Bible @ MindSay 
[ Bible Slideshow | Browse Tags ]
god
The more things change...
It could be depressing, I guess.
We've heard the expression, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There is no greater demonstration of this, I think, than by reading God's word. Especially in some of the "wisdom" books of the Old Testament.
Yes, the history of man if rife with triumph and tragedy. Great strides have been made in many areas of techinical competence and interpersonal understanding. But...
Has anything really changed? I was reading this and thought that it really hadn't:
Now consider, that the most recent of the dates given for this book take it back to the third century B.C. That's 2300 years ago. More or less. It could be rather older. But in over 2000 years, we have not advanced enough that these things aren't still true.
People are greatly loved by God. The last and best of all his creation. But still, as individuals, we are really not all that significant in the overall history of our species. And though we might have learned much about how to get to the Moon or Mars or see how our DNA fits together and how we can be helped and understood better...
Nothing really changes how we treat one another. We haven't really changed in our most inward parts. We've just managed to dress ourselves differently.
It could be depressing. The Bible is an old book and the culture we live in now is not the one in which it was written...but...
We are still who we were when it was penned, maybe 2300 years ago and then some. Truth, in many ways, is still truth. And, to me, that is not depressing at all. It's reassuring.
We've heard the expression, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There is no greater demonstration of this, I think, than by reading God's word. Especially in some of the "wisdom" books of the Old Testament.
Yes, the history of man if rife with triumph and tragedy. Great strides have been made in many areas of techinical competence and interpersonal understanding. But...
Has anything really changed? I was reading this and thought that it really hadn't:
Proverbs 30:11 There is a generation that curses its father
and does not bless its mother. 12 There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes,
yet is not washed from its filth. 13 There is a generation-how haughty its eyes
and pretentious its looks. 14 There is a generation whose teeth are swords,
whose fangs are knives,
devouring the oppressed from the land
and does not bless its mother. 12 There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes,
yet is not washed from its filth. 13 There is a generation-how haughty its eyes
and pretentious its looks. 14 There is a generation whose teeth are swords,
whose fangs are knives,
devouring the oppressed from the land
Now consider, that the most recent of the dates given for this book take it back to the third century B.C. That's 2300 years ago. More or less. It could be rather older. But in over 2000 years, we have not advanced enough that these things aren't still true.
People are greatly loved by God. The last and best of all his creation. But still, as individuals, we are really not all that significant in the overall history of our species. And though we might have learned much about how to get to the Moon or Mars or see how our DNA fits together and how we can be helped and understood better...
Nothing really changes how we treat one another. We haven't really changed in our most inward parts. We've just managed to dress ourselves differently.
It could be depressing. The Bible is an old book and the culture we live in now is not the one in which it was written...but...
We are still who we were when it was penned, maybe 2300 years ago and then some. Truth, in many ways, is still truth. And, to me, that is not depressing at all. It's reassuring.
Middle schoolers know more than they think they do
When I teach middle schoolers the Bible, it can be a real challenge. A challenge I relish, understand, but a challenge. Not because they're "that age" or "act like that," or anything. It's because many of these kids have heard the Word of God so often, all their lives, that they do not ask themselves what it means beyond overall "do what is right" or "don't do what you know is wrong." (Yes, they get a bit more specific than that, but this is a broad generalization.)
Which is why it is, to me, enlightening to discuss what some words and phrases mean with them when I teach them. They haven't thought about what these words MEAN, only what they should make them do. And really, knowing the meaning of words is important. Yes, those results are necessary, but when one has a better grasp of the "what" the "how" is often made more plain. At least, in my experience.
I helped teach the "children's part" of a family seminar at church this past weekend. Any time you have one of these, the above verse will be part of what you teach the kids. Now, I was supposed to have fifth graders. No fifth graders came. Instead, I got middle schoolers that parents felt were too young to go to the "regular" seminar and too young to stay home alone for hours and hours. Why no other provision was made for this age at church, I don't know. But they came to me.
Which, of course, was extremely cool. They're my best group. :) I was allowed to modify some of the stuff we were doing (on the fly, which is always fun, but I got my first Varsity letter for Impromptu Speaking in competitive forensics...) and we spent Friday evening and Saturday morning hanging out together while their parents were in the main seminar.
So. We had that verse. Honor your father and mother. "What's that mean?" I asked the kids.
"Um. Obey."
First thing out of their mouths. Obey.
Nothing wrong with obedience, you understand. And yes, the Lord God Almighty does appreciate it when we do obey...but...that's not the end-all, be-all meaning of "honor your father and mother."
"What does it mean to show honor?" I asked my group. Honor is a word that comes up and I consider it to be a personally important concept, after all. Has no one taught these young people what it means?
They hemmed and hawed and looked at one another uncomfortably. And then, one of the lads sat up straight and offered me a salute. "Honor!" he said, a goofy look on his freckled face.
Thing was...he was right. And it was my great pleasure to show him.
What did he do? He presented his best self in that salute. (Even though he was messing around, the kids understood "salute.") He was tall, straight, and focused. He presented me, his teacher, with the best self he had, and gave me his undivided attention. Even if only for the time it took for me to grin at him.
See, he'd given the others something to take away with them. Not that they should salute their parents, as I told them, but that when we show someone -- anyone -- honor, we should present them with the best we have, give them our focused attention and...then...sure, we should obey if they request it. But that other stuff should be there with or without the need for immediate obedience.
So, a middle-schooler's goofing off moment turned into one of the coolest moments of my Friday night. I love it when kids toss stuff like that out.
The boy, when I had used his example as "the" example of this word, and incorporated all of the above into a lesson on how to interact with our parents, could only say, "Wow."
Which is why it is, to me, enlightening to discuss what some words and phrases mean with them when I teach them. They haven't thought about what these words MEAN, only what they should make them do. And really, knowing the meaning of words is important. Yes, those results are necessary, but when one has a better grasp of the "what" the "how" is often made more plain. At least, in my experience.
Honor your father and mother --which is the first commandment with a promise-- Ephesians 6:2
I helped teach the "children's part" of a family seminar at church this past weekend. Any time you have one of these, the above verse will be part of what you teach the kids. Now, I was supposed to have fifth graders. No fifth graders came. Instead, I got middle schoolers that parents felt were too young to go to the "regular" seminar and too young to stay home alone for hours and hours. Why no other provision was made for this age at church, I don't know. But they came to me.
Which, of course, was extremely cool. They're my best group. :) I was allowed to modify some of the stuff we were doing (on the fly, which is always fun, but I got my first Varsity letter for Impromptu Speaking in competitive forensics...) and we spent Friday evening and Saturday morning hanging out together while their parents were in the main seminar.
So. We had that verse. Honor your father and mother. "What's that mean?" I asked the kids.
"Um. Obey."
First thing out of their mouths. Obey.
Nothing wrong with obedience, you understand. And yes, the Lord God Almighty does appreciate it when we do obey...but...that's not the end-all, be-all meaning of "honor your father and mother."
"What does it mean to show honor?" I asked my group. Honor is a word that comes up and I consider it to be a personally important concept, after all. Has no one taught these young people what it means?
They hemmed and hawed and looked at one another uncomfortably. And then, one of the lads sat up straight and offered me a salute. "Honor!" he said, a goofy look on his freckled face.
Thing was...he was right. And it was my great pleasure to show him.
What did he do? He presented his best self in that salute. (Even though he was messing around, the kids understood "salute.") He was tall, straight, and focused. He presented me, his teacher, with the best self he had, and gave me his undivided attention. Even if only for the time it took for me to grin at him.
See, he'd given the others something to take away with them. Not that they should salute their parents, as I told them, but that when we show someone -- anyone -- honor, we should present them with the best we have, give them our focused attention and...then...sure, we should obey if they request it. But that other stuff should be there with or without the need for immediate obedience.
So, a middle-schooler's goofing off moment turned into one of the coolest moments of my Friday night. I love it when kids toss stuff like that out.
The boy, when I had used his example as "the" example of this word, and incorporated all of the above into a lesson on how to interact with our parents, could only say, "Wow."
He didn't know he had it in him. :)
Bible readers
1. Are you engaged in reading the Bible?
2. If so, how often
3. And, if so, do you allow what you learn to change the way you think or live?
According to a Harris poll, as reported in the Christian Post the Bible is on the top of our top ten reading list.
Regardless of which demographic group they belong to – male-female, Republican-Democrat or old-young – Americans named the Bible as their favorite book of all time, according to a recent nationwide poll.
In addition to being the number one book overall, the Holy Book also came in first across the board when comparing different demographic groups – gender, race/ethnicity, generation, political party, region, education – according to the Harris Poll released on Monday.
1. Are you engaged in reading the Bible?
2. If so, how often
3. And, if so, do you allow what you learn to change the way you think or live?
MOTHER SOPHIA
Sophia, Goddess | |||||||
| Have you ever wondered about that gorgeous woman in Michelangelo’s painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel—the one that God has his arm wrapped around while his other arm extends to touch the hand of Adam? Some art historians believe the petite blonde was Jehovah’s grandmother, the Goddess Sophia. In the Judeo-Christian tradition the goddess Sophia is the beginning, the source of wisdom, and keeper of the knowledge of all that is righteous and just. With her sound wisdom and guidance, rulers lead their kingdoms to prosper. In the darkness and ignorance that thrive in her absence, the proverbial wasteland eats away at the soul and nations perish.
 Known as the Mother of All or simply as Wisdom, Sophia was born of Silence according to Gnostic creation myths. She gave birth to both Male and Female who together created all the elements of our material world. Female then gave birth to Jehovah in all his emanations. But she also gave birth to Ildabaoth who was known as the Son of Darkness. When humans were created, Sophia loved them all dearly. | |||||||
| Sophia so desperately loved humans that she decided she would live among them. To her dismay they mostly ignored her. She tried speaking to them. When they turned a deaf ear, she screamed from the tops of the highest walls. Still she was not heard. In her anguish at being so neglected, she left humans with one last thought: You have denied and ignored me, so will I do when calamity strikes and you call for my help. Only those who earnestly search for me and love me will merit my love and assistance. |
| ||||||
| The dove appeared to the Virgin Mary in the form of the Virgin of Light, entered her and conceived Jesus. In this sense, Sophia attempted again, in to form of a man, to be united with the mortals she so loved. | |||||||
| | Sophia’s traits include: righteous, wise, loving, communicative, knowledgeable, creative, protective, giving, and truthful. A Sophia woman sees it and tells it as it is; she has no fear of the truth. | ||||||
| | |||||||
Questions from Luke (and others)
Let's discuss the book of Luke.
I was reading last night, and something crossed my mind. Actually, a lot of somethings. There were originally four pretty straightforward questions, but the problem with my mind is that things are straightforward only because I already have context. Once I bring in context, we get what's known as A RIDICULOUSLY LONG BLOG POST. Like this one.
Also, random connections happen in my mind WHILE I'm writing. I'll be talking about one concept, and there'll be a note, "heyyyy...what about this other thing that happened HERE?" So, some of this is related to stuff in Mark, a little bit is from John, and I think there's one thing from Matthew. This all STARTED in Luke, okay? That's the best foundation I can give you.
Luke is the most comprehensive of the four gospels - he's the only one of the four who WASN'T wandering around the region with Christ, so instead he went around investigating and interviewing people who were with him at various points in his life (1:3-4) - presumably his mother, his aunt and uncle, various disciples, the women who first came to the empty tomb, etc. (I name these characters because I'll read something and realize that only the people who were there could have known it)
Through this investigation, Luke records 18 parables that appear nowhere else in the Bible. But it makes me wonder - the other authors left some stories out (well, you'd have to - to record every event of a man's life would take a book quite a bit longer than the Bible itself). And while I bet Luke gave it his strongest effort, there are a lot of times when Christ would say something important in casual conversation. Luke was a doctor - how did he know when something Christ said was important enough to be recorded? And I'm fascinated by the notion of there being parables Christ told that weren't recorded. Really hoping that when we go Home, there's going to be a way to see this time and see every moment of Christ's life.
At the beginning of chapter 9, Christ has called his Twelve disciples together, and he gives them the power to cure diseases and drive out demons, and he sends them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal. He gives them instructions that basically amount to, "Take nothing with you," and how to conduct themselves in the towns they visit, and they set out and travel around the villages for awhile, doing as he asked.
This also has me interested. What was he doing while they were doing this? It takes a fair amount of time to walk from one village to another, and he seemed to suggest that they should stay at least a few days in each town (9:4). What was he doing while they were carrying this out? And more, the communications system of Rome was untrustworthy post at best. Did they have a preplanned circuit of the towns? Were they all traveling together? How did they know when to come back?
I'm by no means saying that because I don't understand something, then it can't be true. I'm just saying, I don't understand something. :)
22:36, he sends them out with different instructions - that this time they are to take their purses, bags, and swords. He then goes on to quote a verse from Isaiah, and apparently loses them here, because they respond, "Lord, here are two swords."
His answer; "That is enough."
Has me lost again. Enough for what? Did the disciples just not understand what he was saying and figure, "Well, he mentioned swords, let's see if we have anything to please the master." He makes a point of mentioning that they should sell what they already have in order to buy swords, but then, when they come up with two already (among the twelve of them), he says that that's enough.
Here's the point where I just plainly admit that I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about here. This happens. Being a Christian doesn't mean you get all the answers.
John the Baptist has me confused as well. Freakin' cool character - he's grown up as Jesus' cousin. His purpose in this world was ordained before he was conceived - he's the one of whom Isaiah prophesied, "A voice of one calling in the desert," that he would prepare the way for the Lord. He speaks of the the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which also intrigues me because the Holy Spirit is, to the best of my knowledge, never mentioned in the Old Testament, and doesn't appear until five weeks after...um. Easter? Christ's ascension? Oops. I screwed up my dates again.
Anyway. That particular detail, not the point. Point is, he knows Christ is coming. He knows what Christ is going to do - roughly. And when Jesus comes by, he immediately recognizes him, declaring that
First thought - how weird would that be? They're cousins, they live close enough that their moms (they're sisters) can visit each other, so it may be likely that they've grown up together. Has he grown up always knowing that his cousin Jesus (a name about as common as Brandon is today) was the Messiah, or did he just realize when he appeared (I tend to picture him as coming over a hill down to the river Jordan) that this guy he hung out with as a kid is in fact the one that they've been waiting for? Or maybe he already knew, and he's just waiting for his childhood friend to get his act together - he's been paving the way for a few years, when's this program going to start?
Second thought, he's been preaching to the crowds about the Lord's coming for years, and he recognizes him on sight. He sees the Holy Spirit come down as a dove and apparently land on him, and he hears God's voice declaring Jesus to be his son and that he's pleased with him. He was there for all that. And then, after Christ begins his ministry (John's in prison now - he's irked Herod's wife), he sends a message asking him, "Are you the one, or should we expect someone else?"
What? God audibly declares that this is his son, you declare that he's the one that they've all been waiting for, and then later you ask him, "Hey, are you the one we're waiting for?"
Baffling.
Mary also has me puzzled. I've heard it taught that most of Jesus' family didn't really understand who he was - hence, the confusion over him teaching in the temple (at the age of 12), and the part where his family came to bring him home because he was acting like a crazy person. But his first miracle is at the wedding in Cana - and his mother instigates it - kind of. She comes up to him at the wedding and informs him that they've run out of wine. His response is great, "What do you want me to do about it?" Not exactly, but he's not yet performed any miracles, his "time has not yet come." So I'm wondering, too - what does she expect him to do about it?
At this point, I've wandered off from Luke a bit - I think the wedding in Cana is only mentioned in John. But I had a bunch of questions piling up last night.
THIS one has me questioning. In Mark 6(yeah, sorry, I really am jumping all over the place), Jesus goes home for awhile. All the people here know him, they know his family, and they're not impressed with him. He comments on it, and it's mentioned that he only does a few miracles there.
Why. Does his power come from whether or not people believe in him? Do people earn miracles, and since they didn't believe him, they didn't earn them? I rather doubt that this just happened to be a region where people didn't need help. This has me puzzled, and almost a little mad. I KNOW Christ wouldn't say people had to earn healing; that's not what he's about! But the notion that God's power comes from people is ridiculously paradoxical - if God's power came from people, how did he make people?
Something just crossed my mind. I don't recall Christ ever saying, "I have healed you." I recall him saying, "Your sins are forgiven." He'd say, "You are free from [insert condition]." And he'd definitely say, "Your faith has healed you."
So, maybe Christ has the power, but you have to accept that he can heal you before he can? Your body has to be surrendered, saying that he has the power and you don't, before you'll be healed? Except, I know there's a couple of cases listed where there were people, in the temple or whatever, who were just standing in the shadows, didn't apparently know Jesus, and he'd call them forth and heal them.
I had one teacher who used to say that the Bible doesn't tell us everything - it tells us what we need to know. The circumstances surrounding Christ's miracles aren't directly relevant to how I live my life with him. God had healed people before Christ walked the earth, and wrought other fantastic works without any call from people. He's doing both today, sometimes with prayer, sometimes just because it pleases him to work his plan this way. The exact circumstances of Christ's miracles are probably not going to be recreated in my lifetime, and don't have to affect my relationship with him.
But, man, I wanna know! *rueful smile*
If anyone DOES have answers, I'd love to hear them.
-----
Totally unrelated, but, I've just been introduced to the concept of the Euthyphro Dilemma (which my spell-check thinks should be spelled Hypothyroid), and I'm fascinated. Must learn more!
I was reading last night, and something crossed my mind. Actually, a lot of somethings. There were originally four pretty straightforward questions, but the problem with my mind is that things are straightforward only because I already have context. Once I bring in context, we get what's known as A RIDICULOUSLY LONG BLOG POST. Like this one.
Also, random connections happen in my mind WHILE I'm writing. I'll be talking about one concept, and there'll be a note, "heyyyy...what about this other thing that happened HERE?" So, some of this is related to stuff in Mark, a little bit is from John, and I think there's one thing from Matthew. This all STARTED in Luke, okay? That's the best foundation I can give you.
Luke is the most comprehensive of the four gospels - he's the only one of the four who WASN'T wandering around the region with Christ, so instead he went around investigating and interviewing people who were with him at various points in his life (1:3-4) - presumably his mother, his aunt and uncle, various disciples, the women who first came to the empty tomb, etc. (I name these characters because I'll read something and realize that only the people who were there could have known it)
Through this investigation, Luke records 18 parables that appear nowhere else in the Bible. But it makes me wonder - the other authors left some stories out (well, you'd have to - to record every event of a man's life would take a book quite a bit longer than the Bible itself). And while I bet Luke gave it his strongest effort, there are a lot of times when Christ would say something important in casual conversation. Luke was a doctor - how did he know when something Christ said was important enough to be recorded? And I'm fascinated by the notion of there being parables Christ told that weren't recorded. Really hoping that when we go Home, there's going to be a way to see this time and see every moment of Christ's life.
At the beginning of chapter 9, Christ has called his Twelve disciples together, and he gives them the power to cure diseases and drive out demons, and he sends them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal. He gives them instructions that basically amount to, "Take nothing with you," and how to conduct themselves in the towns they visit, and they set out and travel around the villages for awhile, doing as he asked.
This also has me interested. What was he doing while they were doing this? It takes a fair amount of time to walk from one village to another, and he seemed to suggest that they should stay at least a few days in each town (9:4). What was he doing while they were carrying this out? And more, the communications system of Rome was untrustworthy post at best. Did they have a preplanned circuit of the towns? Were they all traveling together? How did they know when to come back?
I'm by no means saying that because I don't understand something, then it can't be true. I'm just saying, I don't understand something. :)
22:36, he sends them out with different instructions - that this time they are to take their purses, bags, and swords. He then goes on to quote a verse from Isaiah, and apparently loses them here, because they respond, "Lord, here are two swords."
His answer; "That is enough."
Has me lost again. Enough for what? Did the disciples just not understand what he was saying and figure, "Well, he mentioned swords, let's see if we have anything to please the master." He makes a point of mentioning that they should sell what they already have in order to buy swords, but then, when they come up with two already (among the twelve of them), he says that that's enough.
Here's the point where I just plainly admit that I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about here. This happens. Being a Christian doesn't mean you get all the answers.
John the Baptist has me confused as well. Freakin' cool character - he's grown up as Jesus' cousin. His purpose in this world was ordained before he was conceived - he's the one of whom Isaiah prophesied, "A voice of one calling in the desert," that he would prepare the way for the Lord. He speaks of the the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which also intrigues me because the Holy Spirit is, to the best of my knowledge, never mentioned in the Old Testament, and doesn't appear until five weeks after...um. Easter? Christ's ascension? Oops. I screwed up my dates again.
Anyway. That particular detail, not the point. Point is, he knows Christ is coming. He knows what Christ is going to do - roughly. And when Jesus comes by, he immediately recognizes him, declaring that
First thought - how weird would that be? They're cousins, they live close enough that their moms (they're sisters) can visit each other, so it may be likely that they've grown up together. Has he grown up always knowing that his cousin Jesus (a name about as common as Brandon is today) was the Messiah, or did he just realize when he appeared (I tend to picture him as coming over a hill down to the river Jordan) that this guy he hung out with as a kid is in fact the one that they've been waiting for? Or maybe he already knew, and he's just waiting for his childhood friend to get his act together - he's been paving the way for a few years, when's this program going to start?
Second thought, he's been preaching to the crowds about the Lord's coming for years, and he recognizes him on sight. He sees the Holy Spirit come down as a dove and apparently land on him, and he hears God's voice declaring Jesus to be his son and that he's pleased with him. He was there for all that. And then, after Christ begins his ministry (John's in prison now - he's irked Herod's wife), he sends a message asking him, "Are you the one, or should we expect someone else?"
What? God audibly declares that this is his son, you declare that he's the one that they've all been waiting for, and then later you ask him, "Hey, are you the one we're waiting for?"
Baffling.
Mary also has me puzzled. I've heard it taught that most of Jesus' family didn't really understand who he was - hence, the confusion over him teaching in the temple (at the age of 12), and the part where his family came to bring him home because he was acting like a crazy person. But his first miracle is at the wedding in Cana - and his mother instigates it - kind of. She comes up to him at the wedding and informs him that they've run out of wine. His response is great, "What do you want me to do about it?" Not exactly, but he's not yet performed any miracles, his "time has not yet come." So I'm wondering, too - what does she expect him to do about it?
At this point, I've wandered off from Luke a bit - I think the wedding in Cana is only mentioned in John. But I had a bunch of questions piling up last night.
THIS one has me questioning. In Mark 6(yeah, sorry, I really am jumping all over the place), Jesus goes home for awhile. All the people here know him, they know his family, and they're not impressed with him. He comments on it, and it's mentioned that he only does a few miracles there.
Why. Does his power come from whether or not people believe in him? Do people earn miracles, and since they didn't believe him, they didn't earn them? I rather doubt that this just happened to be a region where people didn't need help. This has me puzzled, and almost a little mad. I KNOW Christ wouldn't say people had to earn healing; that's not what he's about! But the notion that God's power comes from people is ridiculously paradoxical - if God's power came from people, how did he make people?
Something just crossed my mind. I don't recall Christ ever saying, "I have healed you." I recall him saying, "Your sins are forgiven." He'd say, "You are free from [insert condition]." And he'd definitely say, "Your faith has healed you."
So, maybe Christ has the power, but you have to accept that he can heal you before he can? Your body has to be surrendered, saying that he has the power and you don't, before you'll be healed? Except, I know there's a couple of cases listed where there were people, in the temple or whatever, who were just standing in the shadows, didn't apparently know Jesus, and he'd call them forth and heal them.
I had one teacher who used to say that the Bible doesn't tell us everything - it tells us what we need to know. The circumstances surrounding Christ's miracles aren't directly relevant to how I live my life with him. God had healed people before Christ walked the earth, and wrought other fantastic works without any call from people. He's doing both today, sometimes with prayer, sometimes just because it pleases him to work his plan this way. The exact circumstances of Christ's miracles are probably not going to be recreated in my lifetime, and don't have to affect my relationship with him.
But, man, I wanna know! *rueful smile*
If anyone DOES have answers, I'd love to hear them.
-----
Totally unrelated, but, I've just been introduced to the concept of the Euthyphro Dilemma (which my spell-check thinks should be spelled Hypothyroid), and I'm fascinated. Must learn more!
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Time and Cosmology: How do we know that clocks are accurate: any takers? - I just sent a test message to...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy