Dialogue

If two people disagree over an issue, as I see it, they both can't be right. They both most certainly can be wrong, but not simultaneously right. I know arguments can be made that both parties can be partially right and I would agree, but when it comes to issues of truth, only one can be right.

Suppose two historians got into an argument over the sinking of the titanic. One historian states that the Titanic sunk after colliding with a massive iceberg, the other states that the titanic actually was sucked into a arctic whirlpool. Only one can be right. Either the titanic hit an iceberg, or was sucked into a whirlpool. Yes, someone could come along and say that both happened--the Titanic hit an iceberg and then was sucked into a whirlpool. But now we have three competing truth claims (assuming that the first and second historians assert ONLY one incident caused the tragedy).

It seems to me that our culture, while gradually rejecting the logic of absolute truths, is moving towards a misinterpreted explanation of the term 'tolerance.' One can no longer assert that they are right as interlocutors involved in a dialogue with opposite opinions are wrong without being deemed intolerant, haughty, puffed-up, narrow minded, or any other ridiculous and ignorant assumptions.

The truth is, ANYONE who holds an opinion against others, thinks they are right and the other is wrong. This person may or may not be a prideful or arrogant person, but asserting that they believe there opinions are the correct opinion cannot be a matrix for judging their intent and/or character.

If I were to state, "God is real," and you conversely state, "God is not real," and then, after hours of good natured debate, we both decide our opinion has not changed, it would be erroneous for me to say, "Ha, you refuse to listen...you refuse to change your mind. You are so sure that you are right. Your pride has gotten the best of you," I would be wrong, and ignorant, for the person with whom I had been in conversation with could say the very same thing about me. One can, and must, for the sake of peaceful and progressive discussion, approach any subject and say, "I believe you are wrong and I am right." This is not an admission of run-away-pride, rather it is an impressive display of honesty. Perhaps accusations of arrogance are permissible if, in the example of the Titanic historians, the firs historian stated, "I believe the Titanic hit an iceberg, and that is that...I refuse to listen to any of your arguments."

More and more indivuals and instituions are resorting to ad hominen attacks. Instead of attacking the argument and its logical backbone, they are attacking the character and/or intelligence of the person putting forth his/her opinion. I have no patience for this. If fact, I see it as ignorant. I am not assuming that someone who resorts to such an attack has a low IQ, they are just too uninformed to participate in the particular discussion and thus have to attack the character of the one presenting the argument for purposes of distraction. Thus, it can be reasoned that ad hominen attacks are an admission of wounded pride.

All that to say, I'll try to be honest around here. If I disagree with you, whether in your comments or postings on your own blog, I am doing so because I think I am right and you are wrong (conversely you think you are right and I am wrong), but I do and have listened carefully to your opinion, otherwise, how could I disagree?

Here I Am

It's been a minute!

Things have changed a lot around here for the better. I attribute much of this to the prayers of a lot of folks who read this blog.

I am employed at a wealth management office now, here in Toledo, OH. It's quite different from all that I had scholastically prepared myself for. I hold a MA in Theology and now work in finance. It's all good though. I love my new job. I do a good deal of administrative work, research work (up my alley--research on historical Christian understanding of wealth, work and the state, and am working towards a securities license.

My wife, who since we've been married has been a vocational mother, now works at a local woman's homeless shelter. She's doing an awesome job...she pretty much bleeds empathy. It's a bit difficult doing this while confined to one vehicle, but it's working so far.

I'd like to get back into writing on this beast, but I do so hesitantly; that is, the balance between objectivity and tactful subjectivity is difficult to achieve in a non-anonymous blog. I feel awkward at times when I write, knowing that folks with polarized opinions on whatever subject is at hand are reading and possibly being offended. Nonetheless, I'll try to hit this thing at least once a week.

Anyway, thanks all for the encouragement over the past couple of months (your recent comment was uplifting, Peter!)

Peace!
Nate

Leave of Absense

I just wanted to inform those who read this blog I will be taking a mandatory sabbatical from posting. You see, I have been unemployed now for nearly 4 months. I don't receive unemployment compensation, and haven't been able to find a job. So to keep from loosing my home, I am selling my computer. And lots and lots of other non-essentials.

Those who pray, please do. If anyone in the Toledo area is hiring, please give me a call. 419.205.5337.

Please stay subscribed! At some point, I will be back.

Peace and Love in Christ,

Nate

How To Look 5 Years Younger In 5 Minutes

I think I miss my beard already...

John 10, A Qumranic Connection|Carl's Blogged Bible Study

One small tidbit today...

Over the past few chapters, John has carefully woven the text to clearly demonstrate that John is not JUST a messiah. An anticipated Jewish Messiah in the minds of the Jews in Palestine and those displaced by the diaspora would have been coming to overthrow the oppressive imperialism of Rome. According to John, Jesus was no political figure (Jesus shunned politics!); rather, he was God-become-flesh, sent by himself (so to speak...the father) to redeem mankind from their iniquity.

John, unique from the other synoptic writers(Mathew, Mark, Luke), masterfully accomplishes this task. What is so different about John? What does he do that the others do not? I would say, John's approach is clearly philosophical; if anything it is clearly intellectual.

Without going into a history of the author (the resources are plentiful, just go to any university and search their online library of works) I presume we stop thinking of the gospel of John as inspired scripture (which it is), and think about it as work of literature (which it is), penned by a unique author with a bias, with subjectivity, with background, with a leaning towards certain philosophical ideals.

All too often the Christian assumes that writers of scripture were consumed in a trance and the Holy Spirit guided their pen grasped hand and wrote the words. Not the case. Just look at Paul's work...the Greek is easily recognizable as Pauline in characteristic. Thus said, while scripture IS the inspired word of God, it was written by many different humans, all of whom expressed their personality in the text.

So look at John 10:40-42. This little tidbit is not found in the other synoptics. To me, this screams, "Look at me...John wrote me!"

What is so interesting, is that Jesus stayed for a while with his baptizer, who according to more than a few scholars and historians, may have been a Qumranic member--an Essene (you know, the guys who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls). Whether or not John the Baptist was an Essene makes little difference to me, all I know is that he fits the description of one in his dress, his methodology, and his ideals.

The Essenes were extremely mystical, and extremely philosophical. I suggest picking up a copy of the dead sea scrolls. The Essenes were looking for a Messiah. In fact, splinter groups thought he had come and gone.

Here is my point...could Jesus, and more notably, JOHN the gospel writer, spent time with this group, or at least remnants of the gropu known as the Essenes. This string of verses highly suggests it as a possibility. But cherry picking verses to support a supposition is never a good idea, so consider the overall language of John. Ideas key to John (truth/error, light/dark, living water, predestination, eschatological struggle, the two spirits) are all found in the chapters of the Dead Sea Scrolls, sometimes word for word.

Te whole point of this post is not to point out the similarites between John and Qumran, nor is it it to suggest that the gospel writer plagiarized from a group of dessert mystics. The point is that the gospel writer WAS ifluenced by these people. Maybe he never camped out in the cliffs with them, but he was clearly familiar with their philosophy and used it to communicate the word of God--the life, teachings, and meaning of Christ. God allowed him to use his own personal flavor of communication, and I am sure that many who read his gospel in those early days who were familiar with qumranic ideaology understood the message a lot easier!

Coming Out

Taking a cue from Wes, I must say my perspectives and worldviews have changed drastically the past few years both politically and theologically. I attribute this to inductive thinking and setting aside presuppositions in approaching history/theology.

I have become acutely aware of the dangers of a government that overstretches it's reach; that is, a government that imposes itself in the form of regulations and programs in places a government is not designed for.

The BEST blog post I have read recently that echoes my concerns but in an extremely concise and well-educated manner can be found at Strange Culture. Please, go read it or else this post will make far less sense.

Anyway, I can no longer consider myself Democrat or Republican, for both parties increasingly abuse the authority and over extend the reach of government, and both candidates in this election represent what their parties have become quite well. I guess I don't know where that leaves me...Libertarian, I suppose. I intend on writing more later and developing the ideas in Strange Cultures post a little more.

Blogged Bible Study, John 9

I apologize in advance for the rabbit trail that this post consists of, but that's where my mind went. I want to point out that I approached this text as agenda-less as possible, and as a certain controversial issue is brought up in this post, again, I approach it objectively. In fact, I am undecided on this issue. This isn't a theological stance, it's an observation.

John 9 centers on the miracle performed at the outset, the healing of the blind man. The disciples ask Jesus whose sin, his or his parents', caused his blindness. Jesus naturally replies neither. In fact says this man was created that the work of God might be manifest him in. Vaguely deterministic, but it can be taken as Jesus says, "Crap happens."

But that's not where I am going with this. Jesus, while talking, mixes his spit with the mud to make clay which was applied to the man's eyes. After washing the man's eyes are opened. That was some sweet mud. Here is the formula: DIRT + GOD = Miracle. Where have we seen this before? It sounds strangely familiar, like when Adam was fashioned out of clay and then animated with the breath of God. Again, not only is John demonstrating that Jesus is the God, but that Jesus is connected with the creative process. (cf. Jn. 1:2-3, "in the beginning with God, all things were made through him.")

So here is where I rabbit trailed...

Jesus, the Creator, as evidenced in John 9 and the Creation of Adam (Gen. 2:7) utilizes process in creation. Sure, he could have thought it and Adam would have appeared. He could have thought it and the blind man would have been made well. In my often wrong and humble opinion, Genesis is far more analogous than literal. Is it possible that the creation could have been the work of a process. Obviously, I am alluding to the whole debate in Christian circles that considers evolution a possible creative process of God.

I am undecided on this whole debate, all I am saying is God purposefully makes the miraculous more complex than necessary at times.

Carl's Blogged Bible Study, John 8

Man, to be honest I didn't feel like writing a post today. In fact my last post was last Friday. Thus said, nothing deep today, just a VERY short post of two observations.

John 8:9...Why did the older ones leave first?

• Maybe with age comes wisdom...wisdom says, "this is an argument we can't win."
• Everyone always assumes you can't teach on old dog a new trick...I hear this crap all the time when it comes to the church itself. Relevance, new movement, blah blah blah. Anyway, contrary to popular belief, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, while heavily dogmatic, were not a bunch of guys hung up on making religion intolerable for the masses. It is hard to picture, but the truth is most of them hated Jesus so much because they were so passionate about pursuing God in heaven, they were not looking for him on earth. Maybe, after a lifetime of pious devotion, the older generation were closer to God...heard his voice clearer. They learned their lesson sooner?
• Who knows...I don't have any resources available right now so it's guess.

My second observation is just to point out the irony. In the beginning of the chapter, Jesus saves a woman from being stoned. His cleverly divine words did the trick. At the end of the chapter, Jesus' cleverly divine words lead to his almost being stoned.

Usually John states that, while the leaders wanted to kill him, they were unable because it wasn't Jesus' time. This time however, John states Jesus had to hide. Despite the fact that it wasn't his time, the leaders ignored their ever deadening consciences and tried to take matters in their own hands. Obviously this process led to the cricifixion. It reminds me of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus.

Why Do You or Don't You Believe Jesus Was the Messiah? | Carl's Blogged Bible Study--John 7

"My Friend Ivan..."

The name Ivan is of Slavic/Russian origin. It is a transliteration of the Hebrew name, John. In seminary, John became my favorite book of the Bible as I muddled through the unique and precarious balance of divinity and humanity in the fourth gospel (Check out Thompson's, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel). I've discussed this here and there in recent posts, but in review of this chapter, in short fashion, I want to point out the humanity of the humans in John.

The seventh chapter of John comprises a debate...is Jesus the Christ. Keep in mind the Jews had just experienced a short breath of freedom from Greek kings before the Romans subjugated the known world (practically). Without going into a detailed history lesson, the Jews (particularly in Palestine--remember the diaspora) were anxiously anticipating the arrival of a messiah who would free them from Roman rule.

***Let me insert here a suggestion: Michael White's, From Jesus to Christianity. This book unravels the history from the Maccabean Revolt up through Christ. It is my opinion that anyone who calls themselves a Christian should be familiar with the socio-political condition in which Jesus Christ was birthed***

But Jesus was not the only messiah figure floating around at the time. There was Simon (4BC)--a slave of Herod who rebelled, and Athronges (4BC), Judas of Galilee, a Zealot (6AD) just to name a few. Many Jews believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) was the messiah, despite the fact he himself thought of himself as the one who would prepare the way for the true messiah.

Anyway, read through John 7. Listen to what the multitudes are saying. They all had a strong premonition that a messiah may have been walking among them, but which one was the right one? Davidic lineage, birthplace, and signs and wonders were brought up. Many believed, but most did not. I love reading this chapter. I take pity on the confused people in this chapter. They were trying so hard to decipher the truth!

And I have to ask myself...were I Jew living in Palestine who sat in the temple listening to the teachings of Jesus, weighing the evidence, listinening to the advice of my spiritual leaders and my peers...would I have believed that Jesus was the Messiah?

It is MUCH easier to believe that Jesus is the messiah here in America in 2008 AD than it was to in Judea in 28AD. It is much easier to believe in a figure from the past than the man standing in front of you, especially when others are making the same claims as him.

I do believe that Jesus was the Messiah...but why? I could spout off the historical evidence, the traditions of the Church, liturgy, etc. I could reference the scriptures of the Old Testament. I could regurgitate lectures from my professors. When it comes down to it I cannot absolutely tell anyone why I believe in Christ, I just do. Perhaps it is experiential, but I VERY rarely feel goosebumps; that is, the supernatural doesnot overtake my emotions that often. Like I said I just do, it is just a deep subconscious feeling. I guess it's faith.

If you were in the temple that day, would you have believed? Why do you believe today? Why don't you believe today?

Russia Threatens Poland With a Nuclear Strike

I am shocked and disturbed when I consider what Americans focus their energies on in regards to what may be considered "news worthy." Sure, it is natural to be self centered. It is important to follow the pedantic and baseless speeches made by our presidential nominees. It is important to watch their ridiculous pep rallies conventions. It is important to keep tabs on Miley Cyrus gas prices.

If anyone has followed this blog for a while, they will know I have been wary at times of things going on over in Easter Europe. The fact that Iran and Russia (two nations led by outspokenly anti-American megalomaniacs) are becoming increasingly "buddy-buddy." You could have cut the tension between Bush and Putin at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics with a knife!

So I could not have been more alarmed when I read about the US's latest endeavor: Setting up a defensive missile base on Polish territory. The conservative Polish (one of two nations being stinkers about the European Union), easily obliged the wishes of the US. Upon hearing the news of this new base close to their soil, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian armed forces' deputy chief of staff stated:

“Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 per cent,” he was quoted as saying, before explaining that Russian military doctrine sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons “against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them.”

Yeah...who threatens another country action anymore!?!? And we all thought the cold war was over...

A New Blog

The post have not been a flowin' here on My Friend Ivan. It pains me to see my feed stats in decline, but such is life. A weird mix of apathy, a VERY dysfunctional computer, and a new project have kept me away from this site...but now that things are settling down a bit, I'll hopefully be posting more often.

If anyone is interest in my new blog (co hosted with an old college budy), check it out. It's a blog dedicated to fine beer (always in moderation...morality aside, the stuff's expensive). The new blog is Thank Heaven for Beer.

John 6, Carl's Blogged Bible Study--TRANSUBSTANTIATION

I daresay there exists a universal maxim that renders humans nearly incapable of believing apart from their history; that is, for example, the child born and raised into a baptist believing family will most likely follow baptist doctrine the rest of their life. The child of staunch atheists will most likely end up following the atheist line of thought. The Muslim child will most likely worship Allah. It is my experience that in so many cases, the recipients of whatever tradition USUALLY accept their beliefs unconditionally and unquestioningly.

Ask the average Christian why they believe in the trinity and they will respond, "I just do," or, "it's just the truth," without providing any scriptural or historical evidence. As any Christian, regardless of denomination/tradition, what their rule of faith is and they will respond, "the Bible," ask them how the bible came into compilation and you will most likely get a deer in the headlights look. Most of us, myself included, often take our beliefs for granted. We assume them to be true without investigating another interpretation or model.

Which brings me to John chapter 6.

This post will be a little different from the rest. I hope not to talk about what inspiration this chapter afforded me; rather, bring to light a different viewpoint than most of my readers share, and hopefully spark some discussion. Keep in mind, as there are now over 30,000 different christian denominations in the US, there is a great deal of divergence over biblical interpretations.

In this chapter of John, Jesus is challenged by the Jewish leaders. They explain that there forefathers were miraculously provided manna as a sign, and ask Jesus what miracle he could perform to top it so that they might believe. In his most explicit confession of divinity, Jesus says that Moses did not provide the heavenly bread, the Father did, and in like manner His father has sent heavenly bread in their day...himself, Jesus of Nazareth.

They were already offended at this, and Jesus could have stopped there, but instead he said they must eat this bread...his body (51). They scoff and say, "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus could have said, "I am talking figuratively you idiots." Instead he says they must drink his blood as well. Such ingestion, he says, leads to eternal life (54).

As there are a plethora of interpretations of this event, let us focus on the Catholic interpretation. The Catholic interpretation accepts Jesus' words as literal. Coupled with Matthew 26:26,28, John 6 is viewed as a foreshadowing of the last supper, and consequentially, the Eucharist and the explicit belief in Transubstantiation.

Like the Pharisees in the text, to most of us, this seems outlandish, cannibalistic, and a flagrant misinterpretation of the gospel. But ask the average protestant why transubstantiation ISN'T biblical truth and you won't get a reply...at least a well researched reply.

What did the early church think about John 6 and the idea of transubstantiation? Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110ce to the Smyrnaeans said:

"those who do not hold heterodox opinions...they do abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

Forty years later Justin Martyr wrote:

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to take of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and has been washed in the washing for remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of the incarnate Jesus Christ."

So, the earliest followers of Christ believed that in communion the bread and wine mystically/miraculously become the literal flesh and blood of Christ. I'm sure this flies in the face of our long held beliefs. It does mine.

I'm not saying I hold to this interpretation, but is it really that weird? After all, we believe that we can pray to an unseen God and he can mystically/miraculously alter the properties of a cancer into that of a healthy cell. We believe that Jesus altered the chemical composition of pots of water into wine. We believe many mystical thing...why not this one?

So I would love feedback. Why or why not do you believe in transubstantiation?

John 5, Carl's Blogged Bible Study

This week's post may be lame...I apologize in advance.

For the past few weeks the same Jehovah's Witness has been stopping by my house in attempts to convert me. I had not really engaged with her for lack of time. Last week, however, as we were holding a garage sale she stopped by. Since I was just standing around anyway, we got into a debate. After about twenty minutes, she called on backup. Since I don't accept the JW definition of authority and inspiration, our only common ground was scripture.

The topic of debate was the idea of trinity. (If anyone didn't know, JWs reject the trinity...they do not believe that Jesus is God, rather a created superior being) To accept this doctrinal behemoth, trinity, the Christian must depend heavily on church tradition/history, which JWs illogically reject. The woman, Jennifer, actually brought up John 5, particularly verses 19 and following.

If you read 19ff, trinity is difficult to prove...but then again, does scripture try to prove it at all?

The Father sent his Son (5:36)...Can god send himself?

The Father give the son authority (5:27)...Gan God give authority to himself?

How about verse 26...basically it states that the Father has life in and of himself, unlike humans, our life, according to scripture and church tradition, is contingent upon God. It is nice to know that, according to 5:26, Jesus functions the same way; that is, he has life in and of himself. But this life, was granted to him by the Father.

The way I see it, the idea of trinity is dependent upon church tradition, after all the idea surfaced around 100ce, long after the New Testament had been penned. That's not to say there are not elements of it in scripture.

The early church defined Jesus as, "fully God, and fully Man." What a mystery...a paradox...much like the idea of an uncreated being (God).

So how do I interpret the John 5:19? I consider Paul (Phil.2:5-7):

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death.

In a nutshell, Jesus was God but became a man, thus he emptied himself of certain divine characteristics. Everything Jesus was given by the Father were qualities Jesus once possessed but emptied from himself.

I retain belief in the trinity...besides, John 5:22 says that the Father Judges no one...that is Jesus' role. There certainly was plenty of Judging going on in the Old Testament. If is wasn't God the Father who was it? And if God gave Jesus that ability while he was on earth, it just supports the idea of Jesus' "self emptying" in Phillippians.

Wars and Rumors of War

As I glanced through the headlines that popped up in my world news feed, I had to grimace. While I understand that unfortunately "good news does not sell," it is saddening that, besides the tribute to Mahmoud Darwish, every top story focused on some war somewhere in the world.

What gives?

• Georgian president's Russia claims raise eyebrows

• US flies aid into Georgia, backs ceasefire

• Zimbabwe Opposition Leader 'Committed' to Power-Sharing Talks

• UN Condemns `Brutal Murder' of Four Aid Workers in Afghanistan

• Musharraf Seeks Reconciliation as Coalition Plans Impeachment

• Lebanon bomb mars landmark summit in Syria

• Philippine troops regain control of villages seized by Muslim rebels

• Fitting farewell to Palestinian poet

• Violent protests in Kashmir threaten India-Pakistan peace process

John 4...Carl's Blogged Bible Study Samaritans

I rarely blog at 6am, but my wife and I woke up early to watch the Persoid Meteor Shower...which was fantastic. Watching the streaks of molten rock actually reminded me of the early use of John by the gnostics. Anyway, here are a few quick thoughts on the gospel.

This 4th chapter introduces the first believer in Jesus Christ other than Jesus' mother, cousin, and disciples. Whenever I come across a 'first' in scripture (or any other literary work for that matter) I take special note. As I mentioned before, John, being a Jew, thought more linearly and less chronologically therefore this 'first' conversion really should clue us in on the nature of Christ, since the whole gospel is Christological work.

There is not a whole lot of written history by those called 'Samaritans,' but we do know that Samaritans considered themselves Jews (heirs of God's promises) but every other Jew considered them half breed non-Jews. The Samaritans spoken of in John were certainly a mixed people group. Whenever an ancient power conquered another nation in ancient times they always took some of the conquered back home (i.e. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abendigo) while leaving some of their own colonists behind. This safeguarded against revolt. After the Northern kingdom of Israel (including Samaria) fell to Assyria, colonists (from Babylon and Mesopotamia) were left behind. The remnant of Jews intermarried with colonists--against Mosaic law--resulting in a mixed race unnaccepted by mainstream Judaism.

In fact, when the temple in Jerusalem was being rebuilt (around the time of Nehemiah) the Samaritans offered assistance, but their offer was rejected. The Samaritans then built their own temple on Mt. Gerazim and developed a very conservative form of Judaism. They only accepted the first five books of the old testament (the Samaritan Penteteuch), were rigid monotheists, had their own set of prophets and Rabbis, and were anticipating a messiah.

The animosity was so intense between Jews/Samaritans in 128 B.C. John Hyrcanus (Hasmonean Jew--Maccabean) destroyed the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerazim. In 9 A.D. the temple at Jerusalem was desecrated by the Samaritans at the passover. In John 8:48 the Pharisees insult Jesus by saying he, "is a Samaritan and has a demon."

All that to say, in John 4, Jesus shouldn't be speaking with a Samaritan, and most certainly a woman. What's interesting to note is that the woman at the well, while being somewhat promiscuous, knows her stuff...she even questions Jesus on whether Jerusalem or Mt. Gerazim is the correct place to worship. She doesn't act very surprised when Jesus starts talking about "living water," which certainly sounds weird to me; but read what this Samaritan philospoher wrote:

"3 There is a Well of living water dug by a Prophet whose like has not arisen since Adam and the water which is in it is from the mouth of God. Let us eat from the fruit that is in this garden and let us drink from the waters that are in this well. There is no need for us to see it in a place we cannot get to. "It is not in heaven" and it is not in crossing the sea (Deut 30:12-13). "In the mouth and in the heart" it is done (Deut 30:14). And woe to us! For we do not do it; it is far from us. We do not learn it though we came down from heaven! It was given to us and we believed in it. It was with them; it was within the Light. And the glory was around, for it was the word of God. His hand wrote and the Prophet received it with signs from on high. And YHWH came down and dwelt with him. --- Marqah, Memar 6.3"

Jesus was speaking her language not his. After this woman believed, she spread the word and many others believed (Jn. 4:39). In verse 42, after Jesus stayed with the Samaritans for a couple of days, many believed in him and they told the woman that they no longer believe because of her word, but becasue of Jesus'. I imagine that must have been disheartening for her. Listen to what John Calvin had to say about this incident:

"...and the Samaritans appear to boast that they have now a stronger foundation than a woman's tongue, which is, for the most part, light and trivial. "

After I take all this in, I am amazed at Jesus sensitivity in dealing with this woman. I am impressed that he contextualized his message and catered it to her undestanding. I am amazed that John's first example of response to Jesus' message was the lowliest of the low: an adulterer...a margianalized religious reject...a woman.

*the image is a pic of Jacob's Well

Humanitarian Aid in Africa--Countrproductive

As long as I have been alive ghastly images of emaciated and under-nourished African children with bloated bellies have illustrated story after story after story of the nightly news. The same images have accompanied infomercials for groups such as Compassion International since such groups were founded.

Why don't the images get a little less gruesome? With all the millions of dollars and truckloads of food being pumped into Africa, why don't we see any relief as we glance at the statistics of famine stricken Africa? These questions have always bugged me and inclined me to distrust philanthropic agencies working in "Cradle of Mankind" (Ethiopia) as I assume that much of the money donated may go towards administrative expenses.

TIME magazine recently published an article expressing my very concerns. They agree it is perplexing that a land that is believed to have been so enriched to birth mankind could foster such famine, especially when it's fields (this year) are bright green and ripe for cultivation. Consider Time's statistics-This year the U.S. will give:

• $800 million to Ethiopia
• $460 million for food, $350 million for HIV/AIDS treatment
• $7 million for agricultural development

As mentioned in the TIME article, the age old proverb comes to mind: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” The implication, of course, is that we, the heroes from the west, have actually worsened the situation in Africa in dumbing down the recipients of our goodwill. The TIME article states:

Why bother with development when shortfalls are met by aid? Ethiopian farmers can't compete with free food, so they stop trying. Over time, there's a loss of key skills, and a country that can't. All too often, its rulers use resources elsewhere--Ethiopia has one of Africa's largest armies.

Why do we get aid so wrong? Because it feels so right. 'The American people," says U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia Donald Yamamoto, 'are simply not going to sit tight while they see children dying.' Nor should they: a starving man needs to be saved first before he can be taught to fish--or farm.

The starving man is being saved, but he is hardly being taught sustainable living. I agree with TIME, which credits American benevolence but sites a flaw. I say, don't stop giving...give smarter! I can't help but see the problem mirrored in America's dysfunctional welfare system; but that's another post for another day.

A Political Moment with a Pharisee

"Love work; hate domination; and seek not undue intimacy with the government."

So said Shemayah, from the Talmudic book, Avot-Ethics of the Father. This ancient Pharisee might as well have been my political counselor. Maybe a Ron Paul supporter?

I wonder what Jesus Christ thought of these words?

John 3...Carl's Blogged Bible Study

John 3:3 is full of phrases and ideas that hold a special place in the heart of the Christian. The oft quoted 3:16 solidifies the purpose of Christ in the Christological puzzle. The 3rd chapter of John is the final transition from John the Baptizer to the Jesus the Messiah as the camel clad prophet concedes authority (again) to Jesus.

Before I touch on what struck me in this chapter, I must point out that again, at the outset of his ministry, Jesus is shown interacting philosophically with Jews. First, Nicodemus, the Pharisee, and then a "Jew" in the second half of the chapter. Without going down a rabbit trail, notice the conversation with Nicodemus...hardly Jesus or Nicodemus seem hostile in speech. In fact, they get along very well. I say that because it will be a nice segue for an upcoming post here on my friend Ivan that just may argue that Jesus and his followers were practically Pharisees, contrary to popular Christian renderings of the New Testament.

So here's what I found very interesting in this chapter; and I do hope this sparks some conversation: John's use of pneuma (or nooma, if you are down with Rob Bell) which means Spirit.

The concept of the "Spirit" as the third person is largely ignored by the folks in the pews. Think about it. It is common to hear someone address Jesus, or God the Father in prayer, but how often does someone say, "Dear Holy Spirit, thank you for this food we are about to eat?" Of course the Spirit is sooooooooo misunderstood, possibly because it was an evolving concept from Genesis to John.

All I want to clear up now is the use of Spirit in John 3:34: "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure."

Certainly a tricky verse. Who is giving the Spirit? The One (Jesus) whom God sent or God himself? This has been the subject of many debates. Since the "he" of the second part of the verse is wrapped up in the tense of the verb for "give," we can't know from the verse alone. Elsewhere in John the gifts given to the Son by the father (17 instances) utilize the Perfect or Aorist tense. the abnormal use of the present tense for "give," coupled with the fact that Jesus is the subject of the first clause indicates the the Spirit proceeds from the Son like Jesus proceeds from the Father. The Father sent the Son, the Son gives the Spirit.

The spiritual circle in which I run (ran?) primarily associate speaking tongues with the Holy Spirit. This verse is oft quoted to suggest that Jesus here is foreshadowing the coming of glossalalia with this verse. However, this is interpretation allows presupposition to cloud exegesis. The whole Christological scope of this chapter is to set in stone the salvific and historic role of Christ.

Clearly 3:4 states that one cannot see the Kingdom of God unless they are "born again," or "born of te Spirit?" Certainly speaking tongues cannot be a prerequisite to salvation. The fact that just a few verses later 3:36 belief in Jesus is necessary for Salvation, the preceding passage cannot be alluding tongues.

I see the primary role of the Spirit, as a member of the Godhead, as a divine indwelleing following a decision to belief. What is your take on the Holy Spirit?

The Death Penalty--Iran, China, and the US

A recent Times article sees Iran's institution and use of the death penalty as a serious gaffe in their justice system. I can see why...29 hangings in one day despite a 2002 moratorium against the punishment. The charges: Rape, murder, and drug trafficking.

If 29 is a small number consider that last year Iran put 317 criminals to death coming in second to China's 470. The US only executed 42 in 2007. Keep in mind populations, and per capita Iran is leading the way in legal slayings:

1. Iran: 317 executions, 70,495,782 citizens--1/222,384 are executed.
2. China: 470 executions, 1,325,208,000 citizens--1/2,819,591 are executed.
3. US: 42 executions, 304,721,000 citizens--1/7,255,261 are executed.

So you are 324 times more likely to die at the hand of the state in Iran than in the US, not that you are involved in such criminalizing behavior. But the homicide rate in Iran 2.93 (per 100,000) as opposed to 5.7 in the US. So, the US homicide rate is almost double Iran's despite the extremely more harsh penalty (remember, 324 times more harsh).

I don't know where I am going with this...it's just interesting.

John 2...Carl's Blogged Bible Study, Credibility, Inclusivity

Like I said in my last post, any chapter in John really takes time and space to digest, which I don't have time for this week, but hopefully will in the days to come. It's kind of like attempting to play a full game of Risk in 20 minutes....doable (maybe) but sloppy.

The first recorded miracle, while occurring in isolation (of the synoptic gospels it is only mentioned in John), cannot be interpreted in isolation. Backtrack to the John 1 for a second...Jesus had just called his disciples. Only Jesus knew the crazy ride they were in for, yet they hardly knew him (in fact in 1:48 Nathaniel, after being called, asked Jesus how he knew him).

As I mentioned last time, John is all about verifying that Jesus is truly the Messiah; John's concern is Jesus' credibility (cf. Jn 20:31). While eventually Jesus would perform signs and wonders for men, women, Jews, Gentiles, Roman soldiers, etc. it was necessary to start with his core group; his disciples; his best friends; the guys who would die in his name (except John, the author of this gospel...ironic, huh). So before Jesus demonstrated his power to anyone else (except his mother...she obviously knew what Jesus was capable of--legends exist in which Jesus performs miracles as a child) Jesus performs a miracle for his disciples only. Coincidence or strategic? I'd say strategic. Gaining trust and loyalty of his inner (fickle) circle was part of the plan.

Jesus' "cleansing of the temple" is radical in John. Unlike Mark (who places the event closer to Jesus' death) John places it as the launch of Jesus public ministry. This freaks out a lot of believers as they perceive it as an error, but keep in mind that Jews of the first century did not think with a linear western mindset. Theirs was a topical mindset--importance trumps chronology.

Anyway, most folks perceive this story as a stern warning for misusing the temple; that is, Jesus was really ticked off at the money changing going on (Roman currency wasn't allowed...it had to be exchanged at a high rate for temple currency in order to pay the temple tax or buy sacrificial animals). I am sure Jesus was angered by this, after all he quotes Jer. 7:11 in referring to the temple as a den of Lions.

But while Jesus loved his Father's house, he loved people more. In this passage Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for ALL nations." These thiefs, under priestly permission, had set up shop in one area of the temple..The COURT OF THE GENTILES. In doing so they left little to no room for worship of those not under the Abrahamic covenant. This house Jesus had walked in on wasn't a house of prayer for ALL nations, just for the Jews. I think this ticked Jesus off more than the bake sale in the atrium. We know from all the synoptics, especially Luke, that Jesus went out of his way for the marginalized, the Samaritans, the Gentiles.

So sure, according the prophecy in Ps. 69:9, zeal for this all inclusive house consumed him. Then as Jesus fulfills the prophets, he himself prophesies his own death, which will be remembered as a sign by his disciples at the right time.

***I hate proofreading...but I hate errors too...if you see any, let me know.