The Shack

Someone asked me to do a review of The Shack. I haven't read it yet, but I will. Does anyone have any thoughts on this book? It's selling well and has generated both positive and negative comments.

Did Jesus Get It Wrong?

Yesterday I came across an intriguing chapter in a book by Paul Copan (When God Goes to Starbucks). The author starts by quoting from Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, who said Jesus got things wrong about the second coming: "For one thing, he certainly thought his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time." He is referring to Matthew 10:23 ("you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”), Matthew 16:28 ("There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"), and Mark 14:62 ("you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven"). It seems obvious in these passages that the "coming" is expected within the near future of Jesus’ time.

The author, Paul Copan, presents a solution he calls a dual position -- that Jesus "comes" up to God's throne for vindication/judgment during "this generation" (in 70 A.D.) and that he will ultimately arrive (the "parousia"-- his return to Earth) at an unknown time in the future. He says Jesus was speaking of two distinct events -- answering two
questions -- in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Copan admits this approach may seem odd to today’s Christians, but he claims many biblical scholars hold to it.

Copan focuses on Matthew 24. Jesus tells his disciples that not one stone will be left upon another (verse 2), so his disciples want to know when these things will happen. But they go on to ask in verse 3 what will be the sign of his coming (parousia) and of the end of the age. Jesus knew the answer to the first question; he said the current generation would not pass away until all these things took place (verse 34). But he did not know the answer to the second question, instead saying no one but the Father would know (verse 36). Verses 4-35 discuss the events of the near future leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. while verses 36-51 speak of a more-distance future event – Jesus’ ultimate return.

A key verse is Matthew 24: 30. It says all will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. This may sound as if it's talking about Jesus’ final return, but it is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14 where the Son of Man comes on the clouds to the Ancient of Days (a reference to God the Father) to receive authority from God as the confirmed king. So, this describes not a return to Earth but a coming to God. Several other places in the Bible refer to coming on clouds as a symbol of judgment (Psalm 18:12-14, Psalm 97: 2-3, Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1, Nahum 1:3). Copan claims the majority of Bible interpreters see this verse referring to Jesus’ enthronement before God, not his parousia.

Many Christians interpret the list of events in Matthew 24 as signs occurring right before his return to Earth, but the author says they applied to events taking place before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 A.D.). They include false prophets, wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes, persecutions -- all of which were mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of that time period. In verses 16-21 Jesus indicates the troubles will be confined to the area of Judea, demonstrating that this is not a world-wide phenomenon. In verse 27 Jesus says this is not the period of the parousia, which will be obvious and visible to all.

So the preliminary signs of Matthew 24: 15-25 indicate that the fall of Jerusalem is near. These signs also reveal that the end of national Israel will quickly follow. So the reference to “all these things” in verse 33 (the destruction of Jerusalem) will take place within "this generation" (verse 34) – Jesus’ own day. When Jesus says his generation would not pass away until all these things would take place, he's speaking of the temple's destruction in 70 A.D.

There is a shift that takes place in Matthew 24: 36-51. Now Jesus is talking about his unexpected parousia. It starts with "But of that day and hour." Mark 13:32 begins the same way, indicating a contrast to the events of 66-70 A.D. At this point Jesus indicates many people will be unaware and unprepared when he returns.

Paul Copan spends nearly 30 pages in his book developing and clarifying this idea, so my summary here is obviously incomplete. This interpretation really knocked me out because I had heard a lot of tortured explanations dealing with Jesus’ claims about his generation seeing him come again. By the way, Copan has several other books that are also excellent and thought-provoking. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about this.

The gospel according to Wolverine

Did you see Sunday's Parade magazine, featuring Hugh Jackman on the cover? He discusses his religious beliefs as follows: "The School of Practical Philosophy [the organization he follows] is non-confrontational. We believe there are many forms of Scripture. What is true is true and will never change, whether it's in the Bible or in Shakespeare. It's about oneness. Its basic philosophy is that if the Buddha and Krishna and Jesus were all at a dinner table together, they wouldn't be arguing. There is an essential truth."

Where to start? Non-confrontational is a coward's way out--when there is evil, error or danger, one confronts it. Only the terminally, morally confused fail to deal with a problem. He goes on to say there are several Scriptures--duh! The catch is . . . they disagree with each other. You need to investigate them--find out who's the authority behind them, who wrote them, when were they written, are they coherent, do they describe the world the way it really is, etc. Is he equating all truths? So what if Shakespeare says something true about human nature--he has nothing to say to me about my eternal soul. I want to hear an expert talk about that since my future existence depends on it. Is it all about "oneness"? Or is it about finding the truth? Then there's the comment about the dinner table. Sigh . . . I guess he thinks, like so many today, that all religions lead to God. But there are huge differences between religions--Jesus is either the Messiah or he's not. There is either no God, one God, or a plurality of gods. All three possibilities can't be true at the same time. You either go to heaven/hell, get reincarnated, or cease to exist. But you don't do all three. Please Hugh, stick to X-Men fantasies. I hope you re-think your religious philosophy some day.

Oh, no . . . he's back!!!

I saw on Drudge Report that Dan Brown is coming out with another book. His The Da Vinci Code was a monster hit that shook some Christians by claiming the gospels were not giving us the real picture of Jesus. I got curious then and read up on Brown's claims. The key point is that Brown got almost everything wrong in the book, not just Christianity. So here's a brief overview of his errors. If you'd like more details, let me know so I can email you additional info.


If The Da Vinci Code Comes Up . . .

Some say we shouldn’t take it so seriously (“it’s just a novel”)
But he claims it’s true


Brown got history wrong . . .
Constantine did not create a new religion out of Christianity
The Council of Nicea was not called to manufacture a belief in Jesus’ divinity
The Knights Templar were not guardians of the Holy Grail
The Priory of Sion is a recent invention


He got Christianity wrong . . .
Jesus was always considered divine
It predates mystery religions


He got ancient writings wrong . . .
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained no gospels or any reference to Jesus
Other “gospels” not included in our Bible were written much later; they contained fanciful stories of a non-human Jesus


He got Christian writings wrong . . .
The four gospels are actually the oldest and best sources for knowing about the life of Jesus
The New Testament canon was established long before Constantine


He got people wrong . . .
Mary Magdalen was not married to Jesus


He got his art and architecture wrong . . .
Art scholars disagree with most of his statements
The great Gothic cathedrals were not a result of the Priory of Sion or the Knights Templar

Same-sex marriage

A huge issue that hasn't gone away is same-sex marriage. A couple of months ago I saw a letter to the North County Times that gushed over a future in which gays would be able to marry. I wanted to respond in a way that didn't paint me as a religious nut, so I tried to use other arguments to show there are plenty of reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. Here's the letter I sent. Hope it helps you if you engage someone who doesn't share your beliefs.



Community Forum
North County Times
February 11, 2009





A recent letter by Peggy Hart (February 9th) looked forward with delight to the possible overturn of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that rejected same-sex marriage in California. She suggested the proposition passed only because churches “intimidated their flocks by telling them the Lord does not want gay people to have the same rights as straight people.” Hart later claimed Prop 8 supporters were “threatened with damnation” if they didn’t back the measure. Is that why the proposition passed? No, of course not. There were solid, non-biblical, non-theological reasons why California should have voted no to same-sex marriage.

First, Prop 8 didn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay/lesbian domestic partnerships. California Family Code 297.5 says that “domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law.” Gays are asking for a special right, namely to wed someone of the same sex. It is not a violation of the equal protection clause to deny this special right. If it’s not really about rights, what is it about? In one word—approval. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to force society to approve a lifestyle that many oppose for various reasons.

Secondly, the proposition established a positive type of discrimination. We discriminate all the time. For example, we don’t let blind people drive. We are simply making a legitimate distinction in that case between sighted and blind individuals. We think it’s better for society to limit drivers based on vision. The same is true for marriage. We discriminate between two types of marriages for legitimate reasons that benefit society. Researchers have found children do best having both a mother and a father, an arrangement that occurs in opposite-sex marriages. However, same-sex marriages deny children either a mother or a father. Therefore, government protects and sanctions opposite-sex marriages, which produce the next generation and creates civilization itself.

In addition, Prop 8 recognized that any change in the institution of marriage opens the door to all sorts of odd and potentially destructive relationships. Once we have redefined marriage to include a gay or lesbian couple, how can we exclude any arrangement? What’s to keep three men from wanting to have a “marriage”? Why not a 10-year old girl and a 50-year old man? A brother and a sister? There’s no logical or legal reason why any other grouping should be excluded.

If people wish to reconstruct an institution and its legal definition, the burden of proof for the change is on them. It’s unfair to attack those who simply hold the traditional, legal, social, and linguistic meaning of a word. It’s especially unfair to do what the letter writer did—assume the Prop 8 supporters were religious bigots, carrying out the commands of their church leaders. Instead, there are plenty of logical, non-theological reasons to oppose such social engineering. Gays and lesbians have the liberty to live as they choose, and that’s as far as the law should go. [499 words]

The Bible's Value Beyond Theology

I posted an outline I have used in a presentation on the value of the Bible. So many people think the Bible is just for "religious nut-cases." But we can make a good argument for the value of reading it beyond its theological importance. Hope this helps.

The Bible Beyond Theology

The problem today

1. Biblically illiterate people

Gallup Poll results

½ can name only one gospel

Less than ½ evangelical teens can identify passage from Sermon on Mt

2. Reasons non-Christians give for not reading the Bible

Boring

Too hard

The Christian’s response

Value of the Bible (beyond theology)

1. Good reading—stories, poetry, parables, history, letters, tragedies, comedies

2. Worldly wisdom—Proverbs (relationships, money, time, parental advice)

8:12 (prudence, discret.), 9:8 (value of rebuke), 11:12 (hold tongue), 12:1 (take correction), 12:11 (no fantasies), 13:20 (good companions)

3. Source of literary inspirations—“Call me Ishmael,” The Sun Also Rises, [Old Man and the Sea], Steinbeck, Dante, Shakespeare [1300 allusions to Bible], Milton, Dostoevsky, C.S. Lewis, Flannery O’Connor, Hawthorne, Tolstoy, T.S. Eliot, Emily Dickinson

4. Our language—phrases and words from the Bible

5. Most important—cornerstone of Western civilization

1. emphasis on the individual
2. elevation of women
3. freedoms we enjoy
4. development of science
5. influence on laws, politics, morality, economics [reform movements]

Recent research—41 outstanding teachers said knowledge of Bible is crucial for good education and provides an “educational advantage.” Chairs at secular schools said Bible is the key book for h. s. students to know.

Conclusion: “The Bible is the learned man’s masterpiece, the ignorant man’s dictionary, the wise man’s directory.”

William James (psychologist): “The Bible contains more exquisite beauty, more morality, more important history, and finer strains of poetry and eloquence than can be collected from all other books.”

Reid Buckley (trains professional speakers) says if someone doesn’t read the Bible he/she is “irreparably ignorant and culturally deprived.”

Resources:

What If The Bible Had Never Been Written? by D. James Kennedy