I should accept this, just as you don't accept Muhammad's "revelation" nor Joseph Smith's. Theological proofs are ridiculous, and they simply don't prove anything other than people are willing to accept argument without evidence. I am inclined to go with Thomas Paine's analysis of theology:

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

Myself: Thomas Paine doesn't have a very clear understanding of good theology.

Good theologians have to have more than just a working knowledge of ancient history and ancient societies, ancient languages, philosophy, archeology as well as a knowledge of what scripture says. And that's not even an exhaustive list as far as I'm aware of.

Just like any other study, there's different schools of thought, but all Christian theology shares a few basic principles.

Just like any other study, there are quacks who know just enough to make themselves and their peers look incredibly stupid.

Just like any other study, it is evolving and learning more as time goes on and taking note of certain truths that it didn't take note of before. That's why we had things like The Reformation.

The only real difference between Theology and any other study such as mathematics, or biology, or musicology, or psychology is the profoundness with with it changes lives, and people don't have a relationship with their studies or the thing that they are studying in quite the same way as many theologians do with the God that they are studying.

Well, I suppose I should admit that clinical psychology and biology do change lives a great deal. Therapists and medicine and the like. But they both still lack that relationship building.

And as far as Jesus only expecting eyewitnesses to accept what happened, how does that work with any other historical or archaeological subject? Why must Jesus be held to such a higher standard than other such figures in these studies?

Anonymous: "The only real difference between Theology and any other study such as mathematics, or biology, or musicology, or psychology is the profoundness with with it changes lives, and people don't have a relationship with their studies or the thing that they are studying in quite the same way as many theologians do with the God that they are studying."

How does one study God? This brings me back to the Thomas Paine quote.

Myself: "How does one study God? This brings me back to the Thomas Paine quote."

That's a good question.

How does one study psychology? You can't see a person's thoughts. All you can do is see how their mind affects certain things about them, like their personality, their decisions, their mannorisms, their moral and ethical code, and the like.

A cognitive psychologist would study how a person's cognitions change the way they act, and how things can change a person's cognitions.

You don't have to be well versed to know that the Bible claims that it is inspired by God, so the first thing a theologist would study is the Bible. And not just the Bible, but it's context. What do other histories say about the stories in the Bible? What were the methods of keeping these histories? What were the societies and the people like? You would study the areas of Archeology which are relevant to the Biblical stories. The languages of the people of the day. The culture of those people.

What does the Bible say about an even which we know happened? What does the Bible say about a city that we know existed? How many (if any) successful archeological endevors have been so succesfull because of knowledge gained from Biblical stories? How would the culture and language of the day change the way those people interpreted the Bible and what would their reaction to it be?
These are just some questions you would ask yourself, none of which assume the Bible's truth or falsehood.

All of these things you would study in order to acertain as to the reliability of the Bible, what the Bible is trying to tell you, and how much of the Bible is or isn't inspired divinely.

BTW, not all theology is in favor of Christianity.

You, yourself have drawn theological conclusions not in favor of Christianity by some pretty impressive means here. You've started with an assumption that the creation story of Genesis is literal (not something I agree with,) which is a fact that you either gained from some outside source or came upon in your own study. You then put that side by side with other data and studies you have seen showing that the literal interpritation of the Creation story isn't possible, which left you with two choices:
1) you were wrong in your assumption about a literal creation story in Genesis
B) The Bible is wrong about God.

And you chose B.

As a side note, Acts 1:18 doesn't say that Judas Hung himself. It says that Peter said Judas hung himself.

Anonymous: "You don't have to be well versed to know that the Bible claims that it is inspired by God, so the first thing a theologist would study is the Bible."

The problem is that the field of theology hasn't progressed since the beginning. What has it found? What convincing evidence has it presented that god exists? The ontological argument? Aquinus' proofs? What? You can dig up cities and read accounts of people written other than the bible authors two hundred years after the events...but how does this lead them closer to uncovering virgin births, walking on water, resurrection....divine inspiration?

"What does the Bible say about an even which we know happened? What does the Bible say about a city that we know existed?"

Pick up most any novel and real places and real people will be discussed...but we know it is fiction.

Also, the psychology analogy fails because we know the mind exists and we know the person with the brain exists....theology is the "study" of god...which begs the question from the get-go.

Thanks

Myself: "The problem is that the field of theology hasn't progressed since the beginning. What has it found? What convincing evidence has it presented that god exists? The ontological argument? Aquinus' proofs? What? You can dig up cities and read accounts of people written other than the bible authors two hundred years after the events...but how does this lead them closer to uncovering virgin births, walking on water, resurrection....divine inspiration?"

Theology hasn't progressed? Theology isn't just the study of wheather or not God exists, it's studying him. I think I would call the Reformation and emergence of certain denominations a progression of theology.

If theology had never progressed, then there wouldn't be any protestant churches. If we were to assume that theology didn't progress today, then I would still have to believe in an inerrant Bible with a strict literal translation throughout all of the scriptures in order for such a statement to be true.

As far as convincing evidence goes, I am sort of a baby theologist. I haven't even finished reading Bruce Metzger's "The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, and Content." By the way, his work is awesome. His obituary in Princeton's news called him "one of Princeton's truly great alumnus." His work is the leading authority on Canonical studies, and even atheists who are known in the field reference him. I recomend him to every one and any one.

Any way, I haven't got much for you, I'll be straight up. But I'm learning, and I'm starting at the same place every good theologist has to start: an inteligent look at the Bible.

As far as the miracles of the new testament go, I can tell you that we have some eye whitness testimonies outside of the Bible.

The Babylonian Talmud talks about him about half a dozen times, and even though it wasn't reduced to writing until the fifth century, it's an accumulation of much earlier materials, some of which go back to the first Christian century.

They called him Ben Pandera (that is, son of Pandera). Though the Pharasees did not believe that Mary was a virgin, they did believe that Jesus didn't have a proper father and that he was born outside of wedlock.

Obviously, if you believe that the Bible is reliable, (which I do,) you would interpret this as their rationalisation of the fact that Jesus didn't have a father.

He was said to have been in Egypt, where he learned magic., and was able to perform miracles in order to decieve people.

This doesn't bother any one who has already acertained the reliability of the Bible, as the Pharasees are seen in the gospels telling people that he can cast out demons only by the power of beelzebulb.

It was said that he called himself God. Something that agrees completely with Biblical accounts.

He was tried by the Sanhedrin as a deciever and a teacher of apostasy. Something else that agrees completely with the Biblical accounts.

He was put to death on the eve of passover, which as well agrees with the Bible. However, they have two traditions here. One says that he was crucified, and the alternative tradition says he was stoned and then hanged.

The Babylonian Talmud says that he had five disciples, whose names are given as Matthai, Neqai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah.

Bruce puts it all this way:
"It is commonly agreed by both Jewish and Christian scholars that these Talmudic tradidions add nothing new to the authentic history of Jesus in the Gospels. In general, they confirm early Christian tradition by giving independent-and even hostile-testimony that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. It is noteworthy also that the Talmud refers to Jesus' power to perform miracles (although it attributes them to his knowledge of magic) and to his claim to be the divine Son of God. The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera." (Third edition, revised and enlarged, page 93. Emphasis is mine.)

There's also Josephus, and the like, but I'll assume that you know Josephus. Every one seems to these days. ^_^

"Pick up most any novel and real places and real people will be discussed...but we know it is fiction."

The diference there being that there aren't historical records or archeological findings to support the events of a fictional novel, and there are all kinds of literary and culteral cues that ficional stories are, in fact, fiction. That's why a good theologian has to know all of those things.

"Thanks"
Thank you for not automaticaly declaring my stupidity. It seems there's a lot of mud-slinging around here, and it's nice to see a clean hand every once in a while. ^_^

Why have I started this Blog?

2008-02-22T08:27:00.001-08:00

Well, I'm using this blog because I've recently started posting on someone else's Blogger. I am thinking that in case any one should read my comments and want to know who the heck I think I am, they can come here to see what I'm about.

I posted on one of my xangas a response to some videos I recently watched on NBC's website. They were of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron debating the existence of God on live television.

The wrong way.

There are basically five overall problems with the methods that they used.

Firstly, never ever claim that you can prove God's existence without using the Bible, only to turn around and quote the Bible. Ray and Kirk did this in the opening statements, even before the actual debate started. Once you claim to be able to do something, you will be held to it by those who are trying to prove you wrong, and failure to follow through is a mark against God, not you.
It's a really bad idea to try talking about God without using the Bible to begin with. At some point, you have to describe the God that you're discussing. What is the authority on God's Character? Where do we, as Christians, go to discern truth from lies concerning the creator of the universe? What is the "yard stick" by which we measure all other experiences in our faith?
The canon. The Bible. talking about God without it is not likely to ever be a successful endeavor.

Secondly, realize what kind of person you're talking to, and adjust your speech accordingly. Talking to scientific people in "Christianeese," or overtly spiritual terms, is always a bad idea. Things get lost in translation. It produces an image of "holier-than-thou." It creates a separation between the believer and the nonbeliever to whom they are speaking. That is a devastating mistake, because no one cares what you know until they know what you care.
What the heck does it mean when you say "God is eternal," "He dwells outside of time?" People in Christianity know, but nonbelievers who haven't been surrounded by the Christianeese terms may not be thinking the same thing we are.
Also, if you meet a person who is overtly spiritual, then talking in scientific terms is a bad idea. You have to adjust your speech to the person you're talking to.

IF YOU KNOW THAT AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION IS COMING, YOU'D BETTER BE PREPARED FOR IT! I can't describe to you how angry I was that Kirk and Ray were so unable to answer simple questions as "Who created God?" "But the Bible says that you will be forgiven for whatever you ask forgiveness for, right?" Most of their questions were based off of scriptures that are taken out of context.
If you're "preparing" for a conversation, know what the other side thinks as much as possible. If the other side has a WEB SITE ON THE INTERNET, then look at it and base your points around their beliefs.

A woman took a statement that Ray made which was something like "It's clear that God made man because man's body is designed so well," and asked the obvious question. "If God designed humans so well, why is there cancer?"
Now, if you look at this woman as she's asking, it is very clear that this is a personal question. This woman is hurting. She is in pain. The absolute worst thing to do in this scenario is to take an obviously personal question, and generalize it. Rather than direct your answer to the world, direct it to her.
Let me explain this further. Ray started his answer by looking at the entire audience and saying "There is suffering in the world because..." and the woman repeatedly interrupted him and said "NO, NOT suffering, I'm asking about CANCER!" He did this two or three more times, with the woman interrupting him two or three more times before he finally asked the woman to stop butting in. Yeah, he used those words.
The way to help a person in pain is to treat them like a real person. Look her in the eyes, and talk about why there's cancer in the world. Don't talk to the world about all of the world's suffering. Talk to her about her suffering. That's the way to bring people healing.
People don't care what you know until they know that you care.

Throughout the entire ordeal, Kirk and Ray gave off copious amounts of holier-than-thou vibes. There is nothing wrong with showing the world that you're a new creation. There is nothing wrong with telling people that without God, they are sinners. It's all about how you do it. That's what makes the difference. If you impress people with how righteous you are, they won't care what you have to say.
Because people don't care what you know until they know that you care.

It amazes me that these kinds of Christians get so much publicity. I was thoroughly embarrassed when I finished watching that debate. I was angry at the way Ray and Kirk handled the situation. I really hope that, through this blog's connection to Ray Comfort's blog, people can see that not all Christians are like that.

So, here it is

2008-02-21T22:33:00.000-08:00

My first post here. I've seen two blogs by serious theologians. One I really enjoy, and the other I don't agree with so much, but it's nice to be able to say my stuff and know that any one can reply.

I'll post a real blog tomorrow. It's late, and I'm tired, so I'm going to finish up my stuff and head off to bed, now.