Maccabees 1 and Maccabees 2 – any thoughts on the status of these books, love to hear your comments?

I have been doing some research on the history of the books Maccabees 1 & 2 – while they are accepted, in general, by Catholic and Orthodox churches; they are aggressively rejected by Protestant denominations, in terms of doctrinal value.

The usual Protestant rules of canonicity (how to determine if a book should be included in the Bible); if applied correctly, can hardly exclude Maccabees 2.  God is mentioned throughout the book and the festival of Hannukkah (as described in Maccabees) is still celebrated today; as it was in Jesus’ day. [John 10:22-23 (NIV): “Then came the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.”

If Maccabees 2 is rejected because some use it to support the false doctrines of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead, then those issues are easily addressed – and they should not be a reason to reject the book. The Jews, as diverse a group as any,  did not believe in Purgatory and therefore would not be writing about it. The second point is that it’s stated in Maccabees that they did not have a Prophet, therefore there could be no new revelation at that time regarding practices, such as praying for the dead. The decision, to pray for the dead, was a case of political/religious expediency to handle the fears of  God-fearing relatives whose relations had died in battle wearing pagan lucky charms.  That is, it was a decision made by men – there’s no explicit claim that they made it after some revelation from God or one of His prophets.

God already knows our prayers before we pray – God’s judgement, in association with His mercy and compassion, of the dead is based on their relationship with Him, and it is final - and, no correspondence can be entered into – God does not change His mind. The examples, we have in the Bible – where it appears that His will is modified based on some one’s appeal (e.g. Moses), is from a human perspective. God knows what He was/is going to do – before He even created time – because His will – is perfect. He does not do anything, which is less than perfect and good.  Do you agree?

I’ll write more – but just curious to see if anyone had any views on this subject.

Posted on May 13th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: General | No Comments »

I read on CNN today, about a small anti-government militia in the USA; who (it is alleged), had planned to attack law enforcement officers as part of their preparation for end-time battles.

I don’t think our glorified Jesus will need any help from us.

He commands, and His angels will do the ‘work’; in Matthew 13:40b-42(NLT), we read: ” … so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”

And, in Matthew 26: 50b-53, we find another couple of verses, which suggest that Jesus has a lot of angels under His command: ” … Then the others grabbed Jesus and arrested him. But one of the men with Jesus pulled out his sword and struck the high priest’s slave, slashing off his ear.

“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword. Don’t you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly?”

Consequently, I’m of the strong view that these people, in this militia, are listening to the wrong voice.

All through the New Testament, we have ample evidence that it’s not our role to be involved in armed rebellion, on the contrary – so far as it is able, we should try to live in peace. Paul’s letter to the Romans 12:18-20 (NLT): “Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone. 

Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say,“I will take revenge; I will pay them back,”  says the Lord.

Instead: “If your enemies are hungry, feed them. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.”

The special conditions that existed, in regard to the nation Israel (as described in the Old Testament), taking over their promised land – as part of their covenant with God – do not apply to us, as Christians.

This view is clearly made in Hebrews 8:6-7, 13 (NLT): ” … But now Jesus, our High Priest, has been given a ministry that is far superior to the old priesthood, for he is the one who mediates for us a far better covenant with God, based on better promises.  If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it. … When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.”

There is only one voice that gets into the hearts of men and women – and, incites them to do acts of evil; it’s the voice of Satan.

What are your views?

Posted on March 30th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: General | No Comments »

On CNN – today, I noticed a video by a person going by the name of  Sam Harris, he calls himself a philosopher.

He delivers his views on religion – with the telling title:  ’Religion distracts us from important issues.”

However, like a number of other highly visible ‘philosophers’, in the media, he makes a fundamental error in the use of the term ‘religion’.  It’s not that, ‘religion’ can distract us from any human issue – as defined in a dictionary (www.dictionary.com): Religion is ”a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” People, who label themselves, as religious – are usually the source of fundamental errors – as, the history of world affairs,  amply demonstrates -  well, that’s my non-philosophical view. 

The core of Mr Harris’ discussion – is really centred on the definition of an ‘important’ issue. Consequently, he is saying that ‘the set of beliefs which define any of the world’s current religions – do not cover any of the important issues, which concern the majority of this world’s population.

Any comments?

Posted on March 28th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: General | No Comments »

I’ve noticed over the past few weeks that, in general,  the world’s media has taken a distinctly negative view of Israel.

It is now reaching the point that many anti-Israel forces must be starting to think that it’s now, an ideal time to strike out against this little ‘nation’.  On the one-hand, the Israeli government needs to recognise, and do something about, the suffering, that some of their policies are causing to their neighbours. On the other-hand, the people of Israel should be given a reasonable degree of assurance of their continued existence, as an independent and viable nation. 

In regard to the peace process – there can be no progress while this tense atmosphere continues. There does not appear to be any solution on the horizon (at least for the next decade) - neither the United Nations or the USA appear to have any reasonable way to resolve this difficult issue.

It’s my view that God is preparing the scene for His entrance  – what do you think?

[Today (29 March), I found this short article, written by Bradley Burston in Haaretz , a short excerpt, follows: " ...  The freed person in us is justly terrified by the path to a shared Jerusalem. When the sea divides enough for us to see a path, the walls on either side threaten to collapse and drown all those they do not crush. We look to the opposite shore and see not the City of God but a wilderness.

But it is the freed person in us who takes the first step on to that uncertain path. And, in so doing, for the first time, knows what it is to be free. ... "

I thought that his language was especially poignant and heart-felt.]

Posted on March 28th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: General | No Comments »

[Draft]

A friend lent us a book, ‘Stirrings of the Soul – Evangelicals and the New Spirituality’by Rev Michael Raiter – BA, MTh, DipA (Theol), DipEd [Currently - Principle, of Bible College of Victoria, Australia] (c) Matthias Media 2003, published by: The Good Book Company (UK).

I don’t usually read that many books these days, using most of my time to read Scripture, however, I have an interest in the Anglican approach to spiritual matters, as expressed within the Australian/UK  evangelical scene. Consequently, I took some time over the last week to read this book – to be honest, the author spent so much time on the general background of both old and new spiritually I found little detailed analysis that was helpful to me.

It was only when I reached page 193 [The book has only 252 pages.] (The start of a chapter – with the title: ‘True Spirituality: Listening to the Apostle of the Spirit),’ did I start to find the start of a real ‘spiritual’ discussion. Another aspect (which always unsettles me) was the paucity of scriptural references. True there was a sprinkling of ‘short’ references to a few verses in Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Peter. The author centred much of his discussion on spirituality as discussed by Paul, in various chapters of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Corinthians (sounds like a lot of material, but in reality each reference comprises only of a few verses); however, as Paul does in his various letters – the sections discussed were, in general, the same or similar themes – expressed in slightly different ways for Paul’s respective audiences.

I’m of the opinion that any discussion of Christian Spirituality should contain an exhaustive analysis of John’s Gospel, and his letters. In John 3:10-13, we read: “Jesus replied, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. … “.  Nicodemus, to whom Jesus was talking, was a Jewish religious leader, who would have known the Hebrew Scripture, better than most – but having an excellent intellectual knowledge (of the Bible) does not help anyone to understand spiritual truths.

I don’t think it unusual that you don’t see a lot of discussion on the last half of John’s Gospel; starting with verses like John 14:20-21 “When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.”

To understand what Jesus is saying – ‘you are in me, and I am in you’; and, He says again in 14:23 - “Jesus replied, “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them.” Requires an understanding that comes only from the Holy Spirit (and not from any intellectual analysis of the Greek words used [ ]; it is true that the Father and Jesus will come and make THEIR home with each one!

The book does not cost a lot to buy, that’s good, but I can’t recommend it. However, it’s very well written – the language is concise, and his ideas are well set out – making his overall argument easy to follow. In summary, I think it’s better to read John’s Gospel, within a bible study group, assisted by a good commentary – and, lots of input from the Holy Spirit – perhaps, a better use of your time?

[If anyone has read this book and has a different view - I'm quite prepared to discuss any issues.]

Posted on February 13th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: ViewPoints | No Comments »

I read the following article, “Is conservationism a religious belief?”(Wednesday, 25th November 2009.) written by Paul Richardson, on the www.religiousintelligence.co.uk  website.  

The article itself is about some judicial decision (in the UK?) that environmental beliefs should receive the same protection as religious beliefs. I don’t know the history of this case but Paul Richardson presents an interesting viewpoint on the topic of the discussion of religious views in the public forum. 

Excerpt of his article, as follows: “Recent years have seen attempts to ban religious arguments from public debate. Partly this is a response to the rise of the Religious Right. No one worried when Martin Luther King used religious arguments. Partly, too, it is a response to the spread of multiculturalism and a fear that religious arguments are divisive and provoke conflict. Richard Rorty famously labelled them a ‘conversation stopper’. Non-believers cannot be expected to engage with religious arguments, he maintained; it is the job of believers to express their views in neutral, public reason.

In fact, there is no such thing as neutral, public reason. We all argue from certain presuppositions and within a certain tradition. As we debate with others, our traditions may be modified or even overturned but we cannot leave them behind when we enter the debate. They are part of who we are and how we think. Banning religious arguments from the public square can itself be a divisive measure. It can leave religious believers living in a ghetto where some of their core values and opinions are never challenged by others. Worse of all, it can breed a festering resentment, a sense on the part of believers that they are marginalised and despised which can turn them to fundamentalism or even religious terrorism.

For years some of us have been arguing that it is hypocritical to ban conventional religious arguments from the public square when what might be termed ‘New Age’ arguments are advanced all the time. … ”

I agree, there is no such thing as a neutral, public reason. I believe it’s important that we continue to strive to put our views into the public arena. Our views, are part of – ‘who we are’ – and, as such, we should have the right to express our views – religious or otherwise. (Along with the responsibility to ensure that the expression of our views is not deliberately hurtful.)

Posted on February 11th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: General | No Comments »

As most know there is a vast array of information resources on the ‘net.

One I use a lot is www.biblegateway.com  – mainly to search through Scripture when researching different themes. They have available many different language translation of Scripture and lots of  different, English ‘versions’.

In addition, they have a verse of the day and other interesting material. Today’s verse is: ““[Thanksgiving and Prayer] We ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing.” (2 Thessalonians 1:3, NIV)

Now, when I read the above verse – I thought to myself, is this true in my community; is our love for each other, increasing?  This question, then begs the next question – if not, why not?

I don’t have any answers … any views on this?

Posted on February 10th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: General | No Comments »

At times, when I’m tired the language of theologians is way, beyond me!

I was glancing through a recent edition (February 2010) of Southern Cross (monthly newspaper published by Anglican Media Sydney, Australia), when I spotted an articled, with the title, ‘Serving a Sovereign God’ written by Rev. Dr. John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore Theological College.

In the first instance I thought to myself – this should be a good article, however, by the time I was half-way through it, I was started to think that I had no real understanding of what he was trying to say; either I’m not very educated in the finer points of the English language, or his terminology was so esoteric it’s beyond my understanding.

The lead-in comment to the article is: “John Woodhouse argues that if we truly believe in a sovereign God then the way we live as Christians will be radically different.” Okay, I believe – totally, in the sovereignty of God – then, how will my life be radically different, compared to what it is now? Is his argument centred on the premise that, in general, we as Christians don’t truly believe in God’s sovereignty, we only think we do?  Well, when I finally made it to the end of his article –  I was more confused then when I started.

***

This is my starting point: I firmly and unshakably believe and hold the view that God has power and control over every entity, inside and outside of the known universe. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is outside of His authority – He knows all things, in eternity and over all of time – nothing happens outside of His knowledge; and, more importantly, nothing happens which is outside the scope of His power to change, in any way. Did I leave anything out?

A third of the way in; I read: “One way to characterise certain Christian movements is precisely in terms of this truth (God is sovereign). Terms like ‘Reformed’ or ‘Calvinist’ mean many things but they generally mean an embracing of this doctrine. … Those who do not accept this doctrine in its fullness may be variously described, but typically they are called Arminian, … “.

Immediately, on reading these statements I wondered if I was going to get a different flavour of a ‘free will’/’predestination’ debate –  which, is a much flogged horse, long since buried in desert pasture – isn’t it?

Yet, reading on, I stuck something I could not only understand, but also agree with: “Labels (Calvinist and Arminian) are distasteful - partly because they point of differences, but ignore what we have in common. They tend to oversimplify and therefore create caricatures of positions.”[Anyone, wanting to find out what these two movements are about; there’s plenty of material on the ‘net, and Wikipedia has a good, but limited summary.]

In the past, I used the terms Calvinist and Arminian; even said nonsense sentences like, ‘I’m a Calvinist looking back and an Arminian, when looking forward’. I now think they are useless terms, and avoid using them – much better to use the various verses in Scripture to illustrate what God says about being responsible for our actions; and, what He says about choosing His ‘sheep’.

The Rev. Dr. John Woodhouse then looks at two areas of our lives and how they relate to the belief in a sovereign God: prayer and evangelism.

Immediately, the Rev Dr John forgets his previous statement on labels, and writes:“If you have an Arminian prayer life (What’s that, I ask?), then you may think there is a tension between believing in the sovereignty of God and praying. After all, if God is in control of all things, and knows all things, what can possibly be the point of praying?” He starts his response, by saying, ‘We are to pray because we believe in the sovereignty of God … ‘ Now, I’m really confused – Scripture is full of verses which talk about prayer, in particular, Matthew’s Gospel contains a fairly detailed section on prayer – maybe, some of those verses, to illustrate this point, may have helped me?

I’m patient, so I struggle on – to read (and yes, another label): “The extreme Arminian prayer is the prayer that is thought to be effective in proportion to the amount of faith with which it is prayed … “. What do you think, how about the case of a prayer where there is no faith at all, compared to a prayer with  just a little faith – now, what does Jesus say about this case, does a mustard seed come to mind?

He concludes this section by saying: “What we believe about the sovereignty of God will be demonstrated in our prayers.” I agree with this statement, but so far this article has not contributed to my obviously poor understanding of this issue.

Now, onto evangelism, some introductory comments made by the writer: “Evangelism is necessary because God is sovereign – not despite that fact. … Evangelism is urgent because God is sovereign – not despite that fact.” I’m feeling terribly tired now, I really am lost – I think I need a lot more explanation to understand, any of this.

What I mean, by using the words ‘I’m lost’, is to say I can’t find an application of these statements to my own life. I’m trying to acquire an understanding of the writer’s message which can be applied to my Christian life – and, I need simple examples – more importantly, I need references to Scripture – because then I can put the material into a known context.

Summary

The point to my post is this: sometimes theologians become so engrossed in the battle that rages within intellectual arguments, that the spiritual realities get lost in the codified language, they use.

I think, it’s a lot better use of time to prayerfully read Scripture, either alone or in a Bible study group, then to spend a lot of time reading about things, like – what Calvin wrote about pre-destination. The same Holy Spirit is in you, as was in Calvin – Jesus loves you so much that whatever knowledge you need to follow Him, will be given to you – even if a theologian thinks your prayers ain’t perfect – whose are?

Posted on February 9th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: ViewPoints | No Comments »

Today I read a report on www.cnn.com; excerpt as follows: “(CNN) — Shooters opened fire at a gathering outside an eastern Egyptian church, killing six during the celebration of a Christian sect’s Christmas Eve, Egypt’s Interior Ministry reported.

Coptics — adherents of an Egyptian sectof Christianity that observes Christmas Day on January 7 — were leaving mass at 11:30 p.m. Wednesday in Naga Hammadi City when they were attacked, the government told CNN. … ”

It’s interesting that this report has not received much coverage in the international news; and, the second point is that CNN would call the largest Christian group in Egypt- a ‘sect’.  Although, the word ‘sect’ has a generalised meaning (which can be used in this case); in some western countries, the meaning has tended to become narrow, such that it often indicates a group which is not part of the mainstream and also has a strong adherence to their own set of rules.

The Coptic Church of Egypt is one of the oldest Christian churches in the world.

Whatever words you use, the killing of six people outside their church, in any country - is a sad event.

Posted on January 7th, 2010 by Shayne
Filed under: Current Events | No Comments »

“In 2004, Anglican leaders had asked the Episcopal Church for a moratorium on electing another gay bishop while they tried to prevent a permanent break in the fellowship.”

However, the Episcopal Church in America has recently decided to ignore the advice of their peers and they’re in the process of electing another gay person to a position of authority. [Reference - this article  ... ]

I have no more of an interest in homosexuality, than I do, in: adultery, sex outside of marriage, theft, murder, dishonor of family, lies and dishonesty, etc, etc  - they are all examples of rebellion against God’s love, and  a general failure to love those ‘around us’. The current attitude of the Episcopal Church in USA - demonstrates a breakdown of  loyalty to God and His church, and a failure of true social justice. 

The question then is – can any person who follows Jesus – follow their example?

What are your views?

Posted on December 7th, 2009 by Shayne
Filed under: Current Events | No Comments »