Did Samuelsson not intend the sensationalist effect of his research? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that was not what he intended mainly because he states Jesus was crucified. Still, there's some value to his contribution because he, a Christian, makes Christians mindful of how we speak matters of faith in terms other than those present in the scriptures. We engage in this when we speak, for example, of trinitarian and unitarian doctrines defining terms not present in the scriptures.
Much as I appreciate scholarly work I am leery any time the focus of a doctrine relies on drilling down on a single word. In simple terms Samuelsson's point is akeen to a defense attorney arguing for his client's acquittal because all the testimony states he took the victim's life, took him down but no one ever said his client shot and killed the victim. Is this not the case if the scripture testifys Jesus was suspended on a cross that he was indeed put to death by crucifixion?
Here's an example for my leeriness concerning scholarly findings such as Samuelsson's. He may be as loaded with those pictures of crucifixion when he says Jesus "was required to carry the 'stauros' to Calvary and they 'stauroun' him." The scripture says it was Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:26) who carried the cross for Jesus.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Must be Tuesday
Why do I bother? Typically, I have a sense I have not accomplished much of anything. Yet, it remains something I am compelled to continue to do because the alternative would be more than a sense of doing nothing but the reality of having done nothing.
I know I am not commanded to fast. I know fasting is not a guarantee or the quick (given the topic I chose this as the best word choice) track to spirituality. Up until about eight months ago fasting had never been a regular part of my life in my thirty years in the Lord. Then, from what I can only describe as an inner cry for my family, I purposed a time of fasting. I determined to declare a fast of four days. I will say my sustenance was limited to water. I can not remember if I had any coffee (black, no cream, no sugar) but I honestly can't remember.
What I cannot say, I am ashamed to admit, is that I feasted heavily on the word. Yes, the word was very much on my mind. Hunger pretty much subsided after the second day. Sitting with my family or co-workers during mealtime was not a struggle. I maintained, as I determined I would, my daily two-mile walk regimen. My dedicated time of prayer was not such as I could commend to anyone.
So, as I reflect on that initial time of fasting what did I gain? I pose this question mainly to show yet another example of my (I may be the only one) problem thinking to think fasting is for gain. The fruit of my fasting is that the Spirit has started in me what has become a regular, weekly practice of dedicating a day of fasting unto the Lord. I accept the charge that this sounds pious, but I will stand by it that it is unto the Lord. I have learned through many experiences how God answers my pray and prayerful requests only to go undiscerned by me until much later. God is too good. How can I say that when I turned around one month and added a second day to my weekly fast? God knows. He knows whether it was from the perspective of God-did-you-not-see-did-you-not-hear or Oh-God-my-God.
I have an abiding conviction founded in Jesus. He was without a doubt the ultimate spiritual man. Still, he never claimed it. He never taught his disciples from the How-to-Be-Spiritual manual, but he did model it for them as for us. Yet, the most captivating aspect of Jesus is that with the exception of that purposeful 40 day fast in the wilderness everything he taught and demonstrated the life of a spiritual in the streets among men, not from a mountaintop refuge. I would rather stumble in the street than fall off a mountaintop.
I no more mention my fasting here as some achievement than I care to reveal that when co-workers ask why I am not eating. My tenuous, brief reply: "It's Tuesday." Should they inquire further I elaborate. Tuesday is coming and I am compelled to do _ something.
I know I am not commanded to fast. I know fasting is not a guarantee or the quick (given the topic I chose this as the best word choice) track to spirituality. Up until about eight months ago fasting had never been a regular part of my life in my thirty years in the Lord. Then, from what I can only describe as an inner cry for my family, I purposed a time of fasting. I determined to declare a fast of four days. I will say my sustenance was limited to water. I can not remember if I had any coffee (black, no cream, no sugar) but I honestly can't remember.
What I cannot say, I am ashamed to admit, is that I feasted heavily on the word. Yes, the word was very much on my mind. Hunger pretty much subsided after the second day. Sitting with my family or co-workers during mealtime was not a struggle. I maintained, as I determined I would, my daily two-mile walk regimen. My dedicated time of prayer was not such as I could commend to anyone.
So, as I reflect on that initial time of fasting what did I gain? I pose this question mainly to show yet another example of my (I may be the only one) problem thinking to think fasting is for gain. The fruit of my fasting is that the Spirit has started in me what has become a regular, weekly practice of dedicating a day of fasting unto the Lord. I accept the charge that this sounds pious, but I will stand by it that it is unto the Lord. I have learned through many experiences how God answers my pray and prayerful requests only to go undiscerned by me until much later. God is too good. How can I say that when I turned around one month and added a second day to my weekly fast? God knows. He knows whether it was from the perspective of God-did-you-not-see-did-you-not-hear or Oh-God-my-God.
I have an abiding conviction founded in Jesus. He was without a doubt the ultimate spiritual man. Still, he never claimed it. He never taught his disciples from the How-to-Be-Spiritual manual, but he did model it for them as for us. Yet, the most captivating aspect of Jesus is that with the exception of that purposeful 40 day fast in the wilderness everything he taught and demonstrated the life of a spiritual in the streets among men, not from a mountaintop refuge. I would rather stumble in the street than fall off a mountaintop.
I no more mention my fasting here as some achievement than I care to reveal that when co-workers ask why I am not eating. My tenuous, brief reply: "It's Tuesday." Should they inquire further I elaborate. Tuesday is coming and I am compelled to do _ something.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Holy Spirit
This is not intended as a scholarly or exhaustive study of this topic of the Holy Spirit. However, my interactions with so many atheists, Christians, Muslims and others reveals the lack of understanding on something so fundamental in the Christian's faith is often troubling and a spiritual shipwreck for some. My hope is you will find englightenment and courage to embolden you in the proclamation of your faith in the Lord Jesus.
http://roundrockministry.blogspot.com/2010/04/father-son-and-holy-spirit.html
http://roundrockministry.blogspot.com/2010/04/father-son-and-holy-spirit.html
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Love triumphs
"Science will win". It's juvenile and although he never says just what it is science wins Stephen Hawking knows the value of, and is not above using, a good cheer. This after stating the fundamental difference between religion and science: Religion is authority based, science observation and reason based.
Hawking (one could say scientists, but lets not) reveals some thinking on aliens much like that for which theists are mocked. Theists are mocked for making a human-like being they call God. Yet, he imagines (yes, that's the right word) human-like aliens and attributes to them the more violent and aggressive human-like qualities. How is this speculation in keeping with the ever higher ever-improving intelligence model of evolution? This is Hawking, an atheist, projecting on aliens the human behavior of aggression supposedly the by-product of religion and theists. Hawking sees alien life forms as the embodiment of not all that is human, just the negative, evil or worse, _ whatever bring harm for humans. Lets consider this possibility: The idea does not set well with Hawking to be upstaged by an alien life form which suddenly reveals the pitiful level of his intelligence. His daughter Lucy shows a more reasonable view.
Secondly, Hawking is familiar with the ridicule cast on theists as refusing to face the facts of reality. It does not sound true to form to hear Hawking advise man ought not be looking to make contact with alien life. An intelligent life form (humans) avoiding contact with intelligent alien life forms? How is that any different were a northernmost people on earth to avoid looking to contact any probable peoples in the southernmost part of the earth?
Hawking is undeniably quite knowledgeable in his field. Yes, science does work. However, he reveals a science which imagines freely and qualifies those imaginations as reasonable or logical. Furthermore, Hawking would just as soon science work at not working to search for or contact alien life forms. He reveals his lack of unbelief and faith, words shunned by scientists, so lets say he trifles the work of man (to say nothing of God) such that he has given up the fight before the battle even begins.
According to evolution an alien visit to earth would be like Columbus' visit to the Americas a catastrophe where the weak perish and the strong survive. Science, says Hawking, will win.
It is therefore no wonder that in the Hawking mindset an alien life not of this world which visited earth in human-form with human-like qualities should be rejected as was Jesus. He looked human. He acted human. He did not fulfill the human expectation of alien life forms of aggression and conquest. Jesus is the embodiment of the love God. Hawking advises his children: if you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don't throw it away. He may not have been lucky enough to find it yet, but it's there to accept or to throw away.
Love triumphs not in those who remember to reason and observe it at a distance, but in those who embrace it.
Hawking (one could say scientists, but lets not) reveals some thinking on aliens much like that for which theists are mocked. Theists are mocked for making a human-like being they call God. Yet, he imagines (yes, that's the right word) human-like aliens and attributes to them the more violent and aggressive human-like qualities. How is this speculation in keeping with the ever higher ever-improving intelligence model of evolution? This is Hawking, an atheist, projecting on aliens the human behavior of aggression supposedly the by-product of religion and theists. Hawking sees alien life forms as the embodiment of not all that is human, just the negative, evil or worse, _ whatever bring harm for humans. Lets consider this possibility: The idea does not set well with Hawking to be upstaged by an alien life form which suddenly reveals the pitiful level of his intelligence. His daughter Lucy shows a more reasonable view.
Secondly, Hawking is familiar with the ridicule cast on theists as refusing to face the facts of reality. It does not sound true to form to hear Hawking advise man ought not be looking to make contact with alien life. An intelligent life form (humans) avoiding contact with intelligent alien life forms? How is that any different were a northernmost people on earth to avoid looking to contact any probable peoples in the southernmost part of the earth?
Hawking is undeniably quite knowledgeable in his field. Yes, science does work. However, he reveals a science which imagines freely and qualifies those imaginations as reasonable or logical. Furthermore, Hawking would just as soon science work at not working to search for or contact alien life forms. He reveals his lack of unbelief and faith, words shunned by scientists, so lets say he trifles the work of man (to say nothing of God) such that he has given up the fight before the battle even begins.
According to evolution an alien visit to earth would be like Columbus' visit to the Americas a catastrophe where the weak perish and the strong survive. Science, says Hawking, will win.
It is therefore no wonder that in the Hawking mindset an alien life not of this world which visited earth in human-form with human-like qualities should be rejected as was Jesus. He looked human. He acted human. He did not fulfill the human expectation of alien life forms of aggression and conquest. Jesus is the embodiment of the love God. Hawking advises his children: if you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don't throw it away. He may not have been lucky enough to find it yet, but it's there to accept or to throw away.
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life
Love triumphs not in those who remember to reason and observe it at a distance, but in those who embrace it.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Human Jesus: a response
This article does not attempt or profess to be a full response to every point in The Human Jesus video. (I see the video has undergone some editing and it has been broken up into multiple, smaller clips. Some of the specific references such as Rabbi Goldmark were omitted. I have renewed the video link on 12/25/15.) have been removed.) Undoubtedly, there will be misunderstandings and although great efforts were made to avoid direct quotations to eliminate misquoting and to prevent any semblance of personal attacks this will not prevent those intimately familiar with the video from recognizing indirect allusions. Despite the shortcomings every effort has been made to treat the documentary truthfully and accurately in hopeful, prayerful expectations. Readers are encouraged to view the documentary.
The Human Jesus video challenges believers to examine and reject beliefs concerning Jesus which are without Bible basis. That is a commendable biblical admonition. Certainly, both the challenge and the doctrinal belief behind the documentary have been around since the first century. The two-hour documentary references the familiar second century historic decision at the Nicaea council of 325 when (as it is said) Trinitarianism won out over Unitarianism. Although this article reflects a definite conviction concerning Jesus there is no preference for either of these labels which are as non-biblical as they are inaccurate. Believers flash these, as well as monotheist and polytheist, in lieu of teaching and understanding. Often believers are given to making sweeping assumptions about another’s teaching on the basis of a flash card approach instead of engaging in dialog.
The Ishango bone
It seems peculiar, if not telling, that the documentary should draw on the Ishango bone, an ancient mathematical system, to illustrate the introduction of the subject of discussion on the One-ness of God. It is amusing that the bone of a dead animal should serve to establish the antiquity of the concept of one, _ as in the One living God? Furthermore, it is ironic
The Human Jesus video challenges believers to examine and reject beliefs concerning Jesus which are without Bible basis. That is a commendable biblical admonition. Certainly, both the challenge and the doctrinal belief behind the documentary have been around since the first century. The two-hour documentary references the familiar second century historic decision at the Nicaea council of 325 when (as it is said) Trinitarianism won out over Unitarianism. Although this article reflects a definite conviction concerning Jesus there is no preference for either of these labels which are as non-biblical as they are inaccurate. Believers flash these, as well as monotheist and polytheist, in lieu of teaching and understanding. Often believers are given to making sweeping assumptions about another’s teaching on the basis of a flash card approach instead of engaging in dialog.
The Ishango bone
It seems peculiar, if not telling, that the documentary should draw on the Ishango bone, an ancient mathematical system, to illustrate the introduction of the subject of discussion on the One-ness of God. It is amusing that the bone of a dead animal should serve to establish the antiquity of the concept of one, _ as in the One living God? Furthermore, it is ironic
Friday, May 7, 2010
God is (not) dead
It was Friedrich Nietzsche who declared, "God is dead.” Those words have been a rally cry for some, but anxiety and frustration for believers. However, Nietzsche may have unwittingly opened a window of discussion for atheist and theist alike. These theists, who are the focus of this article and for the sake of clarity, are referred to as fear-theists to distinguish, not disparage, them from other theists in this article.
Nietzsche’s declaration provides a vantage point for disciples of Jesus who believe and uphold Jesus’ deity claims to push back when pressed against. The statement spotlights not just God, but death for both; disciples who claim belief in Jesus but timidly wonder about his deity and fear-theists who deny his deity completely. A fundamental understanding of the scriptures by disciples on the death of Jesus is all that is required to appreciate Nietzsche’s statement as foul as that may seem for some. It is does not require a disciple delve into original languages or a philosophy discourse on Nietzsche or his writings.
A common belief between atheists and fear-theists
What atheists and fear-theists share in common is their belief in the finality of death. (Knowing the knee-jerk reaction by atheists to the term belief associated with them you may think of it as, understanding.) It is true fear-theists believe in heaven and eternity with God. However, to the extent fear-theists reject the resurrection of Jesus from the dead they live in fear.
No wonder some fear-theists reject, not only the resurrection, but the death of Jesus. What fear-theists profess in faith does not agree with their view of death as being final.
Did God die?
A theist's theology, that is, how one knows and teaches God and his will, that does not account for death comes off as not much more than a hollow corpse emptied of its God-given life to the atheist and fear-theist’s mind. The blunt, anxiety-filled question, Did God die? has long been an effective tactic to bewilder and disarm some theists when they affirm, yes, Jesus, God in the flesh, died.
There are two common questions/assertions which often come up in the discussion. Questions are vital and necessary to discussion but the assumption too often is that the questioner not only understands the subject about which he inquires, but surely must be a scholar.
God is not a man
1 This is true. God is not a man. However, does this assertion fear-theists seem to attribute an aversion (or fear?) on the part of God to take on form to become a man? This reasoning by man seems understandable. Man is not given to stepping down to a lower state in life to accomplish something great. It is especially true if it's nothing more than an accomplishment out of pure love. God becoming a man for a specific time and specific purpose is not the same as to say he is a man. Surely, he is not a bush because he manifested himself in a burning bush (Exodus 3) to Moses.
After successfully deceiving Adam and Eve Satan likely added to his tactics of mockery and ridicule. He added this script to his resolve to deceive people into believing death is a final act.
God cannot die
2 It is true God cannot die. A feat men boast in the fullness of their arrogance to show their power (such as gang members, KKK, Taliban and others who live in fear) is to take a life. Most humans know they possess that power but wisely never even think to act on it. Other men may lay down their lives in pure love for another person or a noble cause, but none can take it up again. This common misconception that God cannot die raises some other disturbing points to be considered by fear-theists:
a.) While God cannot die it is not the same to say he would not die. This goes back to Satan’s lie in the garden. Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience was their unbelief. Through their sin of unbelief of what God had commanded death entered the world. This fact regarding death is known by fear-theists. Yet, since death remains today, but since the one (Satan) who had the power of death no longer has it is only those who reject the power of the resurrection over death that remain in its fear. Do the tactics of mockery and ridicule (and denial) of the death and resurrection of Jesus coming from atheists and fear-theists ring familiar like the dialog in the garden? Death is the ultimate litmus test for the claims of every prophet and holy man.
b.) Who better to willingly take on the litmus test of death and die than God himself? There is no greater act of love for God than to demonstrate to man created in his image of his will and power to overcome the death which separated God and man. The death and resurrection of Jesus goes far beyond religious, spiritual, pious talk about loving and serving God. The resurrection from the dead is the work of God. This work marked the confrontation and defeat of death by God and the exposure of Satan's lies. It was a work done for all who do not believe God to belief in God. I once saw a video of a man boasting about Americans being afraid of death. He said, "we," that is he and his followers, "love death". I thought to myself, Why are you alive still? It is far easier for him to send others to death and murder others than for him to lay down his own life as a demonstration of love, because despite his claims of loving God, a murderer lives in fear and knows not love.
Conclusion
God died. God did not remain dead. God is not dead. His willingness to submit to death was in order to bring to belief those who lived under the fear of death. Death remains a mere relic rendered powerless by the power of the resurrection until the final judgment day. Death is the ultimate litmus test for all who profess to proclaim the will of God. Make no mistake about it: This willful death is the renunciation of self by the individual. It does not involve the death of others by murder because they do not believe. This death is to live no longer for self but for Jesus as Lord and Savior as the apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians. Yes, it is a spiritual death, but no less real than a physical death. The claims Jesus fulfilled concerning his death and resurrection bear implications and significance on his deity and are the living, lasting reminder of the love of God.
Nietzsche’s declaration provides a vantage point for disciples of Jesus who believe and uphold Jesus’ deity claims to push back when pressed against. The statement spotlights not just God, but death for both; disciples who claim belief in Jesus but timidly wonder about his deity and fear-theists who deny his deity completely. A fundamental understanding of the scriptures by disciples on the death of Jesus is all that is required to appreciate Nietzsche’s statement as foul as that may seem for some. It is does not require a disciple delve into original languages or a philosophy discourse on Nietzsche or his writings.
A common belief between atheists and fear-theists
What atheists and fear-theists share in common is their belief in the finality of death. (Knowing the knee-jerk reaction by atheists to the term belief associated with them you may think of it as, understanding.) It is true fear-theists believe in heaven and eternity with God. However, to the extent fear-theists reject the resurrection of Jesus from the dead they live in fear.
Fear-theists have no more a response for the implications of his resurrection than the significance of his death to the claims concerning the deity of Jesus.
No wonder some fear-theists reject, not only the resurrection, but the death of Jesus. What fear-theists profess in faith does not agree with their view of death as being final.
Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood
he also himself in the same way partook of the same,
that through death he might bring to nothing him who had the power of death,
that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:14
Spirited cheers, jeers and chants, spiritual words, holy things and acts of faith are nothing if they are mere distractions. One cannot ignore for long the spectacle of one's own death or the death of Jesus. Does the humorously popular American bravado come to mind: Ain’t skeerd. How ever well-intentioned any teaching which leaves alone the seeker with nothing more than bravado to standoff the persistence of death is little comfort. The implication of Jesus' resurrection is that the One who is able to take up his life is also the giver of life. The significance of his death is the extent of the love of God like no other.
No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John 10:18
Did God die?
A theist's theology, that is, how one knows and teaches God and his will, that does not account for death comes off as not much more than a hollow corpse emptied of its God-given life to the atheist and fear-theist’s mind. The blunt, anxiety-filled question, Did God die? has long been an effective tactic to bewilder and disarm some theists when they affirm, yes, Jesus, God in the flesh, died.
There are two common questions/assertions which often come up in the discussion. Questions are vital and necessary to discussion but the assumption too often is that the questioner not only understands the subject about which he inquires, but surely must be a scholar.
God is not a man
1 This is true. God is not a man. However, does this assertion fear-theists seem to attribute an aversion (or fear?) on the part of God to take on form to become a man? This reasoning by man seems understandable. Man is not given to stepping down to a lower state in life to accomplish something great. It is especially true if it's nothing more than an accomplishment out of pure love. God becoming a man for a specific time and specific purpose is not the same as to say he is a man. Surely, he is not a bush because he manifested himself in a burning bush (Exodus 3) to Moses.
After successfully deceiving Adam and Eve Satan likely added to his tactics of mockery and ridicule. He added this script to his resolve to deceive people into believing death is a final act.
God cannot deliver you from death. God himself cannot save you.
After all, God is not a man. He can’t understand.
Satan missed the garden prophecy of the woman’s seed God said would bruise the serpent’s (Satan) head. It is more than mere curiosity that this early prophecy regarding the woman’s offspring clashes with yet another fear-theist chant: God does not have sons. God sent prophets to his people to proclaim his will and call his people to repentance. However, when it came to delivering Satan a death blow God did not send a boy, or mere man, to do God’s job. He did it himself.I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will bruise your head,
and you will bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15
God cannot die
2 It is true God cannot die. A feat men boast in the fullness of their arrogance to show their power (such as gang members, KKK, Taliban and others who live in fear) is to take a life. Most humans know they possess that power but wisely never even think to act on it. Other men may lay down their lives in pure love for another person or a noble cause, but none can take it up again. This common misconception that God cannot die raises some other disturbing points to be considered by fear-theists:
a.) While God cannot die it is not the same to say he would not die. This goes back to Satan’s lie in the garden. Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience was their unbelief. Through their sin of unbelief of what God had commanded death entered the world. This fact regarding death is known by fear-theists. Yet, since death remains today, but since the one (Satan) who had the power of death no longer has it is only those who reject the power of the resurrection over death that remain in its fear. Do the tactics of mockery and ridicule (and denial) of the death and resurrection of Jesus coming from atheists and fear-theists ring familiar like the dialog in the garden? Death is the ultimate litmus test for the claims of every prophet and holy man.
b.) Who better to willingly take on the litmus test of death and die than God himself? There is no greater act of love for God than to demonstrate to man created in his image of his will and power to overcome the death which separated God and man. The death and resurrection of Jesus goes far beyond religious, spiritual, pious talk about loving and serving God. The resurrection from the dead is the work of God. This work marked the confrontation and defeat of death by God and the exposure of Satan's lies. It was a work done for all who do not believe God to belief in God. I once saw a video of a man boasting about Americans being afraid of death. He said, "we," that is he and his followers, "love death". I thought to myself, Why are you alive still? It is far easier for him to send others to death and murder others than for him to lay down his own life as a demonstration of love, because despite his claims of loving God, a murderer lives in fear and knows not love.
Conclusion
God died. God did not remain dead. God is not dead. His willingness to submit to death was in order to bring to belief those who lived under the fear of death. Death remains a mere relic rendered powerless by the power of the resurrection until the final judgment day. Death is the ultimate litmus test for all who profess to proclaim the will of God. Make no mistake about it: This willful death is the renunciation of self by the individual. It does not involve the death of others by murder because they do not believe. This death is to live no longer for self but for Jesus as Lord and Savior as the apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians. Yes, it is a spiritual death, but no less real than a physical death. The claims Jesus fulfilled concerning his death and resurrection bear implications and significance on his deity and are the living, lasting reminder of the love of God.
I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. Galatians 2:20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
