The dark back story of the Christmas nativity scene

The birth of Jesus, often celebrated by many Protestants and Christians in the West and the East, is usually regarding as a festival of joy. However, beyond the joy and fanfare of this event, is a hidden and dark back story, which I will reflect on in this blog post. (And no, this post is not about the pagan origin).

While I was brought up not to celebrate the event, I have decided not to exclude myself from events where Christians reflect on the event or story central to the faith and recorded in the Christian Scriptures. I have indeed gotten weary of the rhetoric of "othering" done by Christians to exclude other Christians, and feel that even Jesus himself would have gone to a Christmas service in his honour, regardless of the time and season, even if it was not his birthday. As Matthew 18:20 suggests, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (NIV).

That said, I discovered the dark and hidden story behind the nativity scene when I painted a picture depicting the scene and later told the story to parents and children at church. Then I attended a carol service with my children and further reflected on the story. I discovered, that while we often see the nativity as a scene for celebration, of joy, hope and peace, we ignore the dark back story of exclusion that precipitated it.

For Mary and Joseph to have their baby in stable or barn, they were first denied access to housing. The Bible is silent about the circumstances leading to that unavailability of housing, especially for a pregnant lady due to give birth. It is often portrayed that the city was full and perhaps overcrowded at that time. Yet it seems strange that this would have been Joseph's home city or town and that he would have virtually no friends or family still living there to stay with. That he would have to go to an inn, the equivalent of our modern-day hospital, motel, or hotel, was a sign it itself of something very sad.

There seems to be a darker side under the story where Joseph had to resort to an inn to provide housing and shelter for his wife. It wasn't just that Mary and Joseph could not find a room. It was that friends and relatives of Joseph were not willing to have them stay with them. Maybe they inquired about the marital status. You know the way that your relatives and friends would ask you why they were not invited to the wedding if you showed up at their house with a pregnant lady, especially within a religious and ceremonial society. Further, the inn keepers may also have inquired about marital status and rejected room to them based on the issue on the grounds of "fornication".

This is the dark back story of religious intolerance where those who were religious felt that this couple were "sinners" to be denied access to housing suitable for humans due to the gravity of the perceived sin. Even friends and relatives were ready to dissociate themselves from their own flesh and blood so that he would need to wander the streets to find lodging among strangers. That Joseph would be forced to spend money to secure a room, in an era where home birth by midwives was more normative than it is today, for his fiancée rather than lodge for free with those whom he knew for years and with whom he grew up is indeed sad. No one wanted anything to do with him nor his pregnant fiancée at this point of need. Could it be so bad that the only room they qualified to access was a room stinking of animals and animal manure? A far from hygienic place for bloodletting and delivering a baby?

Far from being a story of joy, I feel the pain and sorrow of Joseph. No wonder God the Father and the angels decided to cheer them up by sending a welcoming party of shepherds. God had to provide some people to welcome the couple as well as to let them know how special they were to God. 

Trump 2016

This week, I dreamt that Donald Trump, one of the Republican candidate for the 2016 US elections was assassinated. In the dream, I saw him fall to the ground as bullet pierced his forehead while he was on a platform in a stadium. The scene disturbed me. And my spirit was unsettled. It is this dream and the disquiet in my spirit that motivates me to blog to warn US and the world.

As a former Political Science student of democracy, I am of the view that the entire point of democracy is to settle leadership disputes peacefully and to determine the right to national leadership succession without resorting violence. I do understand that representation of Trump as performed by the mainstream and social media portrays him as a demagogue or as a fellow who blames other groups for America's problems. I am aware that this is a 20th century political rhetorical strategy and tactic that reminds persons of the same strategy as Adolf Hitler in 1930 Germany. This is in contrast to the Obama campaigns that emphasized the rhetoric that "together we can".

Nonetheless, I see that what is at stake is the democratic and due process. US has had several Presidents that were unceremoniously and unduly removed by acts of terrorism and violence (assassination to be exact). Yet, every man has the right to life which is a right that no man can justifiably take.

Another issue that I see is the unfair representation of Trump's rallies as spewing hatred towards protesters. I call it unfair representation because the logic is flawed and reflects a double standard. I recall when Westboro Baptist Church attended events to prevent like veteran funerals, they were portrayed as bigots and the villains spreading hate. Yet, I see so-called social media activists that attend Trump's rallies for the sole purpose of interrupting his speech and disrupting his supporter's right to political assembly, portraying themselves [the activists] as victims of hate and hatred.

While I do not condone any political violence, I stand as a voice of reason in the wilderness to call wrong wrong, no matter who does it and to whom it is done. Sure, Trump could deal with interruptions differently but nevertheless, it is still wrong to interrupt someone when they are speaking.

To illustrate the wrong, I want to raise three hypothetical cases:

Imagine:

• Scenario 1: A Christian going into a mosque to protest during the middle of prayers?
• Scenario 2: a Muslim going into a synagogue to protest during the service?
• Scenario 3: A Christian going to a LGBT Pride parade to protest?

If all these scenarios are wrong, what makes it right for someone who dislikes/disagrees with Trump to go to his rally or events to annoy him and his supporters by interruptions and protests? Then to paint Trump and his supporters as racists and haters for being annoyed at interruptions?

Even God, permitted his Opposition, Satan to meet Eve in the garden of Eden to share his viewpoints on God's policies. [Note, God did not interrupt Satan's conference with Eve]. It is a fundamental right that people have choices and are free to decide who's viewpoint they listen to.

Whether you hate Trump or not, I leave you with the New Testament message of Jesus that we must love our enemies. In order to love our enemies, we must resist the temptation to unfairly demonize those we disagree with or dislike. For we will all fall into the media's representation of Trump if we unfairly demonize or vilify Trump.

Peace be unto you and to the US as they attempt to make wise selections for the next President through due process.

The difference between following Jesus and practicing Churchianity

During the last week of January, my experience in representative student politics caused me to reflect more on Jesus and his mission and platform while on earth. I will not go into details about my student political experiences, but will indeed go into details about my thoughts on Jesus, who I hold as my chief role model.

I have already distinguished that there is following Jesus or Christ and following Churchianity (see previous blog post on this). The two should not be confused. There is a difference between following Jesus and professing to do so, yet practicing Churchianity. To follow Jesus means to follow the life example and teachings of Jesus (as best as one can seeing that the setting and cultural differences today make it impossible to follow Jesus literally or completely). Then there is following Churchianity, which means to accept and follow the teachings of a particular church organization or denomination. The two sometimes are at great odds and one has to have good judgment to discern this.

Back in his day, Jesus was a devout and deeply spiritual individual interested in the social and political reform of the Jewish religion. His mission was to make the religious institution more just, inclusive and responsive to the human heart and condition. In the account of Luke, on his return to his hometown synagogue, Jesus claimed a portion of prophecy as outlining his mission statement. According to the passage in Luke 4:18 in the New International Version (NIV), Jesus declared:

18 

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

Hence, his actions of ministering to adulterers, the sick, the prostitutes, tax collectors and those who were either excommunicated or outcasts from the religious and political society. Jesus wanted to bring back all these persons back into the community of God's people and back into a relationship with God.

Secondly, Jesus also wanted to increase faith in God, at the same time while lifting up mercy and justice. He not only wanted people to treat others better, but also wanted people to believe in, love and trust God more. This meant that sometimes Jesus had to side with the right-wing conservative Pharisees in rebuking the left-wing Sadducees for attempting to decrease people's faith in an after-life. this is recorded in the account of Matthew 22:23-46, where Jesus had to point out that the Sadducees had errors in their interpretation of the Scripture as well as a lack of understanding about God.

Considering these things, if you are a professed follower of Jesus, you must ask yourself the questions:

• Am I concerned about injustice and the treatment of people in society?
• Do I want society to be more just?
• Do I want people to love God more and have a better understanding of God and his nature and love?

These questions distinguish someone who is a follower of Jesus and believes in his mission from those who are just adherents to a church culture misnamed "Christianity".

On Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Alsan, R. (2013). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House.

So I recently read Reza Aslan's (2013) Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Aslan, a one time Muslim convert to Christianity (see his "Author's Note") and now theologian, writes a book that is compelling to read about what he claims to be a historical Jesus. In this blog entry, my task is to review this work, but more importantly to give my take, perspective or interpretation of the work. So this review is not objective or anything my librarian colleagues would see as a fair assessment. It is my personal and spiritual interpretation to let you see what I saw as valuable from the work and discuss my reaction to Aslan's arguments. Now you can disagree with what I saw or how I experienced the work, but it still does change the reader's experience and reaction that the book evoked in me as I read it.

To begin, I must say that I appreciated Aslan's "Author's Note". This was where Aslan provided a personal story of how he became interested in Jesus. It is in this section that I find that I have things in common with the author. Being a born again Christian at age 15, then a returning interest in the religion in which I was raised after disillusionment. Then an interest in the scholarship and authentic research on the gospels. However, unlike Aslan, I am okay with managing doubts and working with faith until future information is revealed. For me, faith and hope narratives are the stories told about the future and the past that help to manage the uncertainty of the present and future. And this is what all religious faiths are about, in my opinion: managing the uncertainty about future and present events.

Yet, Aslan's book is not written from that perspective of faith, but uses a method that seeks to be skeptical of the gospel accounts, and attempts to use other sources and traditions apart from that of the Christian church to reconstruct and tell the story of Jesus. Aslan's book focuses on the historical or human Jesus rather than Jesus the Christ. Aslan as such attempts to reconstruct a portrait or biography of the historical character of Jesus based on sources regarding the times of Jesus, in an approach that Pope Benedict XVI (2006) dubs the "historical-critical" method.

Pope Benedict XVI (2006) sums up the limitations of this method, arguing that while one can look for the historical person of Jesus underneath the faith viewpoint of the writers fo the New Testament and beyond Christian tradition, such a method typically leads one to construct Jesus either as an "anti-Roman revolutionary working-though finally failing- to overthrow the ruling powers" or as a "meek moral teacher who approves everything and unaccountably comes to grief"(p. 13). Pope Benedict XVI (2006) adds that "far from uncovering an icon that has been obscured over time" such reconstructions reflect more the author's ideals or beliefs about Jesus (p. 13). When I read about Aslan's Jesus, I see images of what resembles an anti-Roman revolutionary that reflects extremist ideology and violent fundamentalism (I will get into details later).

Nonetheless, like Pope Benedict XVI (2006), I agree that this historical reconstruction of Jesus and his times is useful as the story of Jesus is based on real historical events and not made up stories or fables. As the second book of Peter states, real events were witnessed by the followers of Jesus, from which the faith began and developed (2 Peter 1:16-18). As such, as with folklore, it is very much possible that these real events were given meaning by the apostles and believers until they have been obscured by myth-making and theological interpretation. Aslan is of this view and as such seeks to retell the gospels highlighting what might be truth and what is "pure fiction" or myth and what rings true based on other more credible historical sources (p. 47). 

The first limitation that Aslan points out is that the gospels were written long after the events had transpired. He further argued that the gospels were also not likely to be written by the whom they were named after. He further points out that none of the original 12 apostles could have written the gospels as they were all illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasants, who had no formal training in writing Greek. These are all fair points, but I wished the author would address the issue that even though they may not have penned the works directly, it is very much possible that they could have appointed others to tell their stories on their behalf. 

First, there is Matthew Levi, who was a wealthy tax collector ("Saint Matthew", 2014). Surely he did have the resources to pay for a scribe. Then there is Luke who is said to accompany Paul (Ellis, 2014). Aslan even surmises that Luke was a student of Paul. Sure Luke was educated enough and Greek enough to write his own gospel. Then there is Mark, which could be the same John Mark related to Peter and also hanged out with Paul and Barnabas ("Saint Mark", 2014). Surely he too could have written his own gospel. Then there is John, who lived the longest among the apostles (Hauer, 2002). Even if he did write his story, it is possible that he could have had a scribe to write his biographical portrait of Jesus. As such, it does not seem unreasonable that these men would still be the authors or at least the sources for these gospels. As the second letter of Peter suggests, the apostle felt he had a duty to ensure that what he witnessed was established in the memory of the believers (2 Peter 1:12-15). As such, the motivation to write about and tell of the gospel as experienced by these believers was certainly present, despite the events being recorded decades after they transpired.

The second limitation that Aslan points out is that Mark seems to be the first gospel and source that informs the other later gospels. No issue at all. Modern folkloric studies have discovered that once a folklore or tradition is written, it influences and affects future tellings. No news there!

A third point that Aslan makes is that there seem to be historical inaccuracies in the gospels. Yet, I find that point to be true of any writing or written source that is recorded after the events have transpired when people rely on memory or oral tradition. There is bound to be omissions and additions to the material. Further, the practice of adding to Christian writings seems to be so prevalent, that the final testimony of John revealing Jesus the Christ in the book of Revelations seek to deter this practice by pronouncing a curse on those who altered the original source. But even if the gospel writers mixed up some dates or names of people and places, such mistakes are easily negligible. These things do not change the fact that they are still based on real events that transpired told by fallible human beings based on oral traditions passed down from the early church as well as reliant on the memory of those who witnessed these events. 

Yes Aslan paints the picture that Jesus was a failed Messiah, who carried out healings and miracles, with the aim of gathering a band of followers armed with swords to overthrow the priestly caste and establish God's new world order in Jerusalem. (Aslan is clear however that there is no historical contention that Jesus was a miracle worker. Some of his miracles such as healings and curing people of demons were in fact practiced by others in his time.) Aslan further suggests that it is the followers of Jesus who decided to repaint his failed campaign in order to explain his death and the new order had not yet arrived as was expected.

Yet, the problem that Aslan can not or does not go around is the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. While disciples could have use proof texting to find verses in the Scriptures to justify how Jesus fit into Messianic prophecies, it is unlikely that they could fabricate stories about Jesus rising from the dead, so much to the extent that they would risk their lives and die for such a fabrication. In addition, belief in the resurrection was so real and genuine that even James, the brother of Jesus, who saw Jesus after the resurrection, repented and believed in Jesus and later headed or led the Christian movement.

Further, Aslan, acknowledges and names the many false Messiahs in that time. Yet he acknowledges that with the exception of John the Baptist, Jesus is the only one that had followers that still saw him as the Messiah after his death and established one of the world's largest religious following.

Finally, what was most valuable for me from Aslan's book was the historical look at Jewish extremism and terrorism in the times of the Roman occupation. For me, this has many parallels to today's Muslim extremism and terrorism in the time of what many today call "Israeli occupation" of Jerusalem or "Palestine". From this reconstruction of history, I learned that terrorism for an ideological cause did not begin with 9/11, but was prevalent at the birth of Jesus, where Jewish peasants with much zeal sought to bring about an end to Roman rule or occupation and to commence God's rule through the use of violence and terror. I saw in Aslan's historical accounts or reconstruction our world today where Islamist extremist and terrorist groups like Boko Haram, the Islamic State (ISIS) and Hamas, seek to usher in Allah's prophecies through the use of violence. And as a result, I am offered a view as to why such groups operate as they do and how they use historical events in the scriptures to justify their present actions. The main idea that they take from the stories of scriptures is that God or Allah will only act when the believers act with zeal to accomplish his will. I thoroughly disagree with this "zealot" interpretation of scripture that requires being the subject of a future blog posting.

Reference:

Ellis, E. (2014). Saint Luke. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/351086/Saint-Luke 

Chadwick, H. (2014). Saint John the Apostle. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305163/Saint-John-the-Apostle

Hauer, C. (2002). John the evangelist, Saint. (pp. 216-217) In Traver, A. G. (Ed.). From polis to empire, the ancient world, c. 800 B.C.-A.D. 500: A biographical dictionary. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Pope Benedict XVI. (2006). Jesus of Nazareth: From the baptism in the Jordan to the transfiguration. Doubleday: Toronto. [Read as an e-book)

Saint Mark. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/365621/Saint-Mark

Saint Matthew. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369730/Saint-Matthew

Bible study on the kingdom of God

I recently attended a Bible study at Worldwide Church of God/Grace Communion International (WCG/GCI) in Christian Pen, Gregory Park, St. Catherine (in Jamaica), where I was privileged to be a part of a Bible study on the kingdom of God. Such a topic is of great importance to Christian believers as the message of Jesus is basically centred around this concept. In fact, in Matthew 6:33, God's kingdom is something that Jesus commands us to seek and make a priority above everything else. Further, after John's arrest, Jesus began his ministry preaching that the time has come for the fulfillment of prophecy regarding God's kingdom and that the God's kingdom would soon be present (Mark 1:14-15). Further, many of the parables of Jesus are also about this kingdom. As such, it is important for the followers of Christ Jesus to fully understand the concept of the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, which is so essential to the gospel message or the good news. In this blog post, I share some of the thoughts shared as to what is the kingdom of God.

What is the kingdom of God?

When the question was raised at the Bible study, the facilitator of the Bible study, Mr. L. Joiles stated that the kingdom of God, synonymous with the kingdom of heaven, is a system of governance, where the word of God as king is law and governs all affairs on earth. Joiles took us back to Daniel 2:44, where there is a prophetic word uttered by an angel to Daniel as an interpretation to a dream. This revealed interpretation of the events in the dream established that there would be several kingdoms or global super powers to control world affairs and colonise the earth. However, in the book of Daniel, it is foretold that a global super power established by God himself would outlast all these global super powers or kingdoms. This eternal super power would be headed by God as king, but will also be governed by the consent of those God governs, as all his enemies will be put to death and all opposition to his rule silenced.

As Joiles presented this, I realised that the kingdom of God did not begin with Moses. While God established a theocracy with the Israelites with Moses by giving the law at Mount Sinai, this type of system of governance was confined to a particular group or nation of people, and not a global system. Yet, even this system was rejected  by the Israelite people, who later asked Samuel to give them a king like the other nations around them (1 Samuel 8:5).

Yet, even though God established a limited system of governance for the entire affairs of a nation, he foretold of the global king in Genesis 3:15. This king mentioned of in Genesis would be the offspring of human beings that will crush or bruise the serpent's (or the Devil's) head or authority over the earth and men. At the same time, the serpent would bruise the king's heel which could perhaps be interpreted as the messengers or followers or the carriers of the message (see Isaiah 52:7; Ephesians 6:15; Romans 10:15).

As I contemplate these things, I remember words from the founder of WCG, Herbert W. Amstrong, charging that the majority of Christianity today does not preach the gospel, because they omit the from their version of the gospel any reference to the kingdom of God. Yet to be fair, I've heard Christians discuss that the Holy Spirit living in us and empowering us to do the works and miracles of Christ is the manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth. However, this raises the conundrum as to whether or not Jesus taught of a physical coming of the kingdom of God or just as spiritual manifestation of the kingdom. This to me is the next area that needs to be discussed. Unfortunately, I will be absent from the next WCG/GCI's Bible study to raise the question, but hopefully the Holy Spirit will provide further clarification for me on this matter. 

A look at women ordination and roles in the church: Part I

So my place of fellowship is having a Bible study on women ordination. So far, I have been listening to the debates, especially to hear the point of view that promotes women ordination as pastoral leaders. I want to hear Biblical arguments and not just feminist arguments that have originated out of secular cultural movements. Hopefully, I will get those soon, yet within the mean time, I want to share my own understanding so far, based on past revelation.

I must begin that by being a father of all girls, I have become more interested in justice issues for females. Especially considering that as a father I cannot protect my girls from engaging with the wider society and perhaps encountering the gross acts that men take to satisfy their sexual lusts and cravings. Right now, my girls are all young and do not leave the house unaccompanied. However, in the future, I can't guarantee that I can lock them up forever and only let them exit with parental accompaniment. As such, I want to see laws put in place to protect them from abuse (especially perpetrated by males).

At the same time, my spiritual views do not see the need for the feminist movement within Christianity to go beyond articulating the personhood of females and the prevention of women abuse. I hold traditional views on patriarchal hierarchy because the Holy Scriptures endorse hierarchy, rather than sees it as an evil to be presently eliminated. The New Testament reveals this the most in the relationship between Jesus and God the Father, which could be liken to man and woman in the church. (Ephesians 5: 21-33).

Philippians 2:6 states that Jesus in his nature, being God: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" (NIV). Rather, despite their equality, Jesus ,  "gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being... [or appearing] in human form," (Philippians 2:7; New Living Translation).  From this perspective, Jesus, despite having equal rights and privileges as God the Father, chose to deny himself those rights and privileges, in order to work with God the Father and accomplish the larger picture and plan for humanity, which required great humiliation.

It is the same Christian duty that Jesus requires of us. Women though being equal to men, are asked to endure or even put up with men's often impoverished and poor leadership (especially wives), in order to please God. Let me just raise some of the scriptures that illustrate this point:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3; New International Version, 2011) )

Also women be they subject to their husbands; that if any man believe not to the word, by the conversation of women they be won without word. (1 Peter 3:1; Wycliffe Bible)

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22; New International Version, 2011)

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18 ; New International Version, 2011)

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12; New International Version, 2011)

Based on the above Bible verses, it seems as if women are asked by Christ to walk with him in humility and take a place less than they deserve in order to fulfil God's purpose and design for them and for the larger humanity. Again, I must emphasize that male-dominated leadership in a sinful world has often been abused and that women suffer dreadfully under such abuse as victims, as mothers of victims and even the disappointed mothers of the perpetrators of abuse. Christ in his treatment of women in the New Testament demonstrates a break with men's abuse of power:

• he teaches that men must look at women with dignity and not with an imagination desirous of fulfilling sexual cravings (Matthew 5:28); 
• he shows that we must not view a woman's one time sin of adultery as being greater than any other sin (John 8:1-11; New International Version)
• males must treat even prostitutes with dignity
• males must not criticise women's efforts to show and express their appreciation to God in worship in ways different from us (Matthew 26:7-13)

There are countless other teachings that I can't go into detail now, but look out for part 2 of my post on this subject. (I've typed it already; just to tidy it up and publish it).

The beginning of the creation of God

I recently received the best explanation of the "mystery of God" from a household Bible study group. For centuries it has puzzled Christians how JESUS could be God, yet be the son of God. The Bible mentions that JESUS is the "firstborn of every creature" and "the beginning of the creation of God".

In Revelation 3:14 (King James Version)it says:

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

In the NIV, this concept was so problematic for Christian interpreters that they rendered it:

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

However The Message translation renders it:

Write to Laodicea, to the Angel of the church. God's Yes, the Faithful and Accurate Witness, the First of God's creation, says:

This Christian theologically problematic statement has lead the Jehovah's Witnesses to declare that JESUS is a created being (Watchtower, 2005, para. 10).

Well, in that Bible study on Wednesday night, February 24, 2010, at Milborough, Jamaica, when this passage was read, I raised the point to the group's leader, that obviously, JESUS' existence came from the Father.

I went on to say, that there are only two ways that a person could be a son, either through birth or adoption. G-d declares in the scriptures that someone (who I believe is JESUS) became his son. Psalm 2:7 (King James Version) says:

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

If Jesus lived independently of the Father prior to creation, then G-d have no need to say "this day have I begotten thee [as my Son]". It would be more reasonable for G-d to say "this day have I adopted thee [JESUS as my son]". However, the first born or begotten obviously implies that one proceeded from the other. Clearly, the person in Psalm 2:7 became G-d's son through birth, or else, the L-RD would have used the term "have adopted thee" in place of "begotten".

I even went on to explain that JESUS is described as the Word (John 1). The Word implies that there is a source. Word can even be translated as message or communication, which implies an author or source. The question:

How can Jesus come from a source yet still be described as the source itself?

Going back to the idea of the word. A word can exist with the source before it is expressed. JESUS was in God before he was expressed by the Father. However, the word can exist in one's mind prior to being expressed or manifested. The message or information that an author wants to communicate or express, could exist within the author or communicator long before it is expressed. This fits well with the description or definition of the Word (logos) as described in Vine, Unger and White (1996) as the "expression of thought" (p. 683).

JESUS therefore existed and was expressed long before anything was created. When G-d spoke the world into existence, His Word brought forth everything. The Word preceded the establishment of the universe and creation. In fact the Word was always present with G-d, and was expressed and reflected in creation. Further its the Word that sustains the current creation and order of the universe. As Hebrews 1:2-3 (King James Version)says:

[G-d] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

G-d's Word (JESUS), now speaks for him. G-d has nothing else to say or communicate or express outside of his son, the Word that proceeded from him, while existed with him in the beginning. In fact, this word is also the last word or the Amen (Revelation 3:14).

References:


Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words: With topical index. Nashville: T. Nelson.


Watchtower.(2005). Who is Jesus Christ? What Does the Bible Really Teach? (Chapter 4). WatchTower.org: Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. Retrieved from http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm

Enjoy the goodness of God in Matthew 8 and 9

I have been reading Matthew with a group on Facebook, and in the process have been feeding my intellect and hopefully my spirit with a greater awareness of who God is, what he is like and how he operates.

Last week, I just completed and really enjoyed Matthew 8. Quintessentially, this chapter focuses on God's goodness. Nobody's prayer or request in Chapter 8 was denied. All who asked, even when they doubted God's favour got what they wished, including those who asked Jesus to leave their coast.


I loved that entire passage, as through it, we see a God who answers prayers through the intercession of his son and the will of his son. Here, Jesus not only granted people what they desired, but he also granted demons their desires as shown by him giving them permission to enter into swine.

As such it was a lovely passage of revealing the royalty, kingship and authority of Jesus, whose mission was and is to be entreated of and petitioned by people for favours.

The revelation and representation that Jesus gave of his Heavenly Father, God the Father, reflects one of God being a God of goodness, wanting to be entreated of and petitioned by people for favours. It also reflected that God wants to help and satisfy the needs and wishes of all his human subjects for improvement of their condition.

I also want to pull out some puzzling ideas based on Jesus' interaction with demons. Jesus was seen by the demons as being their tormentor/punisher. They asked him if he came to torment them before their time (Matthew 8 : 29).

Then they requested that Jesus send them into swines and used the bodies of the swines to go into the sea.

This act made an entire village forbid Jesus to enter into their city, as these people were perhaps afraid of losing their livelihood. The whole event made it seem as the demons used this prevent the people from being willing to listen to Jesus.

Jesus being the gentleman that he is, gave them their request and left their coast.

Chapter 9 exhibits the contrasting levels of faith by people in God. Some persons believed that they could just touch Jesus without asking him to get their miracle. Others believed that Jesus need to come into their house and touch them in order to get their miracle.

What this tells me is that God is so good to us no matter what our level of faith is. Some of us do not have to ask/petition God before our wish is granted. We just believe in our hearts, and God acts on that belief without us asking.

Others want to audibly ask God.

While others want God to work in a certain way before they are satisfied that he answers their prayers.

May you be like one who has a high level of faith, recognising that God is inherently good and wants to grant you favour today and every other day. May you know that he awaits for your petition and faith to do something spectacular for you to improve your condition. If he granted the wishes of rebellious demons and people who had little faith, what would make him not want to grant your wishes for a betterment of your condition.

God's blessings.

Discussion on the Christian Passover and the Exodus

I got one of those rare opportunities to lead the discussion during Sabbath School on the "Passover" and the Exodus at Andrews Memorial Seventh-day Adventist Church. Knowing what I believe and not sure of the readiness of my class to receive what I had to share, I had to tread a very thin line of not making my presentation too radical or controversial.

The discussion I lead was with a small group of mostly mothers, many of whom seem to have not been prepared for a discussion. As usual, I wanted interactivity and not just for me to talk, and decided to begin with question asking. So I began with a discussion the scripture text of the week's lesson:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

I asked the question about the symbolism of the leaven. One mother from the group established the symbolism as being sin and its power to pervasively infect and contaminate. Then I asked about why is it that if leaven is sin, that the next line from the scripture links leaven to Christ being our passover and his sacrifice for us. The answer - that Jesus came to die for our sins and to remove it.

I then asked the question, that if Jesus is responsible for removing our sins, then why is it that the Apostle Paul starts out by stating that it is "we" or "us" that must purge ourselves of the old leaven.

The response - that Jesus removes sins, but we too have a part to play in putting away sin from our lives.


I then went on to discuss the Passover and how the Jews in keeping this Passover, observes it in remembrance of their ancestors and the deliverance that God gave them over their oppressors. I also mentioned that Jews try to imagine during this ceremony what it was like to be an Israelite on that night. I mentioned that the Jew personally puts himself in the shoe of his ancestors during the Passover to get the meaning of this tradition and ritual. Then after laying this background, I went on to the question of the Christian Passover, where I asked the question:

How are the followers of Jesus to commemorate the Passover today? What is this service to remind us of?

The response - The Lord's Supper. Communion Service. I probed for a deeper answer, and got the response that we must use the Christian's Passover to commemorate the Sacrifice of Christ to remove our sins.

I then went on to suggest that while we will focus on Christ's sacrifice, that the Passover should not neglect the past, and should not forget the story of the Exodus, in which God birth the nation that was to give the world its Saviour and the Scriptures (the Word of God). I encouraged the class that this festival or religious observance is to commemorate the purpose of God in his intervention in humanity, and it began at the first Passover celebrated by Israel. So while we reflect on Jesus suffering on the Cross for our sins, we must not lose sight of our spiritual ancestry and heritage. For the story of the Exodus is the story of Jesus.

I then told the group - that I am going to shock them, knowing that my statements would raise eyebrows and generate interest in what I would say next. Then I declared that the Lord Supper or Passover will be observed in the future, and the meaning of the Passover may transcend the current meaning of Christ's sacrifice for our sins. I thus reminded them that Jesus himself declared in Matthew 26:29 (King James Version):

"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

The same is also recorded in Luke 22:18 (King James Version):

"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

I then went on to discuss the following points raised by Ellen G. White:

The quickest way to Canaan from Egypt lay through the coastal area along "the way of the land of the Philistines." But God knew Israel was not ready for war (Exod. 13:17). Consequently, when the pillar of cloud signaled the tribal march, it led the nation east and north into the wilderness of Paran (Num. 10:11, 12), a journey of three days (vs. 33). "As they advanced, the way became more difficult. Their route lay through stony ravine and barren waste. All around them was the great wilderness. . . . The rocky gorges, far and near, were thronged with men, women, and children, with beasts and wagons, and long lines of flocks and herds. Their progress was necessarily slow and toilsome; and the multitudes, after their long encampment, were not prepared to endure the perils and discomforts of the way."(—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 377.)

I declared that God did not let the Israelites go through shortcuts, because he knew they were not prepared to deal with the challenges that the shortcuts provided. Nevertheless, he took them through a rough, rocky and rugged terrain, so that he could test them. He did not give them more than they could bear, but selected trials and tests for which he knew they could pass.

Someone in the group also raised the point that because they (the Israelites) kept failing the tests and trials, they had to wander in the wilderness for forty years, longer than God had intended. This is familiar to most of us, who have to be faced with the same tests and trials until we are able to overcome them, before God move these test and trials from our lives.

As usual with programmed church services such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the limitation of time cut such a fruitful discussion.

References:

White, Ellen and Gould Harmon. The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets : As Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old Mt. View, Calif.: Wiretap, 1994.

Being called for the Cabinet

The following is a mixture of the sermon delivered from the keynote speaker from a DVD video - Mr. Roderick Meredith and my own understanding or translation and rewording of what he said and what I heard. I just wanted to share this with you.

Mr. Roderick Meredith has been observing the feast for 61 years. Despite a few disagreements that I had which I omitted, I share his perspective on the meaning of Feast of Tabernacles to Christians.

Speaker: Robert Meredith
Denomination: The Living Church of God
Location: Holiday Inn Express, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Occasion: Opening night of the Feast of Tabernacles
Date: Friday, October 2, 2009
Theme: Bridge Between Worlds
URL: http://www.lcgcanada.org/
URL for Canada: http://www.lcgcanada.org/


The speaker began with Revelation 11:15 - saying that people in choirs sing this song but do not take it seriously, as they always celebrate Jesus as a baby. When Jesus is a Warrior king seated at the right hand of God.

People are still thinking of Mary as being a virgin, when she should no longer be represented as a virgin. She went on to have other physical children with Joseph, hence providing Jesus with physical brothers. Satan wants us to perceive of Jesus and Mary this way so that he can distract us from Jesus kingship and authority.

In Zechariah 14, this Warrior king will fight and put a stop to wars, and use force to subjugate dictators and warmongers. Then all the nations of the earth, or at least their representatives will be coming up to physical Jerusalem to observe or keep the Feast of Tabernacles. They will not just come to observe the Jews celebrate it, but will come to celebrate it of themselves. Those who fail to do so will be severely punished.

It is through this festival that God and Jesus would have us rather remember. This is how Christ would have us represent him and remember him.

Early Christians kept the feast of Tabernacles, until the Dark Ages. During the Dark Ages, Satan crushed this truth out of Christianity.

All of God's festivals are important to picture the plan of God and his truth. All were given to the Jews in advance to portray Jesus centuries ahead of time. Passover was given to portray his death and sacrifice.

Feast of Tabernacles was also given to portray Christ as King. In fact, when the Jews kept it centuries ago, they reminded themselves that they were strangers and pilgrims, looking for the kingdom of God. Christians today, should have the same mindset, and Feast of Tabernacles helps to remind us of this reality.

It also reminds us of the Exodus from Egypt, where not all made it to the promised land. However it took overcomers to make it.

Jesus also promises us in Revelations 2:26, that those who keep Christ's work until the end, and overcomes, will receive power over the nations.

Contrary to popular Christian view, Christ wants to take us as a class of rulers in the earth and not heaven. We are not going to be called to sit down and do nothing. It is not just about music and singing in heaven, but rather we shall operate as a ruling class in governing the nations of the earth. In Revelations 5:10, the Bible declares that God has selected us to be priests and kings unto himself. Jesus is a king of Kings, ad has a cabinet. We in overcoming, will be a part of that cabinet of leaders, that assist God in ruling and bringing justice unto nations and to peoples, also teaching them, representing them and maintaining the order in the theocracy.

In Psalms 72 - the King's son shall judge the people and those who are poor, changing the economic relations in the earth and bringing world peace. Kings and other leaders will visit the king's son and bring him gifts.

We are called to be his, Jesus, the king's son, the heir to the Davidic throne. His representatives. He has called us now, out of the world, to learn, grow and develop the mind of Christ, so that we can serve as his officials and represent him. In order for us to achieve this, we need to study, pray, meditate and fast, until we are able to overcome, and have his character in us. Only when we are like him in thought, values and heart, can we be his representatives and earn a place in his cabinet.


So the message for this season: You are being called out to grow, learn and develop the mind of Messiah, in order to be in his Cabinet.

Reasoning on JESUS's birthday

I just had a talk with a Jehovah's Witness (JW). A pleasant discussion at that. She wanted to give me literature, but I declined saying that I had so much to read and so little time. I therefore offered her the opportunity to summarise one of the articles for me.

She asked me which one, and I decided to choose the article on "When was JESUS born?"

I told her that I already know that he was not born on the 25th of December but I would be interested in hearing the exact date if they had it.

She disappointed me by telling me that they did not have the date, but could show that it was not on December 25th.

We then went on into a discussion about the morality of birthday celebrations.

I agreed with her that it was not moral to celebrate JESUS's birth on the 25th, the same day as a pagan god. However, I disagreed with her about the immorality of celebrating a birthday or a life any at all.

I reassured her that while G-d did not command Christians to celebrate the birth of JESUS - the fact is that JESUS birth was celebrated, and by a number of individuals.

The JW went on to ask why was there not a continuous celebration by his disciples and followers until more than 100 years after.

I then went on to share with her that if they were following the Jewish calendar, which was lunar, they could not regularly have a set day to celebrate a birthday. The day would fluctuate too much.

However, since we today are following a pagan calendar named after Greek and Roman gods, our timing is such that a set day and set time can be commemorated each year.

I also suggested to her, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, that if we were following the Jewish calendar, where there is a timing and season for each activity, then there would be no need to celebrate birthdays. (The JW lady conceded that we are no longer under law, hence no need to follow the Jewish calendar. So I told her that if we are not following the Jewish calendar, hence there is no problem or law against celebrating birthdays via the pagan calendar.)




We left on peaceful terms, and I actually felt blessed from the conversation since we spoke about the Almighty G-d together and his Son. I also left with the realisation that if celebrating birthdays on a pagan calendar is immoral, what is more immoral is to not follow G-d's calendar. Further, there was no command to not celebrate birthdays, but there were explicit commands to keep G-d's sabbaths and convocations.