Ok – we can all agree that Sherman is still getting used to the technology. I posted this once but did something wrong and so I am posting again. My mistake from which I learned to “post” before exiting.
Question One from last Sunday was, “When did the Hebrew people become known as the Jews?”
The Torah (Hebrew word meaning "teaching" or "instruction", or "law" also known as the Pentateuch which are the Five Books of Moses and comprise the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts) does not refer to “Jews” as it is found in the post exilic period. The word Jew comes from Yehuda, the son of Yaakov who become the leader after Shimeon lost that position over the tribe of Judah.
Question Two “Was Adam a Jew?”
Adam was the first human (his name is an ancient Hebrew word for any human) which makes him the archetype (when God made human male and female Eve became the archetype female) and given the fallen nature of human – I have to believe we have no idea what Adam looked like. He and Eve were a standard to themselves.
Question Three came from a text which was truncated but here is the question I received, “The assumption that Noah had a sex act that caused the family disruption is just that...an assumption. It could just be what it says: That…”
Very good question as we don’t really know what happened. We do know that what ever it was turned out to be bad enough to cause curses to be placed by a father on a son. Here are some of the explanations I found on Wikipedia which is quoted in several other sites with Jewish contributors.
“The Talmud deduces two possible explanations (attributed to Rab and Rabbi Samuel) for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse. (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a.) According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son, by emasculating him, thus depriving Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, on the analogy between “and he saw” written in two places in the Bible: With regard to Ham and Noah, it says, “And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father (Noah)”; while in Genesis 34:2, it says, “And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her (Dinah), he took her and lay with her and defiled her.” According to this argument, similar abuse must have happened each time that the Bible uses the same language. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, "both indignities were perpetrated."
In more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife. Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the "product of Ham's illicit union."
This "curse of Canaan" by Noah was likely connected to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Both the conquest of Canaan and the curse, according to the Book of Jubilees 10:29-34, are attributed, rather, to Canaan's steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham's allotment beyond the Nile, and instead "squatting" within the inheritance of Shem, on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, in the region later promised to Abraham.”
See you Sunday
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Why do we trust the Canon?
The Bible’s authority comes from its being the inspired witness to the revelations of God. God did not dictate the Bible but communicated His will through His prophets and apostles.
Religion is humankind’s attempt to reach God and Christianity is God’s attempt to reach humankind. Generally God reveals Himself in His creation. He gives His Special Revelation through specific revelations and disclosures. He revealed His name, His covenant, His Commandments etc. The Bible is God’s infallible special revelation and it is reliable and trustworthy in His revelation of Himself and His will.
The canon we have today comes from thousands of years of critical testing. In some cases, where the authorship is clear, as in the case of The Gospels, their inspiration is accredited due to their closeness to the source, Jesus. Other books are included in the canon because spiritual leaders who we know and trust in history proclaimed them as inspired. The external test lies in the number of copies of portions, in some cases, and, whole books in others, though separated by centuries are found to be substantively and functionally identical. With over five thousand manuscripts in hand – some dating back to 400 years before Christ – we find less that a tenth or a percent difference in the final collection.
This compares to the minuscule number of late copies of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, or Shakespeare. As archeological discoveries reveal time and again the truth of the Biblical record there is now more reason to believe God’s special revelation today than on the day of Pentecost immediately following the resurrection of Jesus in which 3000 accepted God’s promise through Jesus Christ.
Religion is humankind’s attempt to reach God and Christianity is God’s attempt to reach humankind. Generally God reveals Himself in His creation. He gives His Special Revelation through specific revelations and disclosures. He revealed His name, His covenant, His Commandments etc. The Bible is God’s infallible special revelation and it is reliable and trustworthy in His revelation of Himself and His will.
The canon we have today comes from thousands of years of critical testing. In some cases, where the authorship is clear, as in the case of The Gospels, their inspiration is accredited due to their closeness to the source, Jesus. Other books are included in the canon because spiritual leaders who we know and trust in history proclaimed them as inspired. The external test lies in the number of copies of portions, in some cases, and, whole books in others, though separated by centuries are found to be substantively and functionally identical. With over five thousand manuscripts in hand – some dating back to 400 years before Christ – we find less that a tenth or a percent difference in the final collection.
This compares to the minuscule number of late copies of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, or Shakespeare. As archeological discoveries reveal time and again the truth of the Biblical record there is now more reason to believe God’s special revelation today than on the day of Pentecost immediately following the resurrection of Jesus in which 3000 accepted God’s promise through Jesus Christ.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Men & Women & Sex?
I ran this past my wife last night and she was underwhelmed so feedback would be helpful.
I believe that women's curse, yes the one in Genesis, was that they would be willing to do anything to have a relationship with a man. Man's curse (one of them) was embedded in the woman's curse, "they will lord it over them," as is that a man will always want to conquer life - which includes women.
That has led me to the belief that women have been historically willing to trade sex for relationship. I don't mean to imply women do not desire or enjoy the act of physical intimacy only that it is part of relationship and they are willing to enter into a physical relationship if they feel they will in turn have an emotional one.
Men are the reverse of this - they will "give relationship" to get physical intimacy which I believe leads to frustration after marriage when the man feels entitled and the woman feels used.
I believe that women's curse, yes the one in Genesis, was that they would be willing to do anything to have a relationship with a man. Man's curse (one of them) was embedded in the woman's curse, "they will lord it over them," as is that a man will always want to conquer life - which includes women.
That has led me to the belief that women have been historically willing to trade sex for relationship. I don't mean to imply women do not desire or enjoy the act of physical intimacy only that it is part of relationship and they are willing to enter into a physical relationship if they feel they will in turn have an emotional one.
Men are the reverse of this - they will "give relationship" to get physical intimacy which I believe leads to frustration after marriage when the man feels entitled and the woman feels used.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Clear Conscience vs Guilt Free
What follows is a response to a penitent's concern that their remaining sense of guilt for past sins should prohibit them from submitting to Christian Baptism as they understood 1 Peter 3:8.
I am glad you are approaching this sacred responsibility with care and study. The point the Apostle is making says that baptism, when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God—now saves us. In that light the “pledge” prior to baptism is not to be confused with the promise received after baptism. The pledge is in your court – that you pledge your intent in coming to the sacrament of baptism is that you are wholly committed to giving your life, past, present and future, to Christ.
The issue of guilt is separate from “clear conscience” in that guilt is the sense of shame God gives to tell of wrong doing and conscience is the tool used by the Holy Spirit to communicate that shame. Guilt is useful when it is prodding us to repentance and right action. Guilt is harmful when oppressing us and bringing give up hope in our ability to right the wrongs we have caused. However, guilt is a wonderful gift that keeps reminding us that God’s forgiveness has freed us from the penalty and power of sin while at the same time prodding us to do the work the of repentance in setting right what we have wronged to the extent we are able.
It is in baptism we receive the internal presence of the Holy Spirit which gives us the strength to do all the above – something we are not otherwise capable. See Acts 2:38 , “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
One final thing about sin and guilt. When God forgives you are forgiven – however – our personal sense of forgiveness takes time for two reasons. The first has to do with the fallout of our sin – the people we hurt and the damage done still has to be righted to the extent possible. The second is like a wound that continues to hurt or itch long after it is healed – we have to accept the wound is healed even though we still feel the pain or itch left behind.
I am glad you are approaching this sacred responsibility with care and study. The point the Apostle is making says that baptism, when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God—now saves us. In that light the “pledge” prior to baptism is not to be confused with the promise received after baptism. The pledge is in your court – that you pledge your intent in coming to the sacrament of baptism is that you are wholly committed to giving your life, past, present and future, to Christ.
The issue of guilt is separate from “clear conscience” in that guilt is the sense of shame God gives to tell of wrong doing and conscience is the tool used by the Holy Spirit to communicate that shame. Guilt is useful when it is prodding us to repentance and right action. Guilt is harmful when oppressing us and bringing give up hope in our ability to right the wrongs we have caused. However, guilt is a wonderful gift that keeps reminding us that God’s forgiveness has freed us from the penalty and power of sin while at the same time prodding us to do the work the of repentance in setting right what we have wronged to the extent we are able.
It is in baptism we receive the internal presence of the Holy Spirit which gives us the strength to do all the above – something we are not otherwise capable. See Acts 2:38 , “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
One final thing about sin and guilt. When God forgives you are forgiven – however – our personal sense of forgiveness takes time for two reasons. The first has to do with the fallout of our sin – the people we hurt and the damage done still has to be righted to the extent possible. The second is like a wound that continues to hurt or itch long after it is healed – we have to accept the wound is healed even though we still feel the pain or itch left behind.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Be the Father or the Prodigal but NOT The Brother
I was struck again by how easy it is to be the brother in the story of the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal attempts to create his own reality - in essence - saying to his father, "Your way works for you but I have to please myself so I am going to go my own way." When he discovers the loss of discipline, direction and direct contact with God leaves him without friends, funds or a future he makes a plan to at least have a roof over his head and a benevolent master for whom to work.
The father, of course, is the real star of the story and a challenge for any father to emulate. The fact that he had determined, even before repentance, he would forgive and forget, is a lesson to fathers everywhere that the consequences of an action is usually punishment enough for the penitent child.
It is the brother who reminds me how self righteous I sound when I require a time of repentance, acts of contrition, a period of ostracization before forgiveness will be given. How selfish I am when I demand my rights from someone whom God has received. Even as I write this I am uncomfortable with this complete a forgiveness.
The father, of course, is the real star of the story and a challenge for any father to emulate. The fact that he had determined, even before repentance, he would forgive and forget, is a lesson to fathers everywhere that the consequences of an action is usually punishment enough for the penitent child.
It is the brother who reminds me how self righteous I sound when I require a time of repentance, acts of contrition, a period of ostracization before forgiveness will be given. How selfish I am when I demand my rights from someone whom God has received. Even as I write this I am uncomfortable with this complete a forgiveness.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Just reading it is good for you
In “The Key to Overcoming Temptation,” an interview by Brian Proffit of Rev Magazine, Dr. Arnold Cole is the CEO and Director of Bible Engagement Research for Back to the Bible revealed his findings in how best to overcome temptation (http://www.rev.org/article.asp?ID=3374).
It was no surprise that men report three times the temptations compared to women and that 80% of all Christians report giving in to temptation “some of the time.” What came as a bit of a surprise was so few reported their best aid against sin was other people (at 5.5%), accountability relationships (at 2.1%) or church (at just 0.5%). Three out of four had shared their temptation with another person, but only this tiny percentage named Christian friends as helping them resist temptation. Reading the Bible was the number one method for successful resistance – though there is a caveat.
Dr. Cole referred “The Power of 4.” It seems there is no statistical difference between Christians who read or listen to the Bible two to three days a week and those who do not read at all! There is a clear watershed at four days. Those who read or listen to the Bible at least four days a week are 36% less likely to smoke, 57% less likely to get drunk, 61% less likely to use pornography, and 68% less likely to have sex outside marriage.
Oh, one very important side note. How often one reads or listens to the Bible seems a particularly protective factor for teens. Among teens, we find no effects for church attendance and prayer in alleviating risky behaviors. Our New Testament Challenge has started us on the right path to helping ourselves as well as our family from avoiding risky behavior.
It was no surprise that men report three times the temptations compared to women and that 80% of all Christians report giving in to temptation “some of the time.” What came as a bit of a surprise was so few reported their best aid against sin was other people (at 5.5%), accountability relationships (at 2.1%) or church (at just 0.5%). Three out of four had shared their temptation with another person, but only this tiny percentage named Christian friends as helping them resist temptation. Reading the Bible was the number one method for successful resistance – though there is a caveat.
Dr. Cole referred “The Power of 4.” It seems there is no statistical difference between Christians who read or listen to the Bible two to three days a week and those who do not read at all! There is a clear watershed at four days. Those who read or listen to the Bible at least four days a week are 36% less likely to smoke, 57% less likely to get drunk, 61% less likely to use pornography, and 68% less likely to have sex outside marriage.
Oh, one very important side note. How often one reads or listens to the Bible seems a particularly protective factor for teens. Among teens, we find no effects for church attendance and prayer in alleviating risky behaviors. Our New Testament Challenge has started us on the right path to helping ourselves as well as our family from avoiding risky behavior.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Do What I Do
I am challenged by Paul’s invitation to the Philippians in 3:17 to, “Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.” A few years ago I read an interview of John Stott in which he was asked about the greatest challenges to the church in the 21st Century. He surprised me by making tolerance the number one challenge – as well as a coveted virtue of the church.
Christians should be in the forefront in fighting for equal rights before the law of all ethnic and religious minorities. The church should also actively show social tolerance by going out of our way to make friends with adherents of other faiths, since they are God's creation who bear his image. But the third, intellectual tolerance, which is to cultivate a mind so broad and open as to accommodate all views and reject none, is, in Stott’s word’s, “the vice of the feebleminded.”
By rejecting this feebleminded tolerance the church then properly defines outreach as evangelism and not proselytism, the latter occurring when our motives, methods or message are unworthy. When we properly understand our call to tolerance we make room for evangelism which is (in terms of the Manila Manifesto), “To make an open and honest statement of the gospel, which leaves the hearers entirely free to make up their own minds about it.”
This then brings me back to Paul’s appeal to the Philippians which calls us to be what we profess to be. The covenant still challenges us to look like what we are talking about: This makes the church’s main concern that we look like what we are talking about..
1 John 4:12: "No one has ever seen God, if we love one another, God dwells in us." The invisible God, who once made himself visible in Christ, now makes himself visible in Christians, if we love one another.
Christians should be in the forefront in fighting for equal rights before the law of all ethnic and religious minorities. The church should also actively show social tolerance by going out of our way to make friends with adherents of other faiths, since they are God's creation who bear his image. But the third, intellectual tolerance, which is to cultivate a mind so broad and open as to accommodate all views and reject none, is, in Stott’s word’s, “the vice of the feebleminded.”
By rejecting this feebleminded tolerance the church then properly defines outreach as evangelism and not proselytism, the latter occurring when our motives, methods or message are unworthy. When we properly understand our call to tolerance we make room for evangelism which is (in terms of the Manila Manifesto), “To make an open and honest statement of the gospel, which leaves the hearers entirely free to make up their own minds about it.”
This then brings me back to Paul’s appeal to the Philippians which calls us to be what we profess to be. The covenant still challenges us to look like what we are talking about: This makes the church’s main concern that we look like what we are talking about..
1 John 4:12: "No one has ever seen God, if we love one another, God dwells in us." The invisible God, who once made himself visible in Christ, now makes himself visible in Christians, if we love one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
