Opus 2025-669: To be, or not…

I have heard God described as the great I Am.  This, of course, goes back originally to the conversation that God had with Moses,

(Exo 3:14 KJV)  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

This was a great declaration by God differentiating Him from all the other gods. It was Him stating that He existed.

Then we have the I Am statements of Jesus.  These occur in the gospels where He is asked a question and in the translations that we see it usually comes across as, “I am he”.  The first of these in John is,

(Joh 8:24 KJV)  I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

If you have the right translation, you’ll notice that the “he” is not in the Greek text.  He simply repeating the statement from Exodus, “I am”.

So one of the great truths that I have embraced and I hope you have too is that God exists and that He is alive.  The question comes what does it mean to be alive?

That gets me looking around my yard and trying to come up with a definition.  The sidewalk is not alive.  The oak tree is.  What are some differences?  One can grow, one can’t.  One can die, one can’t.  One can change on its own, the other can only change from outside influence.  I originally started looking at this comparing, say, your dog with a rock.  One of the differences I came up with is the dog can move, and the rock can’t, but neither can the oak tree and it’s alive.  I thought of the fact that living things could reproduce and rocks can’t, but our definition of God would say that He does not reproduce.

It gets complicated.  It gets extra complicated as science advances and we come across things like the virus, and I think there are other forms of things in existence, which don’t fit the characteristics of life as we know it.

So when we say that God is alive, it’s hard to define.  I think one of the things that that means is that God is self-aware.  There’s also a term in theology, which I can never remember, which means that His existence is not dependent on anything outside of Himself.  I looked it up, aseity.  In other words He’s not created or supported by other forces.  I also think that it means that, although He does not change in character or basic essence, He is capable of the changes that involve thought and interaction with other lifeforms.  Thus we have God changing His mind based on what people do, but that does not change who He is or what His truth is.

This is an open ended thought process.  I expect to continue questioning myself on this for quite a while.  I expect God to reveal new thoughts to me and take me down rabbit trails that I didn’t know existed.  I’m looking forward to the journey.

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-190: Forgiveness

Trigger Warning:  Theology ahead.

Is it necessary to ask for forgiveness?  Is it necessary to change our behavior?  Most pagans and new age church attenders would answer “no” to both questions.  Jesus gives one example where the answers are “No” and “Yes”.

For reference look at John 8:1-11.  I will tag it on the end for those who don’t have a Bible handy and are not familiar with the passage.  It is referred to as the “Woman Caught in Adultery” episode.  A woman was brought to Jesus accused of adultery by a group of Pharisees.  They were obviously trying to force Jesus into some kind of public display.  They wanted Jesus to endorse stoning the woman to death as the law allow for.  Jesus called their bluff and then spoke to the woman.

I don’t think there was any doubt the woman was guilty of adultery.  It is also clear that Jesus was not condoning the behavior.  He said two things and they must be taken together.  First He said He did not condemn her and then Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.”

In regard to my opening question, notice that there is no record of the woman offering a defense or asking for forgiveness.  It is possible that it was left out but clear it is not mentioned.  Yet in spite of that Jesus offered her forgiveness.  Interesting.  I would submit that God is not into ritual flow charts, check boxes or games.  I would suggest that He can read our hearts and even if we don’t say the approved phrases He responds as if we had.  So, no, we don’t need to recite a set piece.  It is probably better if we do because it helps to clarify our minds, but God is flexible in ways we don’t understand.

Was it expected that the woman would change her behavior?  I would say it was not only expected but required.  Jesus did not say, “Don’t worry.  I’ve got your back.”  He clearly told her to stop sinning.  Would Jesus demand something that was impossible?  That was a rhetorical question.  I suggest that it is also vital to our salvation that we “go and sin no more”. 

Here is the relevant passage from the Bible.

(John 8:1-11 KJV)  Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.  And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.  And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?   She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

homo unius libri

Opus 2016-194: Distortions, Ignorance or Propaganda?

We now have Christians getting on board the Transgender Express.  We find people claiming to follow Christ who are taking positions that would have either gotten them laughed out of the church or excommunicated for heresy a few years ago.  How do we get to positions like this?  Much of it comes because when silly statements are made about the Bible we keep silent and let the juggernaut of anti-Christian fervor roll on.

Lets look at one step in the process that keeps coming up. 

I have heard it expressed that the Bible is a document to justify male dominance in our society.  It is called archaic because it perpetuates a primitive belief in the superiority of men.  While it is true that the Bible refers to God as He in almost every case and that the husband is to be the head of the home, women have a special role that does not make them second class citizens.  I want to address the distortions about claims that punishment for sexual sin in one sided.

Some people claim that the woman is the only one to be punished when adultery is discovered.  You might take the case of the woman brought to Jesus starting in John 8:3.  The scribes and Pharisees were obviously wanting Jesus to condemn her to a stoning.  There is no mention of the man being dragged into the case.  Jesus saw through the charade,

(John 8:10-11 KJV)  When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Deuteronomy gives directions for the law of Israel that are even earlier.

(Deuteronomy 22:22 KJV)  If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Notice that it is not just the woman who is punished.  The Pharisees that were trying to trap Jesus were ignoring the whole teaching as well as modern theologians like to do.  In the attempt to water down the standards established by God many of these “scholars” are becoming more haters of Christianity than lovers of truth.

Read the primary sources.  If you can tell the difference between decaf and real coffee you should be able to tell the difference between secular wisdom and eternal truth.

homo unius libri

Opus 2015-243: Sword Time

Should Christians get upset if the French government takes strong measures to deal with the acts of terrorism it has suffered?  I think there is a lot of confusion both in Christian ranks and those who have benefitted from the culture that was built on Christian values.  I have written about turning the other cheek.  One truth that must be realized is that the reason individuals can turn the other cheek is because the government is established by God to deal with the big issues.  Consider,

(Romans 13:3-4 KJV)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The government has a responsibility to not turn the other cheek.  If you read the different parts of the Bible that deal with breaking the law and sin you find that there are strict punishments that are to be interpreted with common sense and mercy.  Thus, adultery was to be punished by stoning but Jesus said two things.  First,

(John 8:7 KJV)  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

That was for the hypocrites that were out for blood, not justice. 

In the same spirit of hypocrisy, those who want to excuse their own sin fail to continue quoting what Jesus was saying.  He didn’t just say, “Be cool”.  His final words to the woman, after the hypocrites had slithered away was,

(John 8:11 KJV)  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

He commanded a change in behavior.

In the case of cultural evil and socially destructive behavior the government is to step in and do its job, not just write in the sand.  That means that the French have a responsibility to use the sword against the murderers who are seeking them out.  The same applies to the American government and any other government that is charged with protecting its people.  Military force is ordained by God.  The police are part of his plan. 

Obviously enforcing the law by punishing evil can be abused but it cannot be ignored, at least if you want to survive.  You cannot continue to chop away at the values and principles that built a prosperous and free society and expect the prosperity and liberty to continue to exist. 

homo unius libri

Opus 2015-439: Basic Beliefs: The Other Cheek, part 3 of 4

The first material to be considered in understanding the teaching on turning the other cheek was the rest of scripture.  No verse stands in isolation as a game changer.  The second point is the example of Jesus.

Jesus had numerous conflicts with different Jewish leaders.  We hear about the Pharisees, but they were not alone in opposition to Jesus.  Did He lower His eyes and humbly submit to their verbal attacks?  Not on your life.  He poured water on their puny flames.  He poked holes in their thin arguments.  He tore down their legalistic walls.  He did not turn the other cheek or go the extra mile.

Picture how heated it must have gotten. 

(John 8:59 KJV)  Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

This is not exactly what we would call turning the other cheek yet we must believe that Jesus practiced what He preached.  Of course when it came time to go to the cross, He turned the other cheek and went quietly along.

Yet even in the process of moving toward the crucifixion He did not play dumb and humble.  When Pilate tried to talk to Him, He talked right back.  Read through John 18 for some strong dialogue. 

To be continued...

homo unius libri