Lee Harmon's Blog, page 108
December 11, 2011
Luke 24:7, Why three days in the grave?
The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.
//If you've ever wondered at the significance of "three days," you may find meaning in The Midrash on Psalm 22 to Esther. You may remember her words as she prepared to meet the king: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish."
Says the Midrash, the reason for three days is for the sake of Israel. "Why three days? Because the Holy One—blessed be he!—never leaves Israel in anguish for more than three days." A number of other Bible passages agree:
Genesis 22:4, On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. Abraham had set out on a three-day journey, the end of which would end in the sacrifice of his son.
Genesis 42:17, And he put them all in custody for three days. Joseph, in Egypt, has accused his brothers of being spies, and imprisoned them.
Exodus 15:22, Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water.
2 Kings 20:5, "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. Hezekiah was ill, at the point of death, and was told he must wait three days before God would heal him.
Joshua 2:16, Now she had said to them, "Go to the hills so the pursuers will not find you. Hide yourselves there three days until they return, and then go on your way." Said by Rahab, to the men she helped escape.
Jonah 2:1, From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God. I needn't remind you that Jonah spent three days there.
Hosea 6:2, After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.[image error]
//If you've ever wondered at the significance of "three days," you may find meaning in The Midrash on Psalm 22 to Esther. You may remember her words as she prepared to meet the king: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish."
Says the Midrash, the reason for three days is for the sake of Israel. "Why three days? Because the Holy One—blessed be he!—never leaves Israel in anguish for more than three days." A number of other Bible passages agree:
Genesis 22:4, On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. Abraham had set out on a three-day journey, the end of which would end in the sacrifice of his son.
Genesis 42:17, And he put them all in custody for three days. Joseph, in Egypt, has accused his brothers of being spies, and imprisoned them.
Exodus 15:22, Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water.
2 Kings 20:5, "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. Hezekiah was ill, at the point of death, and was told he must wait three days before God would heal him.
Joshua 2:16, Now she had said to them, "Go to the hills so the pursuers will not find you. Hide yourselves there three days until they return, and then go on your way." Said by Rahab, to the men she helped escape.
Jonah 2:1, From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God. I needn't remind you that Jonah spent three days there.
Hosea 6:2, After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.[image error]
December 10, 2011
Book review: The Secret Sect
by Doug & Helen Parker
★★★★★
Around the year 1897, William Irvine, a preacher of the Faith Mission in Scotland and Ireland, received a revelation as he was reading the Gospel of Matthew, chapter ten:
[F]reely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
Following these teachings as best he could, Irvine struck out on his own, founding a new movement based upon his vision of a penniless, traveling ministry, as he imagined Jesus himself to have taught in the first century. Within a few years, a number of house churches had been established, and the movement began to spread to other lands. Observing that the first apostles carried no name other than that of Jesus, ministers insisted on remaining a nameless sect outside the public eye (hence the book's title, The Secret Sect). The movement nevertheless collected several nicknames, including Cooneyites (named after one of the of the first preachers to join the movement), Dippers (from Irvine's public baptismal rituals), and 2x2s (based upon the practice of ministers traveling two and two together, as was often the habit of first-century Christian evangelists).
Whether by deliberate misdirection or by accidental development, members of the sect quickly came to believe they could trace their origins back to the shores of Galilee, and that they were the only people on earth who were saved. All other groups, Christian or not, were apparently deceived by Satan. Irvine, himself, was excommunicated after a number of years, and his role in the foundation of the movement was suppressed. Members of the 2x2s, convinced of God's approval and their absolute discovery of God's true way, coined their own name for the movement: "the Truth." The name stuck, and continues to be the most commonly used name by insiders.
Today, more than 100 years later, membership estimates run between 200,000 and 600,000 worldwide, and the movement could hardly be called penniless anymore. A number of books have been written about this group, some more friendly than others (a few openly call the sect a cult). But this is the book that started the ball rolling, written way back in 1982. It's a fair, carefully researched historical account of how this Christian sect came into existence.
My interest in the book? It's my heritage. Yes, I grew up in "the Truth," though I'm no longer a member. The 2x2 movement is, in my opinion, wholesome and fulfilling … as much as any fundamentalist, exclusivist religion ever can be. Members meet reverently for fellowship in small groups in homes, and continue to take turns housing a homeless, travelling ministry.
I doubt this book would be of interest to anyone not in some way connected to "the Truth." But for those of us who are or were, this is one of the most important books we'll ever read. For that reason alone I award it five stars.
It's unfortunately out of print. As of this writing, used copies on Amazon sell for between $70 and $213. [image error]
★★★★★
Around the year 1897, William Irvine, a preacher of the Faith Mission in Scotland and Ireland, received a revelation as he was reading the Gospel of Matthew, chapter ten:
[F]reely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
Following these teachings as best he could, Irvine struck out on his own, founding a new movement based upon his vision of a penniless, traveling ministry, as he imagined Jesus himself to have taught in the first century. Within a few years, a number of house churches had been established, and the movement began to spread to other lands. Observing that the first apostles carried no name other than that of Jesus, ministers insisted on remaining a nameless sect outside the public eye (hence the book's title, The Secret Sect). The movement nevertheless collected several nicknames, including Cooneyites (named after one of the of the first preachers to join the movement), Dippers (from Irvine's public baptismal rituals), and 2x2s (based upon the practice of ministers traveling two and two together, as was often the habit of first-century Christian evangelists).
Whether by deliberate misdirection or by accidental development, members of the sect quickly came to believe they could trace their origins back to the shores of Galilee, and that they were the only people on earth who were saved. All other groups, Christian or not, were apparently deceived by Satan. Irvine, himself, was excommunicated after a number of years, and his role in the foundation of the movement was suppressed. Members of the 2x2s, convinced of God's approval and their absolute discovery of God's true way, coined their own name for the movement: "the Truth." The name stuck, and continues to be the most commonly used name by insiders.
Today, more than 100 years later, membership estimates run between 200,000 and 600,000 worldwide, and the movement could hardly be called penniless anymore. A number of books have been written about this group, some more friendly than others (a few openly call the sect a cult). But this is the book that started the ball rolling, written way back in 1982. It's a fair, carefully researched historical account of how this Christian sect came into existence.
My interest in the book? It's my heritage. Yes, I grew up in "the Truth," though I'm no longer a member. The 2x2 movement is, in my opinion, wholesome and fulfilling … as much as any fundamentalist, exclusivist religion ever can be. Members meet reverently for fellowship in small groups in homes, and continue to take turns housing a homeless, travelling ministry.
I doubt this book would be of interest to anyone not in some way connected to "the Truth." But for those of us who are or were, this is one of the most important books we'll ever read. For that reason alone I award it five stars.
It's unfortunately out of print. As of this writing, used copies on Amazon sell for between $70 and $213. [image error]
December 9, 2011
Deuteronomy 32:43, Was Israel Polytheistic?
"Praise his people, O you nations; for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation for the land of his people."
//There's a rather heated argument between conservative and liberal Christians as to whether Judaism was monotheistic from their very beginning, or whether the scriptures hint that Israel's earliest traditions were polytheistic. A number of archaeological finds suggest worship (or at least recognition) of multiple gods in Israel, and a number of verses in the Bible speak of "gods" or "sons of God" or "the council of gods." Not the least among these is God's own jealous directive in the ten commandments that his people worship no other gods besides him. It seems Yahweh (Jehovah) was not considered the only god, he was merely the patron god of Israel, considered by them to be the High God.
Enter today's quote. It's a verse of praise for the Hebrew god, as quoted from the RSV (Revised Standard Version), and it matches pretty closely to what you may be familiar with in the Kings James Version. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 20th century has shaken our world. Before this discovery, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 10th century CE. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back over 1,000 years to the 2nd century BCE! That's 1,000 years closer to the original words of the Hebrew Bible.
Consequently, when the NSRV (New Revised Standard Version) was published in 1989, this verse was corrected to reflect its more original wording, and now it reads very differently:
Praise, O heavens, his people,
worship him, all you gods!
For he will avenge the blood of his children,
and take vengeance on his adversaries;
he will repay those who hate him,
and cleanse the land for his people. [image error]
//There's a rather heated argument between conservative and liberal Christians as to whether Judaism was monotheistic from their very beginning, or whether the scriptures hint that Israel's earliest traditions were polytheistic. A number of archaeological finds suggest worship (or at least recognition) of multiple gods in Israel, and a number of verses in the Bible speak of "gods" or "sons of God" or "the council of gods." Not the least among these is God's own jealous directive in the ten commandments that his people worship no other gods besides him. It seems Yahweh (Jehovah) was not considered the only god, he was merely the patron god of Israel, considered by them to be the High God.
Enter today's quote. It's a verse of praise for the Hebrew god, as quoted from the RSV (Revised Standard Version), and it matches pretty closely to what you may be familiar with in the Kings James Version. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 20th century has shaken our world. Before this discovery, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 10th century CE. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back over 1,000 years to the 2nd century BCE! That's 1,000 years closer to the original words of the Hebrew Bible.
Consequently, when the NSRV (New Revised Standard Version) was published in 1989, this verse was corrected to reflect its more original wording, and now it reads very differently:
Praise, O heavens, his people,
worship him, all you gods!
For he will avenge the blood of his children,
and take vengeance on his adversaries;
he will repay those who hate him,
and cleanse the land for his people. [image error]
December 8, 2011
Guest Post: Has God Become Abstract?
Shortly after reading Banned Questions About the Bible by Christian Piatt and others, I contacted Christian asking if I could borrow a page of the book as a guest post. I had my eye on this entry by Jarrod McKenna.
After pointing out that God is portrayed as less interventionist in the New Testament than in the Old, and has since become even more abstract, the question is asked whether this is a good thing or a bad thing?
//This question reveals two worldviews that bastardize the gospel, giving birth to cheap imitations. And as Ammon Henacy reminded us, "When choosing the lesser of two evils we must not forget they are both evil." The two evils are following:
[1] God is elsewhere. This would explain the amount of evil, injustice, misery, and war in the world. God created all, but took some time off afterward, holidaying somewhere nicer, maybe by a celestial pool, while we suffer. The founders of the United States believed in a form of this called Deism. In this worldview, Jesus might be the deity popping back, seeing everything has gone to crap and then saying, "Believe in me and I'll take you elsewhere, too." The early church called this heresy "Gnosticism." In this worldview, God is abstract because God is a secret "get-out-of-creation-free" card.
The other popular option that equally lacks revolutionary energy and impulse of the scriptures is that God is not far off because:
[2] God is everything. Now, if you've grown up in a worldview in which God is always absent, where spirituality has nothing to do with creation, and where your body was always seen as bad, this might sound like a better option. Sometimes called "pantheism," it leaves us with no cosmic critique of the evil of injustice while affirming the goodness and sacredness of creation. Wars, empires, and violence in creation are all just a part of "God/Gaia/the Divine." Jesus just shows up to "enlighten us."
God is redeemer is the biblical vision that, in nuanced and elegant ways, radically affirms the goodness of the web of creation while providing an equally radical critique of all violence and injustice that has colonized it as an alien force. As Creating, Sustaining and Redeeming, the Trinity is dynamically involved in history and has acted decisively in the Incarnation, to heal the brokenness we all know, with the wholeness we sometimes feel. This will not leave us with "abstract ideas" but with an invitation to action, for by grace we can be part of God's "intervention" of the Kingdom.
After pointing out that God is portrayed as less interventionist in the New Testament than in the Old, and has since become even more abstract, the question is asked whether this is a good thing or a bad thing?
//This question reveals two worldviews that bastardize the gospel, giving birth to cheap imitations. And as Ammon Henacy reminded us, "When choosing the lesser of two evils we must not forget they are both evil." The two evils are following:
[1] God is elsewhere. This would explain the amount of evil, injustice, misery, and war in the world. God created all, but took some time off afterward, holidaying somewhere nicer, maybe by a celestial pool, while we suffer. The founders of the United States believed in a form of this called Deism. In this worldview, Jesus might be the deity popping back, seeing everything has gone to crap and then saying, "Believe in me and I'll take you elsewhere, too." The early church called this heresy "Gnosticism." In this worldview, God is abstract because God is a secret "get-out-of-creation-free" card.
The other popular option that equally lacks revolutionary energy and impulse of the scriptures is that God is not far off because:
[2] God is everything. Now, if you've grown up in a worldview in which God is always absent, where spirituality has nothing to do with creation, and where your body was always seen as bad, this might sound like a better option. Sometimes called "pantheism," it leaves us with no cosmic critique of the evil of injustice while affirming the goodness and sacredness of creation. Wars, empires, and violence in creation are all just a part of "God/Gaia/the Divine." Jesus just shows up to "enlighten us."
God is redeemer is the biblical vision that, in nuanced and elegant ways, radically affirms the goodness of the web of creation while providing an equally radical critique of all violence and injustice that has colonized it as an alien force. As Creating, Sustaining and Redeeming, the Trinity is dynamically involved in history and has acted decisively in the Incarnation, to heal the brokenness we all know, with the wholeness we sometimes feel. This will not leave us with "abstract ideas" but with an invitation to action, for by grace we can be part of God's "intervention" of the Kingdom.
December 7, 2011
Daniel 8:9-11, Typological Fulfillment
Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.
//When Isaiah prophesied that a child would be born of "a young maiden" (the Septuagint version reads "a virgin"), he probably had in mind the birth of either his own son or that of King Ahaz. When you read the verse in context, the immediacy of the prophecy is very clear. Isaiah did not have Jesus in mind, and if Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled at all, then it was fully fulfilled in his own time.
Matthew, however, when he references Isaiah's prophecy, may have considered this a typological fulfillment. It strains the imagination to think that Matthew didn't know Isaiah's prophecy had been fulfilled long ago, so we must assume Matthew meant its second fulfillment to be typological. The son of the King, in Isaiah, becomes a "type" of the birth of Jesus. The question readers must answer for themselves is this: Do you accept typological fulfillment as true prophecy?
Today's verse is another example, of primary importance to today's time. Without getting too deeply into the discussion, Daniel prophesied a conqueror, and this prophecy was fully fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. The name of the conqueror was Antiochus IV. John of Patmos then later picked up on Daniel's prophecy and applied it to the conqueror of his time: Nero Caesar. Nearly all scholars of Revelation recognize Nero Caesar as the Beast of the Sea in Revelation. John's prophecy, if taken seriously, must also be considered a typology; Daniel had no intention of prophesying an event in the first century.
But if typological fulfillment is legitimate, how, then, are we to know when a prophecy is fulfilled in its final expectation? I guess we don't, really. As regards Daniel's prophecy of a conqueror, Preterists stop at the first century, and conclude that Nero Caesar, and the great war of 67-70 A.D., is the final typological fulfillment of his scripture. It's written about in Revelation. However, most Christians take the futurist view, and conclude that the prophecy of Daniel will be fulfilled yet a third time; that it will all happen again in our future, at Armageddon. Daniel had no idea his prophecy regarding the 2nd century B.C. would be read in this manner; John had no idea his prophecy regarding the 1st century A.D. would be read in this manner; yet both events were laying down a typological foundation for an antichrist and a great war yet to come.
The flexibility of scriptural fulfillment, and the way the New Testament has taught us to think typologically, means there will always be argument about when prophecies are fulfilled. What makes us think, for example, that the next antichrist will be the final one? In my opinion, the great debate between Preterists and Futurists about whether Christ is coming again may as well be put to bed. Neither are referring to the original scriptural fulfillment of Daniel, so both are arbitrarily choosing a particular point in time to end the cycle of repeating typological fulfillments.
//When Isaiah prophesied that a child would be born of "a young maiden" (the Septuagint version reads "a virgin"), he probably had in mind the birth of either his own son or that of King Ahaz. When you read the verse in context, the immediacy of the prophecy is very clear. Isaiah did not have Jesus in mind, and if Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled at all, then it was fully fulfilled in his own time.
Matthew, however, when he references Isaiah's prophecy, may have considered this a typological fulfillment. It strains the imagination to think that Matthew didn't know Isaiah's prophecy had been fulfilled long ago, so we must assume Matthew meant its second fulfillment to be typological. The son of the King, in Isaiah, becomes a "type" of the birth of Jesus. The question readers must answer for themselves is this: Do you accept typological fulfillment as true prophecy?
Today's verse is another example, of primary importance to today's time. Without getting too deeply into the discussion, Daniel prophesied a conqueror, and this prophecy was fully fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. The name of the conqueror was Antiochus IV. John of Patmos then later picked up on Daniel's prophecy and applied it to the conqueror of his time: Nero Caesar. Nearly all scholars of Revelation recognize Nero Caesar as the Beast of the Sea in Revelation. John's prophecy, if taken seriously, must also be considered a typology; Daniel had no intention of prophesying an event in the first century.
But if typological fulfillment is legitimate, how, then, are we to know when a prophecy is fulfilled in its final expectation? I guess we don't, really. As regards Daniel's prophecy of a conqueror, Preterists stop at the first century, and conclude that Nero Caesar, and the great war of 67-70 A.D., is the final typological fulfillment of his scripture. It's written about in Revelation. However, most Christians take the futurist view, and conclude that the prophecy of Daniel will be fulfilled yet a third time; that it will all happen again in our future, at Armageddon. Daniel had no idea his prophecy regarding the 2nd century B.C. would be read in this manner; John had no idea his prophecy regarding the 1st century A.D. would be read in this manner; yet both events were laying down a typological foundation for an antichrist and a great war yet to come.
The flexibility of scriptural fulfillment, and the way the New Testament has taught us to think typologically, means there will always be argument about when prophecies are fulfilled. What makes us think, for example, that the next antichrist will be the final one? In my opinion, the great debate between Preterists and Futurists about whether Christ is coming again may as well be put to bed. Neither are referring to the original scriptural fulfillment of Daniel, so both are arbitrarily choosing a particular point in time to end the cycle of repeating typological fulfillments.
December 6, 2011
Book review: Gospel Fictions
by Randel Helms
★★★★
Helms begins his book by claiming that he writes as a literary critic of the four Gospels, not as a debunker … then he proceeds with a thorough debunking.
This is a good mix of original ideas and established scholarship. Helms' message is clear: that the Gospels are artful, fictional variations of a common theme, individualized by each author's motives. He treats separately the birth narratives, miracles, passion story, and resurrection appearances, showing how each is often related to the Old Testament in order to lend artificial authority, or derived from pagan myths or contemporary miracle claims.
I found the book thought-provoking, though a little disturbing in tone. It's short, not meant to be an in-depth study. Recommended as a starting point for research in the development of the Gospels.[image error]
★★★★
Helms begins his book by claiming that he writes as a literary critic of the four Gospels, not as a debunker … then he proceeds with a thorough debunking.
This is a good mix of original ideas and established scholarship. Helms' message is clear: that the Gospels are artful, fictional variations of a common theme, individualized by each author's motives. He treats separately the birth narratives, miracles, passion story, and resurrection appearances, showing how each is often related to the Old Testament in order to lend artificial authority, or derived from pagan myths or contemporary miracle claims.
I found the book thought-provoking, though a little disturbing in tone. It's short, not meant to be an in-depth study. Recommended as a starting point for research in the development of the Gospels.[image error]
December 5, 2011
Luke 12:47-48, The Punishment Fits the Crime
That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.
//Ignoring for now the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, traditional Christian teaching insists that all men who reject Jesus will suffer identically; that is, they will endure eternal torture together in the same hell. Mass murderers suffer the same torment as unbelievers. Have you ever wondered how a merciful God could possibly judge this way?
Perhaps Hell isn't eternal; maybe the punishment fits the crime. Here are some verses that may give you pause:
But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. –Matthew 11:22
But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." –Mark 14:21
They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." – Luke 20:47, see also Mark 12:40
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." –Romans 2:6, see also Psalms 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? –Hebrews 10:29[image error]
//Ignoring for now the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, traditional Christian teaching insists that all men who reject Jesus will suffer identically; that is, they will endure eternal torture together in the same hell. Mass murderers suffer the same torment as unbelievers. Have you ever wondered how a merciful God could possibly judge this way?
Perhaps Hell isn't eternal; maybe the punishment fits the crime. Here are some verses that may give you pause:
But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. –Matthew 11:22
But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." –Mark 14:21
They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." – Luke 20:47, see also Mark 12:40
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." –Romans 2:6, see also Psalms 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? –Hebrews 10:29[image error]
December 4, 2011
Book review: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Near-Death Experiences
by P.M.H. Atwater with David H. Morgan
★★★★★
I promised to work on a couple more books about the afterlife, and wanted to include this one. I went through a period a while back where I grew fascinated by studies of life after death, and delved into a number of different approaches to the topic. Scientific studies, though woefully inadequate to date, make for fascinating reading. I think we're just wired that way.
I read about hauntings, claims of reincarnation, visits to heaven and hell, séances, and just general paranormal events. (My computer just changed my misspelling of "paranormal" to "paranoia;" a reasonable faux pas.) More unproven than scientific, these books nevertheless kept me entertained. There is, however, one subtopic that stands head-and-shoulders above the rest, as worthy of further study.
That's near-death experiences (NDE's). But it's still difficult to locate an unbiased treatment. So biased are both the believers and the debunkers that it's quite a challenge to sort out what's legitimate and what's not.
This Idiot's Guide proved to be a well-balanced introduction. It provides not only accounts of various NDEs, but science's response. Then, the debunkers are debunked, and finally the religious get their say on the matter too. (NDE's do not always support our religious beliefs; in fact, the stories of NDE's tend to irritate exclusivists who can't stomach the idea that non-believers share the same often-glorious experiences.)
Recommended.
★★★★★
I promised to work on a couple more books about the afterlife, and wanted to include this one. I went through a period a while back where I grew fascinated by studies of life after death, and delved into a number of different approaches to the topic. Scientific studies, though woefully inadequate to date, make for fascinating reading. I think we're just wired that way.
I read about hauntings, claims of reincarnation, visits to heaven and hell, séances, and just general paranormal events. (My computer just changed my misspelling of "paranormal" to "paranoia;" a reasonable faux pas.) More unproven than scientific, these books nevertheless kept me entertained. There is, however, one subtopic that stands head-and-shoulders above the rest, as worthy of further study.
That's near-death experiences (NDE's). But it's still difficult to locate an unbiased treatment. So biased are both the believers and the debunkers that it's quite a challenge to sort out what's legitimate and what's not.
This Idiot's Guide proved to be a well-balanced introduction. It provides not only accounts of various NDEs, but science's response. Then, the debunkers are debunked, and finally the religious get their say on the matter too. (NDE's do not always support our religious beliefs; in fact, the stories of NDE's tend to irritate exclusivists who can't stomach the idea that non-believers share the same often-glorious experiences.)
Recommended.
December 3, 2011
2 Kings 3:26-27, Human sacrifice really works!
When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.
//A bit of context: King "Jumping Jehoshaphat" asks Elisha the prophet whether or not he will be victorious in a battle against Moab. Elisha calls for a harpist (music seems to aid his visionary abilities) and while the music is playing God speaks to Elisha, promising victory. So the battle begins, in which Moab is at first routed. But then Moab turns the tables with a surprising counterstrike.
Many of my blog post ideas derive from the books I review. This idea comes from David Plotz's Good Book, and Plotz is such a fun writer that I'd feel silly paraphrasing him. I'm going to invoke my privilege as a book reviewer, and just quote Good Book:
"The besieged Moabite king, on the verge of defeat, sacrifices his firstborn son as a burnt offering in plain sight of the Israelites. This turns the tide of the battle, and the Israelites flee. The theology here befuddles me. If the Moabite made his child a sacrifice to his own god, not the Lord, then it shouldn't have helped, since rival gods are presumably impotent. If the Moabite king made the sacrifice to the Lord, that shouldn't have helped either, because the Lord has made it very clear that he loathes child sacrifice. The only theory that makes sense is that the child sacrifice did not work theologically, but did work strategically. It scares the heck out of the Israelites, who figure: If he'll do that to his own son, can you imagine what he'd do to us?"
David's book: http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/06/book-review-good-book.html
//A bit of context: King "Jumping Jehoshaphat" asks Elisha the prophet whether or not he will be victorious in a battle against Moab. Elisha calls for a harpist (music seems to aid his visionary abilities) and while the music is playing God speaks to Elisha, promising victory. So the battle begins, in which Moab is at first routed. But then Moab turns the tables with a surprising counterstrike.
Many of my blog post ideas derive from the books I review. This idea comes from David Plotz's Good Book, and Plotz is such a fun writer that I'd feel silly paraphrasing him. I'm going to invoke my privilege as a book reviewer, and just quote Good Book:
"The besieged Moabite king, on the verge of defeat, sacrifices his firstborn son as a burnt offering in plain sight of the Israelites. This turns the tide of the battle, and the Israelites flee. The theology here befuddles me. If the Moabite made his child a sacrifice to his own god, not the Lord, then it shouldn't have helped, since rival gods are presumably impotent. If the Moabite king made the sacrifice to the Lord, that shouldn't have helped either, because the Lord has made it very clear that he loathes child sacrifice. The only theory that makes sense is that the child sacrifice did not work theologically, but did work strategically. It scares the heck out of the Israelites, who figure: If he'll do that to his own son, can you imagine what he'd do to us?"
David's book: http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/06/book-review-good-book.html
December 2, 2011
Book review: When People Speak for God
by Henry E. Neufeld
★★★★
Before beginning this review, I think it would be helpful to introduce Henry Neufeld and the flavor of his writings. I always wonder when I do this whether the author will be coming after me with a shotgun, because they may not be aware of the aura they give off, and may take exception to my description. But here goes.
Henry is what I would call a practical believer. You'll find no hint of fanaticism or arrogance in his writings. He's apparently done his stint with atheism, and found Christian beliefs to be more practical. While Henry is very educated in Biblical Languages and Biblical studies, and while he's happy to share the Christian beliefs he's developed, his writing is friendly and easy to read because he makes no attempt to foist his beliefs on his readers. I get the feeling he feels that would be unchristian. He makes a point of explaining that although his books address Christians because that's his own "faith group," others may worship God in alternative ways. He humbly quotes Hebrews 10:19 as instruction not to try to get people to think like him, but to encourage them listen to God for themselves.
Henry was raised a Seventh Day Adventist, and though he no longer shares their beliefs, this reliance upon the authority of Ellen White has contributed to his interest in current-day prophecy. Enter this book, When People Speak For God. It begins with a discussion of how we hear God speaking, which I confess has always seemed a bit pointless to me; those who cannot hear God will forever scoff regardless of the explanation, and those who can need no explanation.
Now, if God speaks directly to us, just like he spoke to the authors of the Bible, then he surely speaks to our acquaintances as well. Suppose someone says to you, "I have been praying about this for weeks, and this morning God spoke to me and told me what he wants us to do." Awkward silence, right? We squirm, wondering if we should capitulate. After all, who can argue against God?
What to do? God's command is to question the true source, and Henry provides us with five scriptural instructions for proper discernment. More than this, Henry believes we have every right to question the Bible's authority as well. Can we trust the development of the canon (those books considered "inspired" and thus selected for our Bible)? Can we read every word in the Bible as God-breathed? As inerrant? A discussion of inerrancy follows, and how Henry's recognition of the Bible's imperfections has not disturbed his reverence for God's Word. There is no way to prove the Bible's inerrancy anyway, because there is simply no way to measure its accuracy unless it's by comparing it against another already accepted standard, and the "errant" sources we do have (scientific and archaeological study) unfortunately do not tend to support the Bible's inerrancy.
We are left with the conclusion that recognizing the authority of any written or spoken word is an individual exercise. We must measure the words against our personal experience with God, and the spirit we find therein.
★★★★
Before beginning this review, I think it would be helpful to introduce Henry Neufeld and the flavor of his writings. I always wonder when I do this whether the author will be coming after me with a shotgun, because they may not be aware of the aura they give off, and may take exception to my description. But here goes.
Henry is what I would call a practical believer. You'll find no hint of fanaticism or arrogance in his writings. He's apparently done his stint with atheism, and found Christian beliefs to be more practical. While Henry is very educated in Biblical Languages and Biblical studies, and while he's happy to share the Christian beliefs he's developed, his writing is friendly and easy to read because he makes no attempt to foist his beliefs on his readers. I get the feeling he feels that would be unchristian. He makes a point of explaining that although his books address Christians because that's his own "faith group," others may worship God in alternative ways. He humbly quotes Hebrews 10:19 as instruction not to try to get people to think like him, but to encourage them listen to God for themselves.
Henry was raised a Seventh Day Adventist, and though he no longer shares their beliefs, this reliance upon the authority of Ellen White has contributed to his interest in current-day prophecy. Enter this book, When People Speak For God. It begins with a discussion of how we hear God speaking, which I confess has always seemed a bit pointless to me; those who cannot hear God will forever scoff regardless of the explanation, and those who can need no explanation.
Now, if God speaks directly to us, just like he spoke to the authors of the Bible, then he surely speaks to our acquaintances as well. Suppose someone says to you, "I have been praying about this for weeks, and this morning God spoke to me and told me what he wants us to do." Awkward silence, right? We squirm, wondering if we should capitulate. After all, who can argue against God?
What to do? God's command is to question the true source, and Henry provides us with five scriptural instructions for proper discernment. More than this, Henry believes we have every right to question the Bible's authority as well. Can we trust the development of the canon (those books considered "inspired" and thus selected for our Bible)? Can we read every word in the Bible as God-breathed? As inerrant? A discussion of inerrancy follows, and how Henry's recognition of the Bible's imperfections has not disturbed his reverence for God's Word. There is no way to prove the Bible's inerrancy anyway, because there is simply no way to measure its accuracy unless it's by comparing it against another already accepted standard, and the "errant" sources we do have (scientific and archaeological study) unfortunately do not tend to support the Bible's inerrancy.
We are left with the conclusion that recognizing the authority of any written or spoken word is an individual exercise. We must measure the words against our personal experience with God, and the spirit we find therein.
