I don't want nothing

Its my birthday on the 9th of December. I'm one of those luck few who work in a secure job, is married and does not have any children. I think the term is DINKs. Now because of that, and because when the first world is feeling poor it means they don't eat out as much but for the third world they just don't eat, I thought I should use my birthday to raise some money for people who are not DINKs. For people who don't have pipes into their homes, who would dream of living in a country that has water restrictions. You can visit this page for more details:

http://mycharitywater.org/ampers28thBirthday

Why water? Well we all need it, and their website is cool to allow this type of social networking fund-raising thing. They seem to know how to use technology (they once had a twitter fund-raiser), and I like that.

Also over the last two months my posts have been infrequent. This is mostly because I have been trying to write some essay for St Marks/CSU. Tomorrow is when my last essay is due for the semester so once that is finished I should post some more.

Over all my studies this semester was good. In total I had 5 essays to do, ranging from source criticism, metaphors of the church, Hebrews 1, authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and leadership and authority of the church.

But for now I have to finish my last essay.

Church vs Cancer

I read this a few days ago and it stuck with me...

When you ask what is the purpose of making converts, the answer is, so they can make more converts, and when you ask what is the purpose of those further converts, it is so they can make more converts. There is, in others words, an infinite regress. And, as we know from the medical analogy, the multiplication of cells unrelated to the purpose of the body is what we call cancer.... I do think that a very sharp criticism needs to be made against the idea that the Church exists simply to make more members, irrespective of the purpose for which the Father sent the Son into the world, which is that the presence of the reign of God might be a reality now. - Lesslie Newbigin (A Word in Season, p58)

Canberra Men’s Tough Times

Last Saturday about 260 guys turned up to the Canberra Men's Christian Convention at ANU. Al Stewart spoke on the topic of Tough Times and looked at the life of Joseph in Genesis 37-50. He gave three talks that were insightful and encouraging. Because of the amount of bible in the story Al would drill into some events more than some, but still gave a good balance to the entire story. Al had a down to earth way of speaking that made him easy to listen to and relate with. Throughout the talk he drew on ideas from Tim Keller but also was clear where he deviated from him.

The first talk was recognising the fact that pain is life. Sometimes when we are in the muck we cannot see a bigger picture or some grand scheme, but only in hindsight can we see lessons learnt or certain situation that impact the direction of your life. In Genesis 37 God is absent from the picture and a series of horrible things happen to a mixed up family. But only at the end of the story do we see any purpose for it.

The next talk was on Genesis 39-41 and dealing with temptation. Al saw four possible temptations that Joseph faced: to misuse power, to sleep with Potiphar's wife, to feel sorry for himself and to take revenge. It was pointed out that when we give into temptation the two main ideas we have is that God is mean and is withholding something from us, or that God is stupid and doesn't know what is best. Al challenged us to live with faith in God and to flee temptation.

The last talked wrapped up the story of Joseph (Genesis 42-50) and looked at how Joseph tested his brothers and did not see to end them. I thought it was a good re-telling of the story and it showed the sovereignty of God thought sinful actions and people. Al talked about how sometimes we might think that the world is out of control and being driven by a 4 year, but we sometimes fail to see that also at the wheel is the hand of God, who controls where the wheel goes.

There was also a question time that felt very short. I like watching how people think on the fly and it was great to see Al think out loud as he processed the questions. A few times Al asked the recording to stop and spoke "off air" which was something that I've never seen done before at a conference. But with him doing that, he came across as a very honest, humble and down to earth real guy. Because the Canberra Men's Christian Convention guys are cool, the audio (and maybe the video) will be up on their website for free soon.

Mark Twain - God is not just

Christopher Hitchens introduces Mark Twain in the Portable Atheist by saying that he had trouble being taken seriously when talking about grave topics. I think the use of wit to make a point sometimes drives it home more, but that might be my 21st century thinking. The two essay in the Portable Atheist were published after Mark's death due to the "climate of bigotry" (page 116). Unlike the first century Christians and some modern day Chinese Christians who proclaim their faith publicly, it seems Twain was a bit worried about what the culture thought of his ideas.

Mark starts off his Thoughts of God by explaining how annoying the fly is. Mark sees that flys has no other purpose except for annoying things so therefore there is no need for the fly. I wonder why he picked the fly as other creatures in nature annoy another as the lion annoys is prey, and so are humans do towards cows and chickens. One animal is the annoyance of another. It think its called the food chain.

Mark argues that if a person made the fly he must be "a man destitute of feeling; a man willing to wantonly torture and harass and persecute myriads of creatures who had never done him any harm and could not if they wanted to, and - the majority of them - poor dumb things not even aware of his existence." (page 117) that person would also think "that it is fair and right to send afflictions upon the just - upon the unoffending as well as upon the offending, without discrimination." (page 117)

The last two paragraphs of this essay has the main thrust of his argument against God.

"We hear much about His patience and forbearance and long-suffering; we hear nothing about our own, which much exceeds it." (page 117).

I'm not so sure about this statement. I mean we can put up with a fly for a few minutes before we try and kill the sucker, but what if your own creation turns against you and wants nothing to do with you. How many thousands of years would you put up with them? The person who swats the fly has run out of patients with it. Fortunately God hasn't yet with us.

Mark raises his main objection here:

The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow which we can relieve and do not do it, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin, then? (page 118)

If we see something that can help someone else and do not do it then we sin, but surely God can see all sorts of injustice he could stop and doesn't, therefor God is the greater sinner.

It seems that Mark wants a world that doesn't conform to standard expectations. When something bad is about to happen Mark would like God to intervene. If you slip over does God make the ground softer or the speed at which you fall slower or does he stop people from walking in the first place? What if you fall out of a plane? What if you wanted to go sky diving? Would airplanes be stopped by God in the first place? Is seems that for us to be free agents, we need a consistent predictable world that we can deal with.

You help someone by giving them something they need. When someone is hungry you give them food, when cold you give them clothes and blankets. God gives us people to help other people. The church is to be God's representatives on earth. Yes it sometimes has failed, but the idea is still alive. Since the we are free agents, that means there is a chance that the church can (and does in many cases) still live up to its role.

Another thing God has given humanity is Jesus who found out what its like to suffer on this earth. He knows what flys are and how annoying they can be. He has suffered to the point of death. God has given us a Redeemer and Saviour for we are all under death and we have all done wrong, but now, because of God's grace we can be helped and freed from sin and death.

You can read Twain's Thoughts of God here.

A Biblical Riddle

Throughout history Christians have liked to read. The protestant reformation had the crazy idea that people should be able to read the bible in their own language and not just take the priests Latin word for it. The reformation sparked a whole heap of new writings to the lay person and since the printing press had just been invented (about 200 years after the Chinese had worked it out), it escalated the production of religious texts.

Now days we can look back on all these texts and read them. Also literacy rates have increases and Christian bookstalls have continued to stock the latest and greatest. While my wife was flicking through a Christian bookshop catalog she spied a book that may well be the first (well its a sequel so it has to be the second) in a new Christian genera. Its called Fun Bible Sudoku 2.

Fun Bible Sudoku 2. Its fun, its bible, its a sudoku and its part two. Some bright spark has found a hole in the market so now Christan's don't have to do those pagan sudokus in the newspaper. Whats so bible about the numbers 1-9 in a random order? Well.. um... the bible has those numbers in them... well the English ones do anyway... I think its best not to ask too many questions, it might just make you sigh a little to hard...

I worry about what it says about my faith if I am unable to complete one of the puzzles.

ANU Debate - Do Athesits have faith?

Today there was a debate between the Amazing Atheists (they don't have a website) and FOCUS. The topic was "Do Atheist have faith?". The whole set up was hard to hear as it was held outside and they were not allowed microphones. To make things more annoying some other group across the square had some one talking down their own megaphone.

Faith was defined as a certainty in something. Atheism was defined by the Christian group as being a denial of God and agnosticism was defined as being unsure of god's existence. The atheist group defined both atheist and agnostic the same thing, because over time through the general everyday use of the language these two words mean the same thing. From that point on, both teams were almost talking past each other.

It was hard to hear but from what I gathered the Christian group held up reason but not as the ultimate source of truth. They argued that both the Christian and atheist look at the same evidence and interpret them different. Once that has been done they then make a decision and commit to that. At that point they both have faith.

The atheist group (perhaps better called the agnostic group) denied this and said that would like to believe there is a god but there is not enough evidence so who really knows? The said that atheists have beliefs but not faith. I liked how they drew a distinction between belief and faith but not between atheism and agnosticism.

I spoke to someone earlier about this topic and they agreed that atheists do not have faith. The bible defines faith in Hebrews as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Taken as this definition of faith clearly an agnostic doesn't have it, and I am not sure if an atheist has hope in what they believe. Both teams have beliefs, the atheist group today said that, but with this definition of faith, then maybe they just don't.

There were some good questions from the crowd. The first speaker for the atheists was the most passionate in question time and I think the organiser of the debate. I spoke to him afterwards and thanked him for hosting the event. Tomorrow they are running a ball outside and handing out free ice cream and condoms. (I think they might have too high of an expectation for the night). They run meetings at 5pm on Wednesdays and as it tuns out every second Wednesday afternoon I have time to kill, so I might pop round and see them (I gave then no guarantees). I think a showing of collision might be in order when it comes out.

Another thing Josephus said

Later on in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews there is another reference to Jesus. This time there is not much debate about it as it is only a passing reference to him. here we have in 20.200:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...

This passing reference to Jesus means that the previous reference must of existed to some extent because otherwise the really is no need for James to be associated with Jesus at all. It seems that James is mentioned to be in relation to the more famous Jesus who we read about earlier.

What can we say?

Not much about this text can be said about Jesus other than

1. Jesus had a brother James

For a quick interview with Chris Forbes on the two Josephus references see below:

Josephus and Jesus: a Christian forgery? from CPX on Vimeo.

What Josephus probably said

When we remove what most historians think was doctored from the first Jesus quote of Josephus we get the following:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

What can we say

From this quote we can see that

1. Jesus was considered a teacher
2. Jesus was considered a doer of might works (miracles perhaps)
3. Jews and Gentiles followed him
4. Jesus died under Pilate
5. Jesus died on a cross
6. Jesus had followers at the end of the first century

Anything else?

What Josephus didn't say

One of the most well know and debated references of Jesus outside the bible is from Josephus (37-100 AD). Josephus was a Jewish historian who published some great works in his time. In his Antiquities of the Jews (93 or 94 AD), he set out to publish a fuller history of the Jewish people from the dawn of time to his day. In this volume Jesus is mentioned twice.

Josephus first quote

The first reference to Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jew (18.63-64) we have the following:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The main problem with this quote is that most historians believe this to be tampered with, and with good reason. Jesus rocked the Jewish system too much and proclaimed to be the Christ, which got him killed. A Jew would have never call Jesus the Christ and nor would he have been so neutral about the reports of Jesus resurrection.

To add some confusion an Arabic copy (as opposed to the Greek one above) of the Antiquities of the Jews has Josephus saying "he was perhaps the Christ" and that it was "reported that he appeared to them alive again on the third day". This copy may in fact reflect Josephus sentiment.

In all likely hood an early Christan scribe made adjustments to Josephus's work to paint Jesus in a better picture. Some argue that the scribe might of used text from Luke 24:19-21, 26-27 (but I'm not convinced):

And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened....Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

In the next post we will see what we have left once we remove the suspected doctored comments.