The economy hits home...

A little over four years ago I lost a job as a glorified manager for a non-profit facility whose board of directors (well, one person in particular...) viewed the facility as a tuxedo-laden opera house when, in reality, it's a public auditorium. I left the job of being a grocery store manager an hour's drive from my home with insane hours, either early morning start time or late night end time, along with physical exertion (which actually, minus the weight loss, got me in decent shape).

Anyhow...

When I lost this job, rather than go for unemployment, something I've never done, I took a temp job. From a suit and tie in the public spotlight to a day laborer running presses in a metal stamping plant, my career muttness took a strange twist. At the time, however, and at far less than half my previous salary, I found contentment in it. Perhaps it was shedding the suit and tie, perhaps it was leaving the hassle of a board of directors looking for a puppet, but I enjoyed the rhythm and monotony of putting a part on a press and pushing a button. I enjoyed the people I met and found getting my hands dirty to be a form or therapy.

At the time I also picked up a weeekend job working midnights. Not a hard job, mind you, but the midnight shift was rough, especially considering the fact that it was Saturday/Sunday midnight, Sunday leading right into Monday morning for a 16-hour shift to start every week.

But between the two jobs, we made it work at about half the salary I had previously. There were cuts in usual activities, bills that fell behind, medical bills that accumulated with the loss of insurance, filing for assistance with utilities. I soon learned what it was like to have bills go to collections, to have collections agencies calling my house and to watch my credit fall from immaculate to being rejected for credit card applications, things which had never previously happened. My credit score was a symbol of my identity, an indication that I was responsible and had financial freedom when it came to credit options.

But I was living on the edge. Not dangerously. No. Just my debt to income ratio was higher than was wise. But the bills were being paid so it was ok. Due to a life of relative modesty and not too much interest in "stuff" we were not devastated by the turn of events. We struggled, certainly, and had to change things, but overall we managed to be ok.

Over time I was fortunate enough to move up in various positions at the company, surfing the changes and doing quite well. Not quite the salary I had previously but, between the two jobs, getting pretty close. My hours adjusted, I began obtaining training and a viable career path. I picked up an additional shift on the weekend, working 24 hours over the course of a weekend for a 64 hour work week.

Realizing that I had been very fortunate in terms of my career muttness, I began to realize how privileged I had been without being aware of it. I spent a few years "slacking" but I still had the cushion, untouched, of an IRA accumulated from reaping the benefits of working in the cellular industry during its early 90s boom. This was a security blanket of last resort, a "well, if I lose everything I can cash this out..." kind of thing.

However, I had to tap out the IRA to fix the roof on the house and pick up another beater to replace my other beater. So we began to get the bills under control again, the long process of cleaning up collections accounts and past due bills began.

And then came late 2008. The economy tanked. The facility I work in was not exempt and, as a manufacturing facility tied to the automotive/truck industry, the business felt its impact. It impacted my wage and, as of this week, hours at job two. I have now lost roughly 25% of my income. Add to that the need to raise the withholding tax as we owe the IRS this year and life has gotten interesting.

No longer in the position to which I was promoted, I am back running presses. But I still run the hell out of them. There is a sense of pride in running them quickly, looking for ever more efficient ways to do things.

Standing and bending for eight hours a day now while breaking in a new pair of steel toe boots and going home and continuing P90X at a high level of intensity did a number on my hip. Now I can't even exercise at the moment.

So at once my faith has gotten stronger, independent of, or at least not causally related to, my job and at the same time my other forms of security to which I once clung so tightly, has slipped.

Add to that the darkness of an addiction coming to light and I feel the power of resurrection.

Irony indeed.

I believe it...

Not sure when this happened but I believe. It's the strangest thing. As I contine digesting The Roots of Christian Mysticism with highlighter in hand, I get it. And I believe it. And slowly, every so slowly, I am healing.

Where is the proof? In my life. The more I find myself immersed in it, the more I find the things of this world to be illusory and I am less and less attached. This is not hating the world. That's not it at all. More and more I begin to see the real value in it.

Life is relationship. And as I heal I am able to relate to people in ways I haven't been able to when locked up inside my shell. My hope is that as I come out of my shell what people see is not me but Christ in me.

A few years ago I would have thought such a sentence sounded fundamentalist, looney even. Now, as I say it, I get it.

Jesus died for you? Continued...

But now [are they] many members, yet but one body.
And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if {one} member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:21, 26-27, NASB)

We are part of a whole. If one of us is ill, we are all ill.

This passage may be talking in context to a particular group of believers but if Jesus died for the sins of the whole world then the whole world is, in essence, his body. If one member suffers, all the members suffer. This is the heart of compassion. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...

The choice is ours as to whether or not to participate. The "mission" of the Christian is not to "get people saved" but to bring people back into the fold, to restore them to their rightful place as children of God.

When Jesus told those he healed to go show the priests it, the healing wasn't the point. The larger picture was that Jesus reintroduced those outcasts (and the list of those outcast was large) back into the community.

With this change of focus we realize that it really isn't about me. I am only a part. So it isn't about how much stuff I can accumulate, how spiritual I am, how cute and charming I am. The only thing that matters is others.

What a hard task! But Jesus emptied himself to the point of death on the cross. Even as he was being crucified he sought the forgiveness of those crucifying him.

What does it mean to say that Jesus died for you?

Jesus did not come to save you. Jesus came and restored fallen humanity, of which you are a part. This doesn't mean God isn't thinking of you, nor that He hasn't thought of you before you were formed.

But it takes the emphasis off of the great em ee, away from this "personal" salvation which Christianity has become. It's about me. I am saved, I am going to heaven, look what God has done for me. Me, me, me.

To say that Jesus has restored fallen humanity, of which we are a part, places his finished work in a greater context. It is about us only as much as it is about everyone else. We, as a whole, are his body. Not just you, not just me. All of us.

Found this in Olivier Clement's The Roots of Christian Mysticism:

...for it is not the isolated individual but humanity in communion, or rather, all human beings together, who truly constitute the image of God. (p. 81)

And, quoting, Gregory of Nyssa, from his On the Creation of Man:

"It is the whole of [human] nature, extending from the beginning to the end [of history], that constitutes the image of Him who is." (p. 82)

Christ thus provided human nature, as a whole, with what Gregory of Nyssa called "the capacity for resurrection..." In other words, the 'body of Christ' is not you and me but all of us, everyone, throughout history, whether or not they have participated or not. Clement again:

"He rose from the dead in secret, and is recognized only by those who love him. In the Holy Spirit, he walks at everyone's side, but he waits for the response of loving faith, that Yes like Mary's, by which our freedom is set free." (p. 57)

The work is done. Once and for all.

The Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

I have been captivated by the Trinity. It is not thinking about the Trinity but thinking in the Trinity.

Yes. I do believe.

How do you define success?

I was talking with a friend of mine today who is head of Catholic Charities Services, the agency I worked for while working with the homeless as an outreach coordinator. It was perhaps the pivotal period of time in my faith. I was a "new" Christian then, studying religion and Biblical criticism at the university level, my intellect outweighing my heart at the time until I began working with the homeless.

Anyhow, he has been involved with a group of local evangelical Christians who are business leaders/owners and the question in the title came up. All the men, though they struggled with the question, tended to answer it in terms of financial terms, i.e. their business is doing well, their needs and wants are filled, they have financial security, etc.

My friend point out Philippians 2:5-8:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (NASB)

Now in many neo-Protestant circles, these passages are for one thing only: to prove that Jesus is God (never mind the Trinity, never mind theological subtles, just that Jesus is God). The finer point of the passage is glossed over.

"...but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (NASB)

In other words, how does blessed (i.e. success) translated in material terms line up with Jesus? It would seem to me to contradict his message. His message was radical.

"Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go {and} sell your possessions and give to {the} poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:21, cf. Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22)

No getting around it. This is the ideal.

This doesn't mean we have to be poor. Just as being wealthy is not indicative of one's faith, neither is being poor. It's the other side of the coin. This is looking at the outside of the cup. It says nothing of what is in one's heart.

But any wealth is to be used for others. Give to the poor. We are vessels, stewards of what is God's.

"The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

It is God's. We are thus stewards. If it is given to us, it is for a purpose and just as Christ emptied himself, so too are we to empty ourselves and become a vessel through which God can reach others. We are to be the light of the world.

Sadly, our notions of "salvation" and "saved" and "blessing" have become self-centered, personal, me-oriented with material/financial overtones. In other words, we define success by the standards of the culture at large and not the other way. No wonder people can't distinguish a Christian from anyone else, other than the oddball culture that many Christianities have birthed.

The oddest preachers, the celebrities on television or viral videos (think of the Farting Preacher) and that is the closest Christianity comes to a "culture" of its own.

Yet too often Christians go the other route and try to be cool, hip and down with the culture at large.

C'mon. Bumper stickers, crosses on chains, the ubiquitous Jesus fish, pamphlets, leaflets, flyers, business cards, hats, Jesus on a motorcycle, Jesus playing hoops and on and on and on they go cluttering up the landscape.



They are trinkets. You can be cool and be a Christian. The culture drives the faith rather than other way around.

Debt and the mess we are in...

The root cause of the current economic situation is not the banks, nor the government, nor corporations, nor the decline in manufacturing. No, the root cause is me. And you. We are culpable. We want. We desire. We crave. We are self-centered and consumerism is simply the manifestation of this inner drive. Think about it.

All these other institutions stem from the individuals involved, not from the institutions themselves, as if they run without human intervention.

If we didn't have to own things or want newer or bigger things or the latest technology, the instant gratification of everything now, would we have all this debt? Would we have credit cards? Mortgages we can't afford? Car loans on automobiles worth less than the loan value?

I am just as guilty. I pay my bills on time though I have a debt load that has become a prison. The choices I made years ago still haunt me. Had I followed my own advice then I wouldn't be in the mess I'm in now.

I don't expect a government bailout and don't believe the bailout will fix anything unless we change our behaviour.

"The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower {becomes} the lender's slave." (Proverbs 22:7)

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:4)

And the famous, and misquoted:

"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:10)

Yet Paul hits the essence of the matter on the head:

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law." (Romans 13:8)

The Jubilee code of Leviticus 25 is a hidden gem in the Bible. It is often overlooked or ignored, perhaps because it is not know if it was every truly practised or if it is because it is buried in the midst of Leviticus' rather dry and lengthy list of shalls and shall nots. But it is well worth visiting.

Here is an interesting article pulled up by a quick search:

The Jubilee Code

I had studied this in some detail while in school but have become rusty on it. Perhaps it is a good time to revisit it and join the debate.

Musings on the Trinity

Q: Can someone explain to me the doctrine of the trinity?

A: It's something of a mental framework through which to filter what we find in the Bible. It’s a hedge, something you come to not something you begin with. Ultimately, however, it is more experiential than anything else.

Q: Why are some Christians so attached to it?

A: Perhaps they've never thought much about it. Perhaps it has been hammered into them from childhood and they’ve accepted it without questions.

Perhaps it is the most sensible explanation for the Biblical text.

Perhaps the Church Fathers who struggled for about 300 years or more to put into language what is deeper than words came up with the best explanation of a framework in which to provide a structure that would enable a Church to survive for 2,000 years.

Q: Do you really lose anything by just saying that God is one person, not three persons?

A: How do you understand the term person?

Attachment and desire...

"Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Mark 10:21, NASB)

"Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go {and} sell your possessions and give to {the} poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:21, NASB)

"When Jesus heard {this,} He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Luke 18:22, NASB)

That is revolutionary.

Is this selling of all and giving to the poor a mandate in itself? Is Jesus calling this charity or simply a means to another end? Jesus says elsewhere that the poor will always be with us so he isn't calling for a form of communism to eliminate poverty. The scenes in Acts 2 and 4 show this played out but even there the call isn't to form a commune but to free one's self from the 'stuff' of the world.

Not only are we called to sell all our stuff, we are asked to give up ourselves in the process. This, it seems to me, is the second step in the process. First we must eliminate the stuff of the world, the possessions to which we attach ourselves, giving it power that is not there. The next step, then, is to deny ourselves.

"And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me." (Mark 8:34, NASB)

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24, NASB)

"And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Luke 19:34, NASB)

What has happened to the Christians?

How is it that Christianity has become a means to wealth creation?

Revolution...

Any longlasting and effective change has come when the people get together and speak up. Most recently we saw this in the U.S. elections. In 2004, the people spoke but everyone knows that election was basically stolen. That's ok, I'm not so sure Kerry would have been anything more than the not-Bush vote. Ditto 2000 with Al Gore.

Anyhow, in 2008 people actually voted for Obama. Sure there was a definite "we're sick of this Republican regime" sentiment but the people spoke and Obama was elected. The people spoke.

But the people cannot depend on government to effect change. This can only come from people.

But what is this revolution? What is it we want? There are so many revolutions to be fought that it renders them all ineffectual.

A spiritual revolution? We hear this in the Churches. But which Church? There are far too many denominations or non-denominational denominations, each with their own version of revolution, Catholic vs. Protestant, Oneness vs. Trinitarian, mainline vs. non-denomination, megachurch vs. storefront church, Christian vs. Christian.

An economic revolution? A green revolution? What is it we want?

I want less stuff. But it's not as easy as it appears as I type away on my computer, listening to my mp3 player with my special headphones, waiting to head for my house in my pickup truck where we are overflowing with stuff. We are not "into" stuff but when you live somewhere for a long time, stuff accumulates.

Perhaps that is my revolution. To make a move toward eliminating stuff. This would include my books. I've thinned out over the years but still have way too many books and way too many forms of media containing music. CDs, vinyl albums, cassettes, even the ethereal stuff of over 100 GBs of music on my computer.

No wonder Jesus says it's hard for the rich man to get into heaven. He's got too much baggage for the journey.

Sell everything we have to follow him?

An American Poem - Ras Baraka

Every so often, a lyric, or a poem, or a song comes along and just knocks you to your senses. I've lately been reading up on workers' movements at the early part of the twentieth century and just finished watching the movie Reds, about John Reed, the I.W.W., the Soviet Revolution in Russia and all the labor struggles that took place.

How far we've come; how far we've fallen.

So I'm listening to Ame's Fabric 42 mix and get to Edward's Raw Structure and hear this line:

"Are there any American poets in here?
I wanna hear an American poem
Something America, you know
Something American, you know.
Some sassy shit.
A South Carolina slave shout or
Alabama backwoods church shack call and response"

And I'm hooked. What is this? Who is this? It is gripping and reinforces what is true about this country. Not our ideals, not this "American" vision but this American reality.

Variations of it are floating around the electronic dance scene and you can see Ras Baraka himself perform it here:



Here are the words (and a few question marks) from the link above. There are variations of the poem out there (see bracketed verses). If some of the references aren't familiar, check 'em out, educate yourself a bit.

"Are there any American poets in here?

I wanna hear an American poem
A South Carolina slave shout or
Alabama backwoods church shack call and response

I wanna hear an American poem
An American poem
About share croppers on the side of the road
Of families in cardboard boxes.
Not about kings or majestic lands or how beautiful ugly can be
I wanna hear some American poetry
[I wanna hear some American shit
Some American poetry
Something about ghettos of Italians, of Jews, of Germans, of niggas]
About abandoned projects and lead poison and poverty and children in jail.

I wanna hear a poem about a picket line and the Joe Hill legend, struggle for an eight our day
Hey you, hey you
Where are all the American poems about Harlem number runners and barbershop conversations about colored faces on color tvs

I wanna hear an American poem, something American, as American as jazz,
Or a South Bronx burner brandished on abandoned buildings
A scratch tune
A breakbeat
A backspin
A beatbox
A rap song
In Congo Square
Niggas beatin' on buckets on Broad Street,
As American as the Zulu Nation and the Latin Kings

I wanna hear an American poem
About a dead girl on Chadwick Avenue with a bullet in her neck
From a cop doin’ his job ordered by Fascism and crack cocaine
You know, something made in the USA
Something American

An Afro Cuban New Yo Rican Latin tinged beatin' bomba and plena
Sprawling out of the wide open tenement windows in the middle of the winter
On the verge of East Harlem on North Newark
Poems of brown colleagues (?)
Of Albizu being tortured for breathing Taino blood
Screaming African tongues
Dialoguing in Spanish for being him (?)
Puerto Rican self and worst of all loving it

My God where is all the American poetry

[Not poems about your attic
Not poems about how your clothes fit
Or f***ing poems
And stale slobber
Nor the night before
Or the morning after
I don't wanna hear about your shoes
Or your statues
And your fantasies
There's no more American poetry]

Just death marches and stoic laughter
Niggers being funny
No American poets
No I won't boost your morale
Or play your songs
Or make you feel comfortable
Or build your ego
Or play my part
I just wanna hear an American poem
Something native like the Trail of Tears
Wounded Knee or smallpox and blankets
You know American
Something that represents us

[I wanna hear an American poem
With American images like Welcome Back Kotter
Or White Shadow or Different Strokes
About white gods who guide helpless niggas to the light
American you know
Something that represents us]

A colorful rainbow, a big bright fist
An uncorrected sentence
Improper English
As American as Cointelpro
Peakskill New York
Robeson singing out of the back of a truck
Nina Simone playing at the Village Gate
With Baldwin playing next to her on the piano stool
And Amina [and Amiri] Baraka in the audience
Air filled with cognac and Mississippi Goddamn

Capture that moment
Write something about that
An American masterpiece
You know an American poem
Something strictly American

Like Red summer
Strange fruit
Palmer Raids
Hey you, yeah, you, yeah, you, you
Something American
U.S.A. America
America U.S.A.
As American as the KKK

[Hayes Tilden 1877
Dred Scott 1857
Brown vs. Board of Education
Sweat vs. Painter
Smith vs. Allwright
Smith vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Us vs. them
Them vs. us
Us vs. them
Them vs. us]

A poem about Emmett Till will do
Tallahachee River
Church bombings and child murderers
About Alabama red dirt and boycotts in Montgomery
About families migrating north with dignity and shotguns

I wanna hear a poem
I wanna hear an American poem
About a beautiful black boy
Can’t you see him
A beautiful black boy colored into the night
His eyes the stars, his hands are willed (?)
About a beautiful black boy in the middle of a project playing checkers with glass and stone who beats buckets as drums and plays the horn in his sleep

I wanna hear a poem about a beautiful brown girl
A incredibly, beautiful brown girl
With an aged mahogany smile and flower petals for lips
And a beautiful brown girl with a poem in her eyes
With a poem in her eyes
A poem in her eyes and a gun in her hand sitting in a puddle of tears in Clinton’s women’s facility in the Garden State in the land of the free
You know, something American
Something that represents me."

Why the Bible?

Am I any less of a believer because I don't look to the Bible to be the scientifically verifiable, mathematical precise truth? In other words, I am not a literalist.

Did Balaam's ass really talk? Did the sun really stand still for Joshua? Did Jesus really walk on water?

I hold open the possibility. That is my faith. Do I need these to be scientifically, verifiably true?

No.

But of course that opens up other questions: did Jesus really rise from the dead? If so, in what sense? Spiritually? Physically?

Yes.

I believe the claims that it happened according to the Bible. What that means through the lens of my post-enlightenment, post-modern mind is a different story.

It does, however, open up my mind to deeper levels of understanding of the human condition and our purpose on earth. It burrows deep into the soul, beyond the joints and marrow, to quote Hebrews 4:12. It gets in there.

The Bible is a book of community experience, of representative humanity, each book, each chapter, each person a "type" of each of us. We see ourselves, in various situations, in various characters, and it is through their lives as story we begin to see Truth. Truth, in this sense, comes through the pages of the Bible.

If we quote a verse that somehow quoting it means something, we miss the point, as if a mere quote of a verse proves something. It is the application of it that is important, the Word buried in our heart, transforming us into the likeness of He who inspired it. We become the living word. We, in this sense, become the Bible.

The Bible, as it stands, without application, is just a book.

The question remains: Would it be any less true if Jesus didn't walk on water?

Desire...

The film Baraka is re-released with a new, updated transfer and remastered edition. There is also a Blu-Ray version out. Now, I can get the updated version for use on my non-high def television or get a Blu-Ray player for my non-high def television.

Or get an HD television and remastered version. Or get an HD TV with Blu-Ray player and Blu-Ray version.

I opt for none of the above. I'm just not buying it, though I certainly desire it.

Desire drives the economy.

I'm not going to help.

John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 Part Two

And we continue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Whether or not the early Church Fathers “made the connection” is somewhat superfluous.

I am simply pointing out that they were either reading the texts in the original Greek, their native language, or heard them spoken in such fashion. I don’t know for certain that the koine Greek in which the texts were written was the same dialect as that of the Fathers but Greek was the native tongue of the early Fathers.

For us today, it is a dead language so we are learning it less intuitively and much more theologically.

Quote:

We have since had some 2000 years of brilliant (and at times, not so brilliant), scholars examining the Scriptures and discovering things that they may have never even imagined.

Certainly and in many cases for the better. But we have also had 2,000 years of theology by which we read into the texts. More recent doesn’t always equate to better.

Quote:

Secondly it’s an argument from silence. While we have Church Fathers commenting on the passage of John 8:58 itself, (as you provided), we don’t seem to have any that actually comment directly comparing John with Exodus.

I would think that if it was so blatantly obvious, they would have said something. I remain convinced that textually the connection was not there.

Quote:

I will, however, zero in on this particular passage from Irenaeus:

First of all, the brackets are completely yours. Irenaeus does not say “i.e. the Father not Jesus.”

Of course he doesn't. That's why I put the brackets in there. Didn’t mean to imply they were in the original text.

Quote:

Secondly, notice the first sentence that states, “Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God…”

What Irenaeus had ‘already stated’ is found in the preceding paragraph where you will find him declaring,

“Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it:..” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI,1)

Quote:

Irenaeus is clearly stating that the name “Lord” and the word “God” (as used in the OT), refers to both the Father and the Son.

That's my point. It is the Father and the Son. The key is that the "He who is" (i.e. the ho on as found in Exodus 3:14 of the LXX) refers to the Father.

Quote:

As I stated before, since they don’t comment directly about a comparison, no conclusions should be made. We don’t know if they ever made the connection or not. If they did, there is nothing extant that has survived.

That too is an argument from silence. What we do have is a pretty strong indication that they did not make the connection.

Quote:

I don’t really buy that they misunderstood him in this context. They certainly rejected him, they certainly felt he posed a threat to their authority, I doubt they ever believed him, but misunderstand him? I think not! While Jesus was at times very misunderstood by everyone, (including his own disciples), John doesn’t tell us this was the case here.

He doesn't say they misunderstood him in other places either but it's pretty evident they do.

Quote:

It does when you understand that the EGO EIMI name literally means the “eternally existing one.”

The ego is for emphasis of eimi. Eimi is the Greek verb "to be." It does not mean 'eternally existing one.' Ho on, not ego eimi, in the LXX, means "he/the one who is".

Quote:

When Moses asked God what his name was, the name given was “the eternally existing one.” (EGO EIMI).

Ho on, not ego eimi. It would read in English something like this: "I, even I, am he who is." The ego eimi is the "I, even I, am" and the ho on is the "he/the one who is" part.

John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14

This was part of a debate. My responses are in blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Your argument is based on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies objections to the deity of Christ. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

My argument is based on the original Greek of both the New Testament and the Septuagint.

I'm not denying that Christians believe in the deity of Jesus. I'm saying that John 8:58 is a tenuous connection to Exodus 3:14 and that this verse was not understood by the early Church Fathers (who were Greek) as Jesus calling himself YHWH.

Quote:

The problem with their argument and yours is two fold. One is that you will never get any biblical language scholar to agree with what you just said...

Why not?

Besides, it would also mean that the Church Fathers didn't understand the original Greek. They do not make the connection:

John 8:58:

"And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham." - Irenaeus, Lost Fragments, LII

But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am") - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XIII, 4

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;” and again, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am. - Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, IX

Exodus 3:14-15:

Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all [i.e. the Father, not Jesus], who also said to Moses, “I am that I am [i.e. the Father, not Jesus]. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;” and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, “I am come down to deliver this people.”

For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. As also Esaias says, “I too am witness,” he declares, “saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am [Isaiah 43:10].” - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI, 2

I don't have the original Greek available of Irenaeus or Ignatius but I'm guessing you'll find that the "I am" of Isaiah 43:10 above is ego eimi that parallels John 8:58. The "He who is" in the above passage, used of the Father, will be ho on.

Perhaps talk of Trinitarian language (though the Holy Spirit is absent from mention of Father/Son in the above passage) would come in to play here but the Fathers do not draw a direct connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. From what I can tell the connection isn't made between Isaiah 43:10 and John 8:58 either.

Justin Martyr speaks in great detail of the burning bush incident in chapter LXIII of his First Apology of Justin but no connection to John 8:58 (which, perhaps, he didn't know).

I'm open to hearing thoughts on the above mentioned passages.

Quote:

...and secondly it doesn’t explain why the Jews being in the Temple courtyard “took up stones to stone him.” This reaction by Jewish leaders could only have been justified because they viewed Christ’s statement as blasphemy.(See Leviticus 24).

Maybe they misunderstood him. After all, they misunderstood him everywhere else in John's Gospel.

Quote:

Claiming to be YWVH (which is a Hebrew construction of the Hebrew form of EGO EIMI) would certainly constitute blasphemy. If Jesus was merely stating that he lived before Abraham (as JW’s contend), Jesus would have only been making a ridiculous claim. There is no Levitical Law that justifies the stoning of lunatics.

Again, maybe they misunderstood him. Or perhaps they understood that since only God pre-exists for Jesus to say he pre-existed meant he was making himself equal to God as John says elsewhere. Contextually, that makes a lot more sense then Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I am God" which makes no sense.

Quote:

My point to the Al Fatihah was, what Jesus claimed in John 8:58 would be analogous with a Muslim prophet walking into Mecca, and then standing in front of the Kaaba and yelling, “I am Allah!”

Are you saying Jesus said to the Jews, "I am God"?

Within the walls of a megachurch...

Well, we aren't a megachurch yet. We're one of the area's biggest churches having just added a several million dollar sanctuary with daycare, crying rooms, book store, etc. When I first immersed myself into the Christian path we were attending a rather exclusive, "Jesus only" church that longed to be a megachurch, hyping up its doctrine and its head pastor, envisioning a megachurch with resort-like facilities. That was ten years ago. It still hasn't come to pass. We haven't been there for almost ten years.

So we drifted, floated, in and out of a few churches of a smaller, more intimate nature we really grew to love. The "church" was the body of believers, not the body. We are currently at a church that believes the same. Yet we've seen it grow over the past five years and the spirit hasn't changed.

I now see why a church grows. It isn't intentional, it's not in the plan of the governing body, it's not some slick marketing or preaching. People come because they want to be there.

So I've had to eat my cynicism about the "megachurch" movement to an extent. I still can't help but feel that this trend has parallels in the early days of the Church/Empire when the Church became the largest landholder, somewhat of an oxymoron if you read the early book of Acts.

The church sends people out on a regular basis, missionaries go almost weekly and there are many small groups, all facilitated by members, not driven from the top down. There are five campuses under its umbrella. And giving and giving is a regular activity. Members have freedom. And it keeps growing. It is a natural progression, like any organization, that it had run out of space.

So now I sit in what may become a "megachurch".

I remain watchful, however, as sometimes organizations tend to take on a life of their own as they get larger. I've been in a company that grew from about 40 employees to hundreds and watched the distance between the head to the toe grow.

But I remain hopeful that if the church maintains its spirit, then not all megachurches are like those we hear about on teleivion, with the private jets, the multiple mansions and exotic vacations of the heads of the organization, where "blessing" is the equivalent of "material wealth." We are not at such a place.

And I pray that what we see in the media are the anomalies and thus the reason they generate interest. I'd rather be in a church that is all but invisible to "the world" but is quietly and intently doing the Lord's work. We are at such a place.

Am I just a user?

All this downloading...am I just a user, a taker, a hoarder?

I am feeding myself until full.

What am I giving back?

Is this gluttony?

Paul, Jesus and the Wisdom of Solomon

Wisdom of Solomon, Chapter 2:12-20:

"Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.
He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.
He was made to reprove our thoughts.
He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion.
We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.
For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.

According to my Catholic NAB version these verses are "often applied to the Passion of our Lord; many have understood these verses as a direct prophecy."

There is one passage (highlighted in bold above) in particular that is of interest.

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)

The parallel is striking. Obviously, calling God the Father was not something new with Jesus. To what extent it was used I don't know. But it wasn't new. The writer of Wisdom wrote these words roughly 100 years prior to the advent of Jesus. Prophecy? Perhaps. Did the early Christians (e.g. Paul) know these verses, even if only orally? Did they influence or straight out make their way into their understanding of Jesus?

Seems to me there was a current of thought that existed, even if only orally, into which Jesus' life fit. A skeptic would say they conformed Jesus to fit this mold. A believer would simply say that Jesus lived the life that met the expectation many held.

Freedom from depression?

Still working on it...

Having been living with it for as long as I can remember, in hindsight much of it has to do with not getting my way. Perhaps my depression was simply that I was a spoiled brat. Self-centered, yes. I suppose we could argue I was a spoiled brat. Depends on what 'spoiled' means.

To truly be free it is vital to step outside of it.

There is no simple solution as to how to do this. It is a journey. It takes effort. Not medication. Damn pharmaceutical companies, teaching us to be a nation of legal addicts, numb to everything, enslaved to our medication, identified by our ailment. It's a lie.

The freedom is found, in facing it. Not medicating it. Not avoiding it, burying it, drowning it, running from it, distracting ourselves from it; not wallowing in it, not swimming in it, not allowing it to become our identity.

Sourcing the cause. Mine happened to be a traumatic incident that was a defining moment that set the trajectory of my life at an early age. Retracing the steps and realizing, like the proverbial "butterfly effect" just how this set life in motion and, as best possible, healing, forgiving those who hurt you and seeking forgiveness from those you have hurt. Most importantly, forgive yourself.

So what have I learned (even I don't always accomplish what I set out to do...)?

Doing for others, not out of lack, but out of abundance. Volunteer. Do social work. Pick up litter. Anything for someone or something else without expectation of some self gratification.

Exercising, not to place value on body image but to feel the thrill of disicpline and the bonus endorphin rush.

Learning to see the beauty in the little things, like a rainbow or children playing football in the front yard. Get out of self.

Seeking God. Not like some glorified genie in a bottle to do our bidding but to truly transform us inside out, to help us to see ourselves as He sees us. Cast your cares upon Him and have Him reflect back to you reality.

It may be painful as He may not cast the darkness out of you but may just shine light into the darkness. After all, He walks with us through the shadow of death. We have to walk through it. But He is there with us to help us to face it for once we come out of this darkness, we walk out of the fear.

Dealing with depression requires honesty, reality, tough decisions. Recognize it for what it is: self-absorption. This is not to judge it. This is to point out that there is a source of this self-absorption. It may be one event or a series of events or just an accumulation of life experiences.

But it does not have to define who you are.

Depression...

Complete self-absorption.

It's really that simple. Depression basically says "It's all about me." Even though that "me" may be filled with fear, shame, self-hatred, self-loating or self-pity (all of which are self-centered) and may draw sympathy, it's still an act of self-absorption. It's a protective sheath.

Anger turned inwards? Perhaps. But tagging it as 'anger' in some ways provides a justification for it, as if a good reason legitimizes it and provides an excuse for it to continue.

What is the source of this anger? Lack of control? Lack of getting one's way? Helplessness? Futility? Perhaps any or all of these. It's the assertion of power misdirected, i.e. turned inwards.

If someone suffered abuse at an early age and this leads, in later life, to depression, is it not quite simply because power has been taken away?

This isn't necessarily the power to rule the world but to say that this "power" (or, if preferred, energy) would be channeled into having some say in controlling one's destiny. When this power is taken away, the vortex is the source of pain taking this power and absorbing it into a "self" which is a protected, isolated black hole.

This power may leak out in many ways - through artistic endeavor, through anger, through addiction - but it is generally not disciplined. The one in such a state is at the "mercy" of the mystery that lies in this black hole and thus the genius that often arises from it. It is a "mystery" larger then self even though it is self-contained or restricted by one's self. It is the uncontrolled and undisciplined nature of this energy that leads to the highs and lows of genius. The 'self' is at the whim of the extremes.

Afraid to let go...

I feel this bursting in my soul but I can't seem to fully let go, to fully surrender. I still wish to cling to an understanding of it, to intellectualize it, rationalize it, hold on to it, control it.

Perhaps it's supposed to be that way, a "roping in" of our faculties rather than abandoning them completely.

"We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ..." (2 Corinthians 10:5, NASB)

It's something I have to reconcile as rather than giving us comfort, intellectualizing everything actually separates us.

The view that we can "objectively" view the universe actually gives us a position of power that we are somehow above it, better than it.

Hasn't quantum physics taught us something similar? Understanding that quantum physics and religion are not the same (though in man's search for meaning they run parallel paths toward the same goal), it's interesting that in the theoretical world of quantum physics (which has real-world consequences) similar conclusions are drawn man's presence in the search for truth can actually affect what results are seen.