Posts Tagged Jesus Christ
More on the American Jesus, more of the Wrong Jesus
Posted by Joel in Religion and Politics on November 24, 2010
Where is Matt Mikalatos when you need him?
Trying to Understand a Ripped Jesus.
I know that this is old, but I’ve seen it floating around again…
Is this how you picture Christ? Is this why it is okay to be violent in His name?
Jesus Isn’t Your Homeboy. No Seriously, He really isn’t
Posted by Joel in Religious News on October 14, 2010
Jesus is not a homeboy, nor a medieval European guy either
Mark Batterson has an observation –
I think there is a lot of “strange fire” in our culture. I’m not the kind of guy that takes potshots at our culture from the comfortable confines of the Christian subculture. I believe in criticizing by creating. But just to make a point, indulge me. I remember seeing a t-shirt a few years ago with a portrait of Jesus on it that said: Jesus is my homeboy…
Read the rest at his blog…
Friday Morning Hymn – U2- Jesus Christ
Posted by Joel in Devotional on October 1, 2010
It was a tribute to Woody Guthrie, but all in all, a well done song –
Super Cool Jesus is my Homeboy Tattoos and other depraved ‘art’
Posted by Joel in Religious News on September 25, 2010
Where is Matt Mikalatos when you need him?
The tattoo is as old as Cain. In Jesus’ time, condemned criminals were tattooed. Tattoos have marked those set apart or condemned as recently as World War II when our Jewish brethren perished.…..
We should be quick to love and slow to judge, Anxious to forgive and repulsed by self-pity, Curious to understand and cautious to resent. There is no box in which we can place Jesus merely by his appearance. As we do good to others, let us not reserve our kindness only for those who look “safe” or “beautiful”. However alarmed we might be at another person’s appearance that is our problem. Tragically we too often make it the other person’s problem as well.
“No Appointment Necessary” is dedicated and conceived in honor of those children of God who do not appear to “fit in”. Shall we remember the tragedies that befall those whose outer shell does not conform to the rules of the various clubs created by men and women? (here)
Oh my goodness… Someone has some ‘Jesus Issues’….
And for more lunacy and depravity – here.
ht
Guess who was born on 23 September
Posted by Newtaste in Religious News on September 21, 2010
Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
The Gospels inform us that John the Baptist, who was Jesus’s cousin, was born six months before Jesus. John’s father, Zechariah, was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem in the order of Abijah. We can find when the order of Abijah served in the Temple in I Chronicles 24:10, and from this we can calculate that the birth of John fell at Passover.
Jesus, then, was born six months later, on Sukkot, or the Feast of Tabernacles, which falls on Tishrei 15. This may not mean very much to us who use the Gregorian calendar, but Tishrei 15 falls this year on Thursday 23 September.
Merry Christmas!!
Jesus Christ’s birthday will pass unnoticed | Belfast Telegraph
Arius’s Thalia
Posted by Joel in Fourth Century, Ignatius of Antioch on September 21, 2010
Our assignment this week for the Church History Intro class is on Constantine, essentially. Of course, again, one my academic loves is this time period. There are heroes here, and villains. Athanasius, Marcellus, and Arius. You can decide which is which…
Anyway, this is part of Arius’ writings. Thought I might share.
From here,
We have reproduced William Bright’s text of On the Councils 15, (The Historical Writings of St. Athanasius according to the Benedictine Text, Oxford: Clarendon, 1881, pp. 259-60). When compared to Opitz’ more recent edition of the text, we found that our text varies only in punctuation, capitalization, and one variant reading (χρόνῳ for χρόνοις, line 5)
| Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς καθό ἐστιν, ἄῤῥητος ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει. Ἴσον, οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνος οὗτος. Ἀγέννητον δὲ αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννητόν, τοῦτον ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα, ἀΐδιον δὲ αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνῷ γεγαότα. |
1. …And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory. We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist. |
| Ἀρχὴν τὸν Υἱὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος, καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς Υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας, Ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος· οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ. |
6. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him. |
| Σοφὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αὐτός. Ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι, τοῖς τε διὰ Υἱοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ Υἱῷ ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός. |
10. God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom – Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all: He is is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself. |
| Ῥητῶς δὲ λέξω, πῶς τῷ Υἱῷ ὁρᾶται ὁ ἀόρατος, Τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἰδεῖν ἰδίοις τε μέτροις ὑπομένει ὁ Υἱὸς ἰδεῖν τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς θέμις ἐστίν. |
13. I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son: by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure, the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined |
| Ἤγουν Τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις· ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν, μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ’ ἄπειρον. Ξένος τοῦ Υἱοῦ κατ’ οὐσίαν ὁ Πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὑπάρχει. |
16. So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings are not mixed together among themselves. As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other. The Father in his essence is foreign to the Son, because he exists without beginning. |
| Σύνες ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν· ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ. Αὐτίκα γοῦν, Υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος, ὁ Πατὴρ Θεός ἐστι. Λοιπὸν ὁ Υἱὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὑπῆρξε δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ), μονογενὴς Θεός ἐστι, καὶ ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος. |
20. Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence. It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others |
| [Williams suggests a section on the Holy Spirit may have been omitted here (p. 310).] | |
| Ἡ Σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ Θεοῦ θελήσει. Ἐπινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις Πνεῦμα, δύναμις, σοφία, δόξα Θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ Λόγος οὗτος. Σύνες, ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται. Ἴσον μὲν τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεννᾷν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων· διαφορώτερον δὲ, ἢ κρείττονα, ἢ μείζονα, οὐχί. Θεοῦ θελήσει ὁ Υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν, ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ’ οὗ, καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπέστη, ἰσχυρὸς Θεὸς ὢν, τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ. |
24. Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God’s glory, Truth, Image, and Word. Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light. The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son, But not someone more important, or superior, or greater. At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part his superior . |
| Συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ Υἱῷ ὁ Θεὸς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει, ἔστι γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ὅ ἐστι, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἄλεκτος· ὥστε οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων κατά τε κατάληψιν συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ Υἱός. Ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν Πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσαι, ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν, Υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν, θελήσει Πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς. |
33. In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence, For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father. |
| Τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ Πατρὸς ὄντα αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα γνῶναι ἐν καταλήψει; δῆλον γὰρ, ὅτι τὸ ἀρχὴν ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον, ὡς ἔστιν, ἐμπερινοῆσαι ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθαι, οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν. |
39. What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning. |
Translation by AJW
To that, I simply refer to Ignatius (Ephesians 7.2)
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both begotten and unbegotten; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.
εἷς ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ θεός ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν
Anyone else want to contend with Ignatius?
Thank God, Ken Ham ain’t
Ken Ham is a burr in the saddle of all believers – he is trying to force Christians the world over to repeat after him, and making it a matter of the Faith to do so. This is one of the reasons that I wrestle with the Creeds. He is nothing more than a legalist, a purist, and of course wrong. He is upset that the largest pentecostal denomination has come to realize that a set and woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 serves as a destroy to the Faith and is a part of the Gospel of Works. In the New Testament, not one mention is made of having to believe anything about Creationism, the Old Testament, etc… but only that by the Spirit of God which regenerates us, we say that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Hebrews 11, we read that by faith we know that the universe was called into existence by God’s command. Regardless of evolutionary tendencies of some believers, or Creationists, our faith tells us that it was God who did this. When you remove that element, then yes, we have problems.
But, I get ahead of myself. After reading his post, he comes across as uniquely arrogant – that he has the right words and that everyone else must state those words exactly, as if some magical incantation which brings about peace and harmony. He is a purist, to which is fine in some cases, but in the back of my mind I am reminded that Christ condemned the purists of the Law who did what Ham is doing. Ham goes on to repeat the blatant lie that by allowing a different interpretation of Genesis 1, then people are undermining the Scriptures. How sad that someone thinks that their interpretation alone is the word of God from on high. The Scriptures aren’t as black and white as so many like to pretend that they are. Yes, there are many passages that are black and white, but in the end, the reason we haven’t had so many disagreements throughout the course of Christianity is that we have allowed our interpretations of Scripture to present a division. Ken Ham and others like him (I am not speaking here of Creationists) stand in direct opposition to Jesus Christ and His prayer in John 17.
For me, I believe Genesis 1 is literal….in context.
We must endeavor to strive together in the essentials, which is Christ and His Gospel. What Ham does, by condemning the AoG and others for not having his precise wording and then going on to offer attack against a fellow blogger (who is AoG) is unChristian, anti-Christ, and immoral.
Yes, I’m ticked. Ham is a bully and it is time believers started calling him on it.
Assemblies of God Denomination Responds . . . but What Does It Really Mean? – Persevero!.
Oh, and Ken, like other unevolved predators, eats his own.
Related articles by Zemanta
- What made Ken Ham so mad at the AOG?
- Ken Ham v Bill Dembski [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
- Creationists seek to insert their own brand of ‘truth’ into education (guardian.co.uk)
- This is for people who read Answers in Genesis (hjhop.blogspot.com)
