Hebrews 12:1-3 says this:
"Therefore, since we are
surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off
everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us
run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart."
These few verses would be well worth taking a close look at, for they contain such wisdom and encouragement. They are, after all, part of God's word. I thought I'd do a few posts going through them bit by bit.
This passage follows right on from Hebrews 11 (surprise surprise), which gives an inspiring list of people from the Old Testament who demonstrated faith, from Abel to the prophets. So as we come to read chapter 12 we should have that in mind (go read 11 now!).
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses," Since we have the whole Old Testament, with so many people who demonstrated faith and Christ-likeness at whatever point(s) in their lives, "let us throw off
everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles". These guys endured hardship, torture and exile for the sake of Christ, for the sake of the kingdom that they were looking ahead to. For something that's worth all that, that's so good that you're prepared to be sawn in two (check out the end of Hebrews 11), why bother with sin? It just drags us down, entangles us, and tries to stop us running to God, to our amazing Father, Saviour, Redeemer, Friend, Husband, Creator, God and King, so why have anything to do with it? And how does it say we should get rid of sin? Does it say slowly? Does it say that we should gently brush it off? No! It says throw it off! And how much of it? Everything, all of it! There's determination in that phrase. Have nothing to do with sin, or anything that hinders you running for Jesus!
Are you dabbling in sin? Are you engaging in things with blurred lines, which might be alright or you might not? Have you completely crossed the line into sin? Can these things that you run after, which drag you down, which aren't Jesus, really compare to him?? No! So...
Let's cast away sin! "And let us
run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus". Sin looks good, it looks tempting. If we face sin rather than Jesus then we will get entangled, we will get dragged down. But if we throw off sin and focus on Jesus, refusing to be turned aside from him, we can run into his loving arms, which are open wide for all who come, and as Romans 8 says:
"I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Let's run the race of this life, prepared to face all opposition, just like the guys from chapter 11, because we're completely focused on and obsessed and in love with Jesus. Let's completely get rid of our sins and the things we let get in the way, so that we can have no obstacle, no distraction, in a race to Jesus, in our living for and glorifying him.
Have a think about what might be dragging you down, that might be so easily entangling you. What are you watching that you shouldn't be watching? What are you listening to that you shouldn't be listening to? What are you doing that you shouldn't be doing? What are you thinking about that you shouldn't be thinking about? Stop these things!
And then "grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ," (Ephesians 3) and, "know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."
Praise God for being so good!
25 Mar 2014
24 Mar 2014
Never Thirsty
Are you looking for satisfaction? For meaning? For value? For worth? The things of this life just can't provide it. Perhaps they can for a time, but in the end they run out, let us down, or don't follow us after death.
No marriage, job, holiday, friend, house, country, fame or anything else will ever lastingly satisfy you. They're good, but they're not good enough to totally fulfil what you crave.
That's because you weren't made for this world, you were made for something more. Someone more. God.
Jesus describes us as thirsting. Thirsting for meaning, fulfilment, purpose, value. The things of this world try to satisfy that first, and often they can, but only for a little time, and ultimately none of them can deal with death.
But here's the amazing good news. Jesus says he can quench that first, today, tomorrow, forever.
"Whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst." (Verse 14) What he's saying here is that anyone who looks to Jesus, who puts him as their number one, will be satisfied, always.
But it's more than that, it's cooler than that, read on in verse 14, "Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Accepting Jesus is like having an unstoppable spring of water, it just keeps flooding up giving more and more and more.
Part of the amazing message of the Gospel is that we have everything we need in Christ Jesus. We don't need anything or anyone more than him, everything else is just a blessing, which is cool and good but still nowhere near as good as Jesus.
Don't run after "self-righteousness", fame, money, or any other worldly thing. Run after Jesus, fall in love with him and make him your number one.
No marriage, job, holiday, friend, house, country, fame or anything else will ever lastingly satisfy you. They're good, but they're not good enough to totally fulfil what you crave.
That's because you weren't made for this world, you were made for something more. Someone more. God.
Jesus describes us as thirsting. Thirsting for meaning, fulfilment, purpose, value. The things of this world try to satisfy that first, and often they can, but only for a little time, and ultimately none of them can deal with death.
But here's the amazing good news. Jesus says he can quench that first, today, tomorrow, forever.
"Whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst." (Verse 14) What he's saying here is that anyone who looks to Jesus, who puts him as their number one, will be satisfied, always.
But it's more than that, it's cooler than that, read on in verse 14, "Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Accepting Jesus is like having an unstoppable spring of water, it just keeps flooding up giving more and more and more.
Part of the amazing message of the Gospel is that we have everything we need in Christ Jesus. We don't need anything or anyone more than him, everything else is just a blessing, which is cool and good but still nowhere near as good as Jesus.
Don't run after "self-righteousness", fame, money, or any other worldly thing. Run after Jesus, fall in love with him and make him your number one.
21 Mar 2014
Prosperity Gospel
It's a load of rubbish. Don't believe it.
What is it? The Prosperity "Gospel" teaches that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy in this life. It teaches that we should store up for ourselves treasures on this earth. It completely rejects many of the teachings of the Bible.
Jesus said, Matthew 6:19-21, "19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."" and 24, "24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."".
In fact there are a multitude of references in the Bible to not making yourself wealthy. These should really challange people like me, and perhaps you if you do too, who have a lot more than we need. We're told to sell our possessisons and give to the poor. I will add some references to relevant Bible passages later.
Don't be deceived. Joel Osteen and the other prosperity gospel people have got it wrong. God wants you to come to Him to ask to be forgiven, made new and to have a relationship with Him, and to then go out and tell other people the good news about Jesus Christ. He doesn't want you to make yourself super rich and have a massive mansion and so on.
Are you going to live for money or for God? You can't serve both, Jesus tells us. There is no "Prosperity Gospel", the very name is a contradiction! You either have to cross out the Prosperity or the Gospel. It's either ProsperityGospel or Prosperity Gospel. Which is better? Money on this earth that will fade, or an eternity in an intimate relationship with a loving, amazing and holy God? You decide.
(I'm not trying to say that Christians can't have money, but what I am saying is that God should be our God rather than money being our god. And if God is our God then this should really change the way we view and use money. My problem with these guys is that they're saying it's all about us, rather than all about God. They're saying we should get money for ourselves to make ourselves "happy", rather than challanging and encouraging us to use our money wisely and lovingly for God and for people in need. They're making money their God.)
What is it? The Prosperity "Gospel" teaches that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy in this life. It teaches that we should store up for ourselves treasures on this earth. It completely rejects many of the teachings of the Bible.
Jesus said, Matthew 6:19-21, "19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."" and 24, "24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."".
In fact there are a multitude of references in the Bible to not making yourself wealthy. These should really challange people like me, and perhaps you if you do too, who have a lot more than we need. We're told to sell our possessisons and give to the poor. I will add some references to relevant Bible passages later.
Don't be deceived. Joel Osteen and the other prosperity gospel people have got it wrong. God wants you to come to Him to ask to be forgiven, made new and to have a relationship with Him, and to then go out and tell other people the good news about Jesus Christ. He doesn't want you to make yourself super rich and have a massive mansion and so on.
Are you going to live for money or for God? You can't serve both, Jesus tells us. There is no "Prosperity Gospel", the very name is a contradiction! You either have to cross out the Prosperity or the Gospel. It's either Prosperity
(I'm not trying to say that Christians can't have money, but what I am saying is that God should be our God rather than money being our god. And if God is our God then this should really change the way we view and use money. My problem with these guys is that they're saying it's all about us, rather than all about God. They're saying we should get money for ourselves to make ourselves "happy", rather than challanging and encouraging us to use our money wisely and lovingly for God and for people in need. They're making money their God.)
Being good
There is a massive misconception amongst many, that I once believed as well, that Christianity is all about being good.
It's not.
Christianity is not about obeying rules, being a nice person or even just having good motivations. You can't earn eternal life. You can't earn a relationship with God. For the Bible says in Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", meaning everyone has done something wrong and so no one can make themselves good enough for God.
Nor is the Bible about being forgiven and then trying harder next time in order to earn eternal life. Because we just can't do it by ourselves, we just end up sinning again, and we start an endless cycle with ever increasing frustration and guilt because no matter how many chances we get we always mess it up. That's the situation I was in just before I became a Christian.
BUT the beauty of the Bible is that it is NOT about us, it's about Jesus. The next bit of Romans 3 goes on to say, "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." What this is saying is that God gives us forgiveness, freedom from our self-loathing and a relationship with Him, for FREE, not because of anything we could ever do but by Jesus' death on the cross in our place, which paid for all of our sins.
This means that we don't have to earn eternal life. It means that we don't have to be constantly trying to be good enough for God.
It's all about grace. It's all about Jesus.
Does that mean we can then go around living as sinfully as we like? No, Romans 6 addresses that. We're to put sin behind and live for God not so that we can be saved, but because we have been saved by God by grace through Christ. And we mess up, again and again and again and again and again, but this way we're not crushed by that, because it's not how we gain a relationship with God, we're free to try again and again, not by our strength, but by God's. I'll do a post on it at some point.
I've posted it before, and it is slightly cheesy, but I think this is a really helpful video that explains things a lot better than I have:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ-WuFAlQlY
It's not.
Christianity is not about obeying rules, being a nice person or even just having good motivations. You can't earn eternal life. You can't earn a relationship with God. For the Bible says in Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", meaning everyone has done something wrong and so no one can make themselves good enough for God.
Nor is the Bible about being forgiven and then trying harder next time in order to earn eternal life. Because we just can't do it by ourselves, we just end up sinning again, and we start an endless cycle with ever increasing frustration and guilt because no matter how many chances we get we always mess it up. That's the situation I was in just before I became a Christian.
BUT the beauty of the Bible is that it is NOT about us, it's about Jesus. The next bit of Romans 3 goes on to say, "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." What this is saying is that God gives us forgiveness, freedom from our self-loathing and a relationship with Him, for FREE, not because of anything we could ever do but by Jesus' death on the cross in our place, which paid for all of our sins.
This means that we don't have to earn eternal life. It means that we don't have to be constantly trying to be good enough for God.
It's all about grace. It's all about Jesus.
Does that mean we can then go around living as sinfully as we like? No, Romans 6 addresses that. We're to put sin behind and live for God not so that we can be saved, but because we have been saved by God by grace through Christ. And we mess up, again and again and again and again and again, but this way we're not crushed by that, because it's not how we gain a relationship with God, we're free to try again and again, not by our strength, but by God's. I'll do a post on it at some point.
I've posted it before, and it is slightly cheesy, but I think this is a really helpful video that explains things a lot better than I have:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ-WuFAlQlY
11 Mar 2014
The Trinity VS Modalism
Chatting some more to my friend reminded my that there are many different ideas about what the Trinity is, only one of which can be right.
Modalism is probably one of the most common false-Trinities that I have come across people believing, and is the one that my everyone my friend knows think the Trinity is.
Both of us rightly disagree with Modalism. So before I explain why Modalism doesn't work, I should explain what it is.
Modalism is the belief in one God (good!) that has three persons (good!), but these three different persons never exist at the same time, they are just different forms that the one God can choose to take (bad).
In this instance, my friend's point about Acts 7 becomes very helpful:
Acts 7:55-56, "55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”"
Here we've got all three persons of God, in different places, at the same time. This doesn't fit with Modalism.
Going to Matthew 3 we see another clear example, with the baptism of Jesus:
Matthew 3:16-17, "16 As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”"
The "Modal Trinity" isn't suggested by the Bible. The Trinity suggested by the Bible is one God, made of three persons, who eternally exist at the same time.
(Why do I believe this? Loads of reasons, I listed some in the previous post, here's another:
John 10:30-33, "30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”")
Modalism is probably one of the most common false-Trinities that I have come across people believing, and is the one that my everyone my friend knows think the Trinity is.
Both of us rightly disagree with Modalism. So before I explain why Modalism doesn't work, I should explain what it is.
Modalism is the belief in one God (good!) that has three persons (good!), but these three different persons never exist at the same time, they are just different forms that the one God can choose to take (bad).
In this instance, my friend's point about Acts 7 becomes very helpful:
Acts 7:55-56, "55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”"
Here we've got all three persons of God, in different places, at the same time. This doesn't fit with Modalism.
Going to Matthew 3 we see another clear example, with the baptism of Jesus:
Matthew 3:16-17, "16 As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”"
The "Modal Trinity" isn't suggested by the Bible. The Trinity suggested by the Bible is one God, made of three persons, who eternally exist at the same time.
(Why do I believe this? Loads of reasons, I listed some in the previous post, here's another:
John 10:30-33, "30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”")
10 Mar 2014
Is the Trinity a Human Invention, or a Scriptual Truth?
I've been chatting to a member of the LDS recently, about whether or not there's such a thing as the Trinity.
He believes that the Trinity is a human invention and is not from the Bible. He believes that the Father is a God, and the creator of all things, that the Son is a god and is the offspring of the Father and that the Holy Spirit is not God at all.
I believe that there is only one God, and he consists of 3 distinct persons which form the one God that He is, and they are Father, Son and Spirit, and they work together in perfect unity. I believe that the Trinity is a difficult concept to grasp, and one we probably won't fully grasp until the next life when we meet God face to face, but until then it's one we should accept and find out more about it, as it is part of the nature of God.
Now, before I go any further, I want to make it really clear why I'm writing this post. I am not writing it to mock, anger, offend or for any other negative reason. I like and respect this person, and believe that he is learned and intelligent (not that it would matter if he wasn't, either!). The sole purpose of this post is to help me express my understanding of the issue to my friend (and anyone else who is interested) in a manner which gives me time and space to think and express what I'm trying to say as clearly as possible, so that we may both have a better understanding of what the Scripture really says about who God is.
One more point before I begin, I think it would be helpful to establish the common ground that we already have (if I'm wrong on either of these, please correct me!):
1) We both believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it is authoritative, and that it is inerrant.
2) We both believe that some translations of the Bible have been poor, leading to misunderstandings. We both believe that these matters can be settled by going back to the Greek and Hebrew Bible from which we have recieved our English translations.
So, does the Bible tell us that Jesus is both the Son of God and God? Or does the Bible tell us that Jesus is a god created by the Father? Below are several reasons why I think the answer is yes to the first and no to the second.
1) Let's start with John 1, which me and my friend have already started discussing, but I don't think we've finished with. Here are the first 15 verses of John 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
My argument from this is that we have 3 clear statements from this first chapter of John that Jesus is indeed God. Check out verse 1, which says that the Word (Jesus) was God (past tense as it is talking about in the beginning, this is not saying that he is no longer God).
Verse 3 says that through him all things were made, which means that Jesus cannot have been created, otherwise we would have a contradiction.
And verse 18 again says that Jesus is God.
Now, the counter argument to verse 1 is that the text could also read, "and the Word was a god", as in the Greek there is no indefinate article ('a'), and so we cannot know if it is indeed simply saying, "the Word was God" or, "the Word was a god". Fair enough, that is a valid point if you're just looking at verse 1. But given the context of verse 3 and verse 18, it seems that, "the Word was God" seems to be the correct translation.
To my friend, please feel free to give any counter points, or to direct me to anywhere where I can read these counter points, I would be really interested to see what people have to say. It seems however, that Scripture is in favour of Jesus being God here.
2) Have a look at Revelation 22:13 where Jesus is speaking (context shows that it is him speaking), "13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
Here again we see Jesus as eternal and uncreated.
3) Jesus calls himself "I am" multiple times, which is referencing Exodus 3, where God calls himself I AM WHO I AM (or, I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE), which I think is meant to signify His eternal, unchanging nature.
A clear example is John 8:58-59:
"58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."
Why did they want to stone him? Because they knew he was calling himself God.
4) Jesus equates knowing and seeing Jesus to knowing and seeing the Father, take John 14:6-11 as an example:
"6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
There are more examples I could give, but I reckon this is enough for now, I'm not trying to overwhelm anyone with such a large amount of information they just don't have time to respond to it all.
Now, one final point, which is about the Trinity more generally and should also hopefully address your point about Elohim (my friend was saying that the Hebrew "Elohim" refers to Jesus. He also said that when we see "God" in the Old Testament it mostly "Elohim" rather than "Yaweh", so we're usually hearing about Jesus rather than the Father. (I partly agree and partly disagree, I'll explain..))
2 examples from Genesis 1+2 that I believe help us see that God is a multi-person, but one God, God:
1) Check out Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself in the plural:
"26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”"
Here God (Hebrew Elohim) says let us create mankind in our image.
2) Then when God (Hebrew Elohim) creates mankind in His (singular, so we have Him both able to refer to Himself as "our" meaning multiple persons, and yet be one) image, he creates them not just as man, but as man and woman, suggesting diversity:
"27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them" "
Elohim refers to Himself as "our" here, suggesting He's more than just one person, but He is indeed one God, as He's also referred to as the singular, "he".
Also Elohim is there in the beginning, Genesis 1:1-2:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (NIV)
"In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water." (Names of God Bible)
If you're willing, have a think, chat and pray about it. I hope this has been interesting for you, and I look forward to hearing your response :)
(Actually, I've just thought of one more thing I haven't responded to! My friend said that the Bible frequently refers to "God" and "Jesus" in the same sentence, talking about different persons, take Acts 7:55-56 for example:
"55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”"
Fair point, but then think back to John 1, where God and the Word are referred to seperately as well, and yet it says that the Word (Jesus) is God. Or John 14, where the same thing effectively happens. I think when we see instances such as Acts 7, where it says God, we should be thinking Father, not that Jesus isn't God.)
He believes that the Trinity is a human invention and is not from the Bible. He believes that the Father is a God, and the creator of all things, that the Son is a god and is the offspring of the Father and that the Holy Spirit is not God at all.
I believe that there is only one God, and he consists of 3 distinct persons which form the one God that He is, and they are Father, Son and Spirit, and they work together in perfect unity. I believe that the Trinity is a difficult concept to grasp, and one we probably won't fully grasp until the next life when we meet God face to face, but until then it's one we should accept and find out more about it, as it is part of the nature of God.
Now, before I go any further, I want to make it really clear why I'm writing this post. I am not writing it to mock, anger, offend or for any other negative reason. I like and respect this person, and believe that he is learned and intelligent (not that it would matter if he wasn't, either!). The sole purpose of this post is to help me express my understanding of the issue to my friend (and anyone else who is interested) in a manner which gives me time and space to think and express what I'm trying to say as clearly as possible, so that we may both have a better understanding of what the Scripture really says about who God is.
One more point before I begin, I think it would be helpful to establish the common ground that we already have (if I'm wrong on either of these, please correct me!):
1) We both believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it is authoritative, and that it is inerrant.
2) We both believe that some translations of the Bible have been poor, leading to misunderstandings. We both believe that these matters can be settled by going back to the Greek and Hebrew Bible from which we have recieved our English translations.
So, does the Bible tell us that Jesus is both the Son of God and God? Or does the Bible tell us that Jesus is a god created by the Father? Below are several reasons why I think the answer is yes to the first and no to the second.
1) Let's start with John 1, which me and my friend have already started discussing, but I don't think we've finished with. Here are the first 15 verses of John 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
My argument from this is that we have 3 clear statements from this first chapter of John that Jesus is indeed God. Check out verse 1, which says that the Word (Jesus) was God (past tense as it is talking about in the beginning, this is not saying that he is no longer God).
Verse 3 says that through him all things were made, which means that Jesus cannot have been created, otherwise we would have a contradiction.
And verse 18 again says that Jesus is God.
Now, the counter argument to verse 1 is that the text could also read, "and the Word was a god", as in the Greek there is no indefinate article ('a'), and so we cannot know if it is indeed simply saying, "the Word was God" or, "the Word was a god". Fair enough, that is a valid point if you're just looking at verse 1. But given the context of verse 3 and verse 18, it seems that, "the Word was God" seems to be the correct translation.
To my friend, please feel free to give any counter points, or to direct me to anywhere where I can read these counter points, I would be really interested to see what people have to say. It seems however, that Scripture is in favour of Jesus being God here.
2) Have a look at Revelation 22:13 where Jesus is speaking (context shows that it is him speaking), "13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
Here again we see Jesus as eternal and uncreated.
3) Jesus calls himself "I am" multiple times, which is referencing Exodus 3, where God calls himself I AM WHO I AM (or, I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE), which I think is meant to signify His eternal, unchanging nature.
A clear example is John 8:58-59:
"58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."
Why did they want to stone him? Because they knew he was calling himself God.
4) Jesus equates knowing and seeing Jesus to knowing and seeing the Father, take John 14:6-11 as an example:
"6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
There are more examples I could give, but I reckon this is enough for now, I'm not trying to overwhelm anyone with such a large amount of information they just don't have time to respond to it all.
Now, one final point, which is about the Trinity more generally and should also hopefully address your point about Elohim (my friend was saying that the Hebrew "Elohim" refers to Jesus. He also said that when we see "God" in the Old Testament it mostly "Elohim" rather than "Yaweh", so we're usually hearing about Jesus rather than the Father. (I partly agree and partly disagree, I'll explain..))
2 examples from Genesis 1+2 that I believe help us see that God is a multi-person, but one God, God:
1) Check out Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself in the plural:
"26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”"
Here God (Hebrew Elohim) says let us create mankind in our image.
2) Then when God (Hebrew Elohim) creates mankind in His (singular, so we have Him both able to refer to Himself as "our" meaning multiple persons, and yet be one) image, he creates them not just as man, but as man and woman, suggesting diversity:
"27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them" "
Elohim refers to Himself as "our" here, suggesting He's more than just one person, but He is indeed one God, as He's also referred to as the singular, "he".
Also Elohim is there in the beginning, Genesis 1:1-2:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (NIV)
"In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water." (Names of God Bible)
If you're willing, have a think, chat and pray about it. I hope this has been interesting for you, and I look forward to hearing your response :)
(Actually, I've just thought of one more thing I haven't responded to! My friend said that the Bible frequently refers to "God" and "Jesus" in the same sentence, talking about different persons, take Acts 7:55-56 for example:
"55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”"
Fair point, but then think back to John 1, where God and the Word are referred to seperately as well, and yet it says that the Word (Jesus) is God. Or John 14, where the same thing effectively happens. I think when we see instances such as Acts 7, where it says God, we should be thinking Father, not that Jesus isn't God.)
9 Mar 2014
Unhelpful messages about "beauty", and unhelpful attempts to fight those unhelpful messages...
This is a long post, but if this is a topic that interests/bothers you, please read to the end! You may learn something, or be able to teach me something if I've got it wrong!
There seems to be a big message that is cropping up more and more (or perhaps I'm just noticing it more), and it's all about what beauty really is. Let me explain...
People have noticed big problems with lots of really unhelpful messages from media, magazines, products and so on about the way people "should" look and appear. And people have, very rightly, connected this to problems with low self-esteem and so on. And people, again very rightly, want to tackle this.
So lots of attempts have been made to make people see that they don't need to worry about the way they look. And I believe that's great, please, don't get the wrong impression from this post, I think a big effort needs to be made to fight these really damaging messages that seem so unavoidable about self-image and so on.
But most of them, I think, really just don't deal with the issue, check out this video I saw a while back as an example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaOjMXyJGk
Seems great, doesn't it? I mean, they're helping people feel more self-confident, and realise that they look more attractive than they thought they did... that's good... right? Go back to 2 minutes and 12 seconds in and listen to what the woman says. Here it is typed out, "I should be more grateful of my natural beauty; it impacts the choices in the friends that we make, the jobs that we apply for, how we treat our children, it impacts everything, it couldn't be more critical to your happiness."
This isn't fixing the problem. Why? We can't fight people viewing beauty wrongly by telling people that they're more beautiful than they think they are, as they're still judging and defining themselves based on how they look. Does this mean that someone "less beautiful" is less of a person? Or can't be as happy? And does thinking that you're beautiful actually make you a nicer person to be around? Does it actually make you a more generous, selfless, compassionate and loving person? Are they not better qualities?
(Apologies to Dove, what you were trying to do was a step forward, and that's a good thing. I'm just trying to say I don't think it's the whole way by any means.)
No, we have to go deeper than trying to convince people that they're more beautiful than they think they are, if we're going to have any hope of fixing this.
So people do, take this video for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2utmIdVHJOM (again, before I say what I don't like about this, really big congrats to her for standing up and being so open, that's really courageous, and most of what she says I really agree with!!)
She rightly analyses that judging ourselves on the way we look is never going to fix the problem, and that we need to go deeper. It's something to do with who we are on the inside. But, right after that is where I think she falls down. She says, "We need to learn to love ourselves, and who we are as people because loving ourselves is truly beautiful."
Really? I don't think so. And I mean no disrespect to her, from one respect I can see where she's coming from. But think about it, shouldn't we be selfless, compassionate, loving of other people, totally humble (and by that I don't mean thinking about how awful we are, I mean just simply thinking about ourselves less (see my other post on humility))? Isn't that the kind of person that's nicest to be around, rather than the self-loving person?
And even if someone who loves themself wasn't that bad to be around, what grounds do they love themself on? There must be some criteria. Doesn't that just change what we obsess about from "outward beauty" to something else?
I think she too has got the wrong impression of what beauty is, and how we should view it.
Just to reinforce my point, people are ugly on the inside. Sometimes it's harder to see than other times, but we've all got our dark places, our nasty thoughts or feelings, our regrets, guilt and shame. We don't control our darkest places, we can't. People try, they meditate, repeat mantras, try to do more good things, give something up for lent, make a New Year's resolution or whatever else, but at the end of the day, we are naturally ugly on the inside, and incapable of changing ourselves.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/216382/why-i-dont-give-a-shit-about-what-your-real-life-barbie-looks-like/ makes another really good set of points, which I think link back to my problem with the Dove example partly. But notice where they says real beauty comes from? They say real beauty comes from what you can do, what you can achieve ("Finally she felt she was more than how she looked, and became what she could do. And that is the difference."). That also sounds pretty appealing at first. It makes sense, doesn't it? But then, that leads to all sorts of problems. What about a physically or mentally disabled person, are they less beautiful than someone who's not? Just because they can't be a fireman or a doctor, does that make them less beautiful, or less of a person?
There are more links and examples I could give, but this post is getting pretty long and pretty grim. What I hope you've seen is that everyone seems to have acknowledged that we don't normally view beauty rightly, but no one seems to have a decent explanation of what beauty really is, where it comes from, or how to view it and ourselves.
What have we got so far?
1) We don't want beauty to be something physical, because we can't be physically beautiful in a way that will ever satisfy us. Not only that, but if that's where we find our identity, then we're at the mercies of age, health, other people's opinions, wealth etc, and are placing ourselves either above or below other people.
2) We don't want beauty to be defined by our character as our characters are frail and messed up. Even when we're confident, helpful, generous etc, we're still ugly on the inside (more than we like to think).
3) We don't want to be beautiful by what we achieve and do, as that limits people's beauty by their circumstances, opportunities, health, etc. It also makes good things we do come from selfish motives (i.e., if you start an amazing charity, but you think that beauty comes from what you achieve, then you may just be doing it for selfish reasons), which isn't good.
Notice what's going on there? We're trying to change the definition of beauty to be something that we like and that we think we can be. What we're actually talking about here is self-satisfaction, which isn't the same as beauty. Let's define both:
- Beauty: A pleasing quality, either visually, audibly, emotionally or whatever else. I think that's a reasonable definition, as people describe things that look nice as beautiful in appearance, people who seem really nice as beautiful in character or songs that sounds amazing as beautiful to the ears.
- Self-satisfaction: Being content in (not wanting or needing anything else other than) yourself.
We have a desire to be satisfied with who we are, to be self-satisfied. The thing is there's no such thing as self-satisfaction. Why? Humans are, in general, social and we crave acceptance and love from others, we're not enough for ourselves. So we look to beauty. Why beauty? Because beauty is pleasing in its qualities and so we think if we're beautiful then we will please others and so be accepted and loved by them, and so be satisfied. The trouble is, as we saw above, that however we try to have pleasing qualities, be it in the way we look, think or act, we place ourselves in a cut-throat competition that we just can't win.
Great looks, character, achievements and so on are all beautiful things. Let's not deny that. Let's instead question where we look for satisfaction and let's question how important beauty is.
If we want to be satisfied, we need something fulfilling, achievable and unchanging.
The Bible tells us that true satisfaction is found in God and that we were made to have a relationship with Him. The Bible uses analogies to try and help us understand what having a relationship with God is like. It describes it as being like the child of the perfect Father, or the wife of the perfect husband, but even better! In God we have the love and acceptance that we crave, the Father delights in us like a parent delights in a child, and Jesus delights in us like a husband delights in a wife, but even more! Psalm 37:4 says, "Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart." The desires of your heart being, if you've delighted yourself in God, God. That's where you find satisfaction.
And God also deals with the problem of "never being beautiful enough". God offers forgiveness and change through Jesus' death on the cross and through filling us with the Holy Spirit. And He promises new bodies for the next life. But more than all that, we know that, if you've accepted Jesus' death in your place, when God sees you, He sees you with Jesus' matchless goodness and beauty.
So does it matter if we're beautiful here and now? Not really, because where we find our satisfaction is no longer in our beauty. Not only that, but we don't find meaning, value, worth, indentity or anything else like that in beauty, but in God instead. What does that mean for us here and now? No stress over how we look, no false motives for doing good things and no discrimination between people based on how they look, who they are or what they can do. It frees us up to love people simply because love is good, not for the sake of getting love and acceptance back. (Though this doesn't mean that we won't be tempted to go back to looking for satisfaction in other things, that's a battle everyone has to face in this life).
If you don't agree with me, then put what I've said to the test. See if you can think of anything or anyone else that really, lastingly, totally offers the complete satisfaction that you desire.
Instead of trying to change the definition for beauty, we should just stop trying to find satisfaction in beauty and try to find it in something/someone that can actually deliver. I believe that someone is God.
[Edit, saw this video recently, it's not exactly about beauty, but it is about identity, have a watch and compare it to the other messages that people had about identity based on their definition of beauty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ-WuFAlQlY&list=PLD5A7385740E014B4 ]
There seems to be a big message that is cropping up more and more (or perhaps I'm just noticing it more), and it's all about what beauty really is. Let me explain...
People have noticed big problems with lots of really unhelpful messages from media, magazines, products and so on about the way people "should" look and appear. And people have, very rightly, connected this to problems with low self-esteem and so on. And people, again very rightly, want to tackle this.
So lots of attempts have been made to make people see that they don't need to worry about the way they look. And I believe that's great, please, don't get the wrong impression from this post, I think a big effort needs to be made to fight these really damaging messages that seem so unavoidable about self-image and so on.
But most of them, I think, really just don't deal with the issue, check out this video I saw a while back as an example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaOjMXyJGk
Seems great, doesn't it? I mean, they're helping people feel more self-confident, and realise that they look more attractive than they thought they did... that's good... right? Go back to 2 minutes and 12 seconds in and listen to what the woman says. Here it is typed out, "I should be more grateful of my natural beauty; it impacts the choices in the friends that we make, the jobs that we apply for, how we treat our children, it impacts everything, it couldn't be more critical to your happiness."
This isn't fixing the problem. Why? We can't fight people viewing beauty wrongly by telling people that they're more beautiful than they think they are, as they're still judging and defining themselves based on how they look. Does this mean that someone "less beautiful" is less of a person? Or can't be as happy? And does thinking that you're beautiful actually make you a nicer person to be around? Does it actually make you a more generous, selfless, compassionate and loving person? Are they not better qualities?
(Apologies to Dove, what you were trying to do was a step forward, and that's a good thing. I'm just trying to say I don't think it's the whole way by any means.)
No, we have to go deeper than trying to convince people that they're more beautiful than they think they are, if we're going to have any hope of fixing this.
So people do, take this video for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2utmIdVHJOM (again, before I say what I don't like about this, really big congrats to her for standing up and being so open, that's really courageous, and most of what she says I really agree with!!)
She rightly analyses that judging ourselves on the way we look is never going to fix the problem, and that we need to go deeper. It's something to do with who we are on the inside. But, right after that is where I think she falls down. She says, "We need to learn to love ourselves, and who we are as people because loving ourselves is truly beautiful."
Really? I don't think so. And I mean no disrespect to her, from one respect I can see where she's coming from. But think about it, shouldn't we be selfless, compassionate, loving of other people, totally humble (and by that I don't mean thinking about how awful we are, I mean just simply thinking about ourselves less (see my other post on humility))? Isn't that the kind of person that's nicest to be around, rather than the self-loving person?
And even if someone who loves themself wasn't that bad to be around, what grounds do they love themself on? There must be some criteria. Doesn't that just change what we obsess about from "outward beauty" to something else?
I think she too has got the wrong impression of what beauty is, and how we should view it.
Just to reinforce my point, people are ugly on the inside. Sometimes it's harder to see than other times, but we've all got our dark places, our nasty thoughts or feelings, our regrets, guilt and shame. We don't control our darkest places, we can't. People try, they meditate, repeat mantras, try to do more good things, give something up for lent, make a New Year's resolution or whatever else, but at the end of the day, we are naturally ugly on the inside, and incapable of changing ourselves.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/216382/why-i-dont-give-a-shit-about-what-your-real-life-barbie-looks-like/ makes another really good set of points, which I think link back to my problem with the Dove example partly. But notice where they says real beauty comes from? They say real beauty comes from what you can do, what you can achieve ("Finally she felt she was more than how she looked, and became what she could do. And that is the difference."). That also sounds pretty appealing at first. It makes sense, doesn't it? But then, that leads to all sorts of problems. What about a physically or mentally disabled person, are they less beautiful than someone who's not? Just because they can't be a fireman or a doctor, does that make them less beautiful, or less of a person?
There are more links and examples I could give, but this post is getting pretty long and pretty grim. What I hope you've seen is that everyone seems to have acknowledged that we don't normally view beauty rightly, but no one seems to have a decent explanation of what beauty really is, where it comes from, or how to view it and ourselves.
What have we got so far?
1) We don't want beauty to be something physical, because we can't be physically beautiful in a way that will ever satisfy us. Not only that, but if that's where we find our identity, then we're at the mercies of age, health, other people's opinions, wealth etc, and are placing ourselves either above or below other people.
2) We don't want beauty to be defined by our character as our characters are frail and messed up. Even when we're confident, helpful, generous etc, we're still ugly on the inside (more than we like to think).
3) We don't want to be beautiful by what we achieve and do, as that limits people's beauty by their circumstances, opportunities, health, etc. It also makes good things we do come from selfish motives (i.e., if you start an amazing charity, but you think that beauty comes from what you achieve, then you may just be doing it for selfish reasons), which isn't good.
Notice what's going on there? We're trying to change the definition of beauty to be something that we like and that we think we can be. What we're actually talking about here is self-satisfaction, which isn't the same as beauty. Let's define both:
- Beauty: A pleasing quality, either visually, audibly, emotionally or whatever else. I think that's a reasonable definition, as people describe things that look nice as beautiful in appearance, people who seem really nice as beautiful in character or songs that sounds amazing as beautiful to the ears.
- Self-satisfaction: Being content in (not wanting or needing anything else other than) yourself.
We have a desire to be satisfied with who we are, to be self-satisfied. The thing is there's no such thing as self-satisfaction. Why? Humans are, in general, social and we crave acceptance and love from others, we're not enough for ourselves. So we look to beauty. Why beauty? Because beauty is pleasing in its qualities and so we think if we're beautiful then we will please others and so be accepted and loved by them, and so be satisfied. The trouble is, as we saw above, that however we try to have pleasing qualities, be it in the way we look, think or act, we place ourselves in a cut-throat competition that we just can't win.
Great looks, character, achievements and so on are all beautiful things. Let's not deny that. Let's instead question where we look for satisfaction and let's question how important beauty is.
If we want to be satisfied, we need something fulfilling, achievable and unchanging.
The Bible tells us that true satisfaction is found in God and that we were made to have a relationship with Him. The Bible uses analogies to try and help us understand what having a relationship with God is like. It describes it as being like the child of the perfect Father, or the wife of the perfect husband, but even better! In God we have the love and acceptance that we crave, the Father delights in us like a parent delights in a child, and Jesus delights in us like a husband delights in a wife, but even more! Psalm 37:4 says, "Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart." The desires of your heart being, if you've delighted yourself in God, God. That's where you find satisfaction.
And God also deals with the problem of "never being beautiful enough". God offers forgiveness and change through Jesus' death on the cross and through filling us with the Holy Spirit. And He promises new bodies for the next life. But more than all that, we know that, if you've accepted Jesus' death in your place, when God sees you, He sees you with Jesus' matchless goodness and beauty.
So does it matter if we're beautiful here and now? Not really, because where we find our satisfaction is no longer in our beauty. Not only that, but we don't find meaning, value, worth, indentity or anything else like that in beauty, but in God instead. What does that mean for us here and now? No stress over how we look, no false motives for doing good things and no discrimination between people based on how they look, who they are or what they can do. It frees us up to love people simply because love is good, not for the sake of getting love and acceptance back. (Though this doesn't mean that we won't be tempted to go back to looking for satisfaction in other things, that's a battle everyone has to face in this life).
If you don't agree with me, then put what I've said to the test. See if you can think of anything or anyone else that really, lastingly, totally offers the complete satisfaction that you desire.
Instead of trying to change the definition for beauty, we should just stop trying to find satisfaction in beauty and try to find it in something/someone that can actually deliver. I believe that someone is God.
[Edit, saw this video recently, it's not exactly about beauty, but it is about identity, have a watch and compare it to the other messages that people had about identity based on their definition of beauty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ-WuFAlQlY&list=PLD5A7385740E014B4 ]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)