Wednesday, 21 September 2011
THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS
THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS For the next 60 seconds, set aside whatever You're doing and take this opportunity! Let's see if Satan Can stop this. THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to death . At the time Crucifixion was the "worst" death. Only the worst Criminals were condemned to be crucified. Yet it was Even more dreadful for Jesus, unlike Other criminals condemned to death by Crucifixion Jesus was to be nailed to the Cross by His hands and feet. Each nail Was 6 to 8 inches long. The nails Were driven into His wrist. Not Into His palms as is commonly Portrayed. There's a tendon in the wrist that Extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew That when the nails were being hammered into the Wrist that tendon would tear and Break, forcing Jesus to use His back Muscles to support himself so that He could Breath. Both of His feet Were nailed together. Thus He was forced to Support Himself on the single nail that Impaled His feet to the cross. Jesus could Not support himself with His legs because of the pain So He was forced to alternate between arching His Back then using his legs just to continue to Breath. Imagine the struggle, the pain, the Suffering, the courage. Jesus endured this Reality for over 3 hours. Yes, Over 3 hours! Can you imagine this kind of Suffering? A few minutes before He died, Jesus stopped bleeding. He was simply pouring water From his wounds. From common images We see wounds to His hands and feet and even the spear wound To His side... But do we realize His wounds Were actually made in his body. A hammer Driving large nails through the wrist, the feet overlapped And an even large nail hammered through the arches, then a Roman guard piercing His side with a spear. But Before the nails and the spear Jesus was whipped and Beaten. The whipping was so severe that it tore the Flesh from His body. The beating so horrific that His Face was torn and his beard ripped from His face. The Crown of thorns cut deeply into His scalp. Most men Would not have survived this torture. " He had no more blood To bleed out, only water poured from His Wounds. The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters (just less than a gallon) of blood. Jesus poured all 3.5 Liters of his blood; He had three nails hammered into His Members; a crown of thorns on His head and, beyond That, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into His Chest.. All these without Mentioning the humiliation He suffered after carrying His own Cross for almost 2 kilometers, while the crowd spat in his Face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg of weight, Only for its higher part, where His hands were Nailed). Jesus had To endure this experience, to open the Gates of Heaven, So that you can have free Access to God. So that your sins Could be "washed" away. All of them, with no exception! Don't ignore this situation. JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR YOU! • He died for you! It Is easy to pass jokes or foolish photos by e-mail, but When it comes to God, sometimes you feel ashamed to forward To others because you are worried of what they may think About you. God Has plans for you, show all your friends what He experienced To save you. Now think about this! May God bless your Life! 60 Seconds with God... For the next 60 Seconds, set aside what you're doing and take This opportunity! Let's see if Satan can stop This. All you have to do Is: 1. Simply Pray for the person who sent this message to You: 2.Then, send this Message to people.. The more the better. 3. People will Pray for you and you will make that many people pray to God For other people. 4. Take a Moment to appreciate the power of God in your life, for Doing what pleases Him. If you are not Ashamed to do this, please, follow Jesus' instructions. He said (Matthew 10:32 & 33): "Everyone therefore Who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before My Father in heaven; but whosoever denies Me before others, I also will deny before My Father in heaven
Friday, 9 September 2011
GOD, OLD AND NEW
God, Old and New
One currently fashionable pretext for repudiating the God of the Bible is to question his character, especially as He portrays Himself in the Old Testament. In contrast to the allegedly irresistible meek-and-mild New Testament deity depicted by Jesus, the God of the Old Testament is assumed to be a capricious, vindictive, and insatiable Being who exerts prompt reprisals on his enemies upon the slightest of provocations.
Such a reading of the biblical text betrays discomfort with the fact that God is God and that human autonomy must be recognized to lie somewhere beneath his sovereignty. That is to say, whereas a human being cannot rightfully determine the length of time allotted for another in this world, the Creator has the sovereign prerogative to number our days—a fact we implicitly recognize whenever we accuse others of "playing God." Moreover, without a morally perfect Being responsible for the creation of the universe, we have no grounds
for recognizing any act as immoral, so any such pronouncements must be made on the basis of God's moral nature and commands.
Apart from the misconceptions inherent in the above claim, one could also assess the testimony of those who were closely associated with God in the Old Testament itself. Did they think of Him as a vindictive Being? The answer is a resounding no. Examples abound, but let us highlight just a few. Given the choice whether to be punished by God or by his enemies after sinning against God, David replied, "Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men" (2 Samuel 24:14). Jonah preferred to end his life in a treacherous sea rather than take the message of judgment to the Ninevites. His reason? He knew that God is "a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:2). In other words, he feared that God might be too nice to his
enemies should they choose to repent.
But Moses provides one of the most striking examples of what those who knew God in the Old Testament really thought of Him. In Exodus 33, God threatens to abandon his plans of accompanying the Israelites to the Promised Land. Since God is faithful, He vows to keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by giving the land to their descendents. He would send an angel before them to drive out their enemies and the land would still be flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 33:1-3). Did you catch that? They would not even have to fight for the land, and its provisions would still be available. The catch? God Himself would not be among them. Now there's a real jackpot! Imagine the possibilities—having all of God's blessings without God telling you what to do with them! Many popular expressions of Christianity today rarely rise above the attempt to manipulate God into relinquishing his blessings without much regard for God Himself.
But
Moses goes into the tent of meeting and says to God, "If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here" (Exodus 33:15). Is Moses under the spell of a vindictive, malevolent spirit, or has he learned that God is worthy of being loved with all of one's heart, soul, and mind—the Absolute Object of infinite delight? C.S. Lewis was right when he said that he who has God and everything else has no more than he who has God alone. Nothing short of chronological snobbery would make us think that in contrast to God's biblical followers we are better placed to judge the character of God. Biblical saints expected God, the judge of all the earth, to do what is right (Genesis 18:25), and it was not out of delusion that their hearts panted for God as the deer pants for water.
God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, is worthy of all our devotion and love. We must also remember that God executes perfect justice, as both the Old as well as the New Testaments
demonstrate. Not only is the innocent, sinless Son of God sacrificed for the sake of sinful humanity, but the just reward of eternal separation from God incessantly sought by those who reject Him is also affirmed in the New Testament. Until the truth of the gospel strips us of all our fleeting fortitude, presenting us before God bereft of any hope outside his mercy and grace, we will never lack excuses for resisting Him.
One currently fashionable pretext for repudiating the God of the Bible is to question his character, especially as He portrays Himself in the Old Testament. In contrast to the allegedly irresistible meek-and-mild New Testament deity depicted by Jesus, the God of the Old Testament is assumed to be a capricious, vindictive, and insatiable Being who exerts prompt reprisals on his enemies upon the slightest of provocations.
Such a reading of the biblical text betrays discomfort with the fact that God is God and that human autonomy must be recognized to lie somewhere beneath his sovereignty. That is to say, whereas a human being cannot rightfully determine the length of time allotted for another in this world, the Creator has the sovereign prerogative to number our days—a fact we implicitly recognize whenever we accuse others of "playing God." Moreover, without a morally perfect Being responsible for the creation of the universe, we have no grounds
for recognizing any act as immoral, so any such pronouncements must be made on the basis of God's moral nature and commands.
Apart from the misconceptions inherent in the above claim, one could also assess the testimony of those who were closely associated with God in the Old Testament itself. Did they think of Him as a vindictive Being? The answer is a resounding no. Examples abound, but let us highlight just a few. Given the choice whether to be punished by God or by his enemies after sinning against God, David replied, "Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men" (2 Samuel 24:14). Jonah preferred to end his life in a treacherous sea rather than take the message of judgment to the Ninevites. His reason? He knew that God is "a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:2). In other words, he feared that God might be too nice to his
enemies should they choose to repent.
But Moses provides one of the most striking examples of what those who knew God in the Old Testament really thought of Him. In Exodus 33, God threatens to abandon his plans of accompanying the Israelites to the Promised Land. Since God is faithful, He vows to keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by giving the land to their descendents. He would send an angel before them to drive out their enemies and the land would still be flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 33:1-3). Did you catch that? They would not even have to fight for the land, and its provisions would still be available. The catch? God Himself would not be among them. Now there's a real jackpot! Imagine the possibilities—having all of God's blessings without God telling you what to do with them! Many popular expressions of Christianity today rarely rise above the attempt to manipulate God into relinquishing his blessings without much regard for God Himself.
But
Moses goes into the tent of meeting and says to God, "If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here" (Exodus 33:15). Is Moses under the spell of a vindictive, malevolent spirit, or has he learned that God is worthy of being loved with all of one's heart, soul, and mind—the Absolute Object of infinite delight? C.S. Lewis was right when he said that he who has God and everything else has no more than he who has God alone. Nothing short of chronological snobbery would make us think that in contrast to God's biblical followers we are better placed to judge the character of God. Biblical saints expected God, the judge of all the earth, to do what is right (Genesis 18:25), and it was not out of delusion that their hearts panted for God as the deer pants for water.
God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, is worthy of all our devotion and love. We must also remember that God executes perfect justice, as both the Old as well as the New Testaments
demonstrate. Not only is the innocent, sinless Son of God sacrificed for the sake of sinful humanity, but the just reward of eternal separation from God incessantly sought by those who reject Him is also affirmed in the New Testament. Until the truth of the gospel strips us of all our fleeting fortitude, presenting us before God bereft of any hope outside his mercy and grace, we will never lack excuses for resisting Him.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Lovers of Legality
Lovers of Legality
Some time ago, I attended a conference in which a well-known speaker related the cultural and value differences between his current home in the Pacific Northwest of the United States and his childhood home in a small town in the Southwest United States. These cultural and value differences found their expression in a set of rules. As a young man, his church culture enforced a particularly prescribed set of rules: no dancing, no drinking, no card playing, no long hair. These were rules that could not be violated. To do so would not only invite censure from the community, but he was also warned that it would put his eternal standing with Almighty God in jeopardy.
As it sometimes happens with this kind of upbringing, the conference speaker moved as far away from his hometown rigidity as he could. He escaped to the Pacific Northwest—a part of the United States known for its laidback attitude and freethinking ways. The speaker believed that he had finally
found a community that would be free from the constricting rules and legalisms of his childhood. He was in for quite a surprise. While he had indeed moved far away from the many rules of his childhood town, he discovered that the rules of his new neighborhood involved minute intricacies relating to garbage, the banning of plastic bags at the grocery store, and skateboarders or musicians in the common areas of his upscale townhome complex. The wrath of God may not have been invoked in the threats of punishment, but the speaker suffered the self-righteous censure of this community just as bound by legalism as the one in which he grew up. In both communities, oddly, he found that the rules seemed more beloved than the people they were meant to shape.
In listening to the speaker relating this story, I was embarrassed at the sting of self-recognition, finding myself within the details of his story. I might have easily looked down on one set of rules, while perhaps elevating the
rules of the other. Yet, I grimaced at the irony of my own self-righteous response. Regardless of the community rules involved, human beings seem to be lovers of legalities.
Why is it that human beings become legalists regardless of the rules involved? The desire to have clear boundaries, and a concern for decency and order to guide communities, is both necessary and prudent. Yet somehow rules meant to offer shape for community living often grow into gods we come to worship—gods who serve as judge and jury for all who fall short of their dictates. Clear boundaries become walls of separation dividing human relationships and community, and the enforcers quickly draw lines around the righteous and the unrighteous. Legalism prompts one to declare her "virtue" as the clearly superior standard.
Perhaps humans find it easier to love legalities because it is easier than loving people. People are inconsistent and imperfect, and are easily controlled and confined by
rules. Jesus, in his life and ministry, frequently shattered these easy definitions put in place by those lovers of legality in his day. He upended expectations and eluded the tightly drawn categories of those who sought to control him. He often kept company with those deemed unrighteous—prostitutes, tax collectors, and others called sinners—and he earned the label of "glutton and a drunkard" by those whose laws drew clear boundaries around appropriate company. For those who had clear rules about the Messiah of Israel, Jesus eschewed political power and stood silently before those who would eventually order his crucifixion. And for those who wanted a "rebel" Jesus, wholly antinomian and defying every convention, he answered by challenging his followers towards a righteousness that exceeded that of the most religious-of-the-religious in his day. In his own words he told those who would follow him that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
Far from being a
measure for establishing self-righteousness or from creating a new legalism for his followers, Jesus fulfilled the law by revealing its true intention. He showed the true intention of the Sabbath law for rest on the seventh day not by enforcing rest rigidly but by healing those who were diseased, broken, and therefore kept separate from their communities. The rest God intended for humanity was expressed not in the rule of non-work per se, but in the spirit of good for all in need of reconciliation. Fulfilling the law, he restored relationships and opened the door for transformation; he reconciled persons to one another and to God.
Indeed, when he was questioned about the greatest commandment Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And a second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Jesus understood that the ground of
the law was a love for God and a love for persons. To replace the love of persons with a love of the rules missed the point. Loving the rules for rules' sake engenders self-love; loving God engenders love for others.
As the conference speaker suggested in his twin-stories of community legalism, human beings often miss the command to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves. As lovers of legalities, we often prefer to apply our community rules broadly and widely as a function of our self-love. But in the idolatry of legalism and the attempt to prove self-righteousness, we ironically depict a truth spoken long ago: The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
Some time ago, I attended a conference in which a well-known speaker related the cultural and value differences between his current home in the Pacific Northwest of the United States and his childhood home in a small town in the Southwest United States. These cultural and value differences found their expression in a set of rules. As a young man, his church culture enforced a particularly prescribed set of rules: no dancing, no drinking, no card playing, no long hair. These were rules that could not be violated. To do so would not only invite censure from the community, but he was also warned that it would put his eternal standing with Almighty God in jeopardy.
As it sometimes happens with this kind of upbringing, the conference speaker moved as far away from his hometown rigidity as he could. He escaped to the Pacific Northwest—a part of the United States known for its laidback attitude and freethinking ways. The speaker believed that he had finally
found a community that would be free from the constricting rules and legalisms of his childhood. He was in for quite a surprise. While he had indeed moved far away from the many rules of his childhood town, he discovered that the rules of his new neighborhood involved minute intricacies relating to garbage, the banning of plastic bags at the grocery store, and skateboarders or musicians in the common areas of his upscale townhome complex. The wrath of God may not have been invoked in the threats of punishment, but the speaker suffered the self-righteous censure of this community just as bound by legalism as the one in which he grew up. In both communities, oddly, he found that the rules seemed more beloved than the people they were meant to shape.
In listening to the speaker relating this story, I was embarrassed at the sting of self-recognition, finding myself within the details of his story. I might have easily looked down on one set of rules, while perhaps elevating the
rules of the other. Yet, I grimaced at the irony of my own self-righteous response. Regardless of the community rules involved, human beings seem to be lovers of legalities.
Why is it that human beings become legalists regardless of the rules involved? The desire to have clear boundaries, and a concern for decency and order to guide communities, is both necessary and prudent. Yet somehow rules meant to offer shape for community living often grow into gods we come to worship—gods who serve as judge and jury for all who fall short of their dictates. Clear boundaries become walls of separation dividing human relationships and community, and the enforcers quickly draw lines around the righteous and the unrighteous. Legalism prompts one to declare her "virtue" as the clearly superior standard.
Perhaps humans find it easier to love legalities because it is easier than loving people. People are inconsistent and imperfect, and are easily controlled and confined by
rules. Jesus, in his life and ministry, frequently shattered these easy definitions put in place by those lovers of legality in his day. He upended expectations and eluded the tightly drawn categories of those who sought to control him. He often kept company with those deemed unrighteous—prostitutes, tax collectors, and others called sinners—and he earned the label of "glutton and a drunkard" by those whose laws drew clear boundaries around appropriate company. For those who had clear rules about the Messiah of Israel, Jesus eschewed political power and stood silently before those who would eventually order his crucifixion. And for those who wanted a "rebel" Jesus, wholly antinomian and defying every convention, he answered by challenging his followers towards a righteousness that exceeded that of the most religious-of-the-religious in his day. In his own words he told those who would follow him that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
Far from being a
measure for establishing self-righteousness or from creating a new legalism for his followers, Jesus fulfilled the law by revealing its true intention. He showed the true intention of the Sabbath law for rest on the seventh day not by enforcing rest rigidly but by healing those who were diseased, broken, and therefore kept separate from their communities. The rest God intended for humanity was expressed not in the rule of non-work per se, but in the spirit of good for all in need of reconciliation. Fulfilling the law, he restored relationships and opened the door for transformation; he reconciled persons to one another and to God.
Indeed, when he was questioned about the greatest commandment Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And a second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Jesus understood that the ground of
the law was a love for God and a love for persons. To replace the love of persons with a love of the rules missed the point. Loving the rules for rules' sake engenders self-love; loving God engenders love for others.
As the conference speaker suggested in his twin-stories of community legalism, human beings often miss the command to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves. As lovers of legalities, we often prefer to apply our community rules broadly and widely as a function of our self-love. But in the idolatry of legalism and the attempt to prove self-righteousness, we ironically depict a truth spoken long ago: The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)