I am writing a sermon on the prophecies of Christ's coming, so naturally I am researching the first possible prophecy of a Savior from sin, Genesis 3:15 - a.k.a. "the protoevangelium." In doing some Online research I stumbled across "the protoevangelium of James". Protoevangelium simply means "first gospel" or "first message", so I wasn't sure what this "first gospel" or James was all about.
In looking into it, it is an aprocryphal book written around 150 AD which describes in great detail the life of Mary. The writer of this book is claiming to be James the Just, which is one of the brothers of Jesus (or half brothers rather, since they would have been the offspring of Jospeh and Mary, as where Jesus was the offspring of Mary and the Holy Spirit) and the writer of the New Testament book "James". Thus, by claiming to be James the Just the writer of The Protoevangelium of James is establishing his credibility as a source of information about Mary, because he would have lived his entire life within her household. Some of the claims that the writer of this book makes are that Mary was always a Virgin, and that James and his brothers were actually born from a previous wife of Joseph. Theses, and many other, claims of this writer do not fit into the claims of the New Testament and even contradict the facts of the New Testament.
What troubles me is that this aprocryphal book, and many others like it, are considered to be just as true and valuable as the New Testament books by many people, and especially the Orthodox Catholic Church (by which I mean those in charge of said Church). From the apocryphal books we find many extra doctrines which do not show up in the New Testament at all, such as Pergatory, Mary's Emmaculate Conception (that is referring to Mary being Emmaculatly Conceived, NOT Jesus Christ), and Mary's constant state of Virginity.
What confuses me about this is that most of these books have been shown time and time again to be NOT written by those who claim to be the writers. For instance, the Protoevangelium of James could not have been written by James at all for many reasons. Firstly, James the Just was put to death around 62 AD during times of persecution against Christians, so he could not have written a book around 150 AD. Secondly, scholars have shown that the writer of this book used the Greek Septuagint (a.k.a. LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for his quotes and references, rather than the Hebrew Massoretic Texts (Accepted Hebrew cannon, in Hebew), as where James, a Jew living in Jerusalem, would have used the Hebrew text as his starting point, even if he were going to translate said Hebrew into Greek for his book (The LXX has many variances that make it obvious when someone has used it as their source). Lastly, anyone with an elementary understanding of Hebrew/Jewish customs and culture of the first and second century who reads this book can point out immediatly that the writer of this book had very little or NO understanding of said customs and culture, thus, it could not have been James the Just, who, as I have stated, was a Jew living in Jerusalem.
So, we have a book that people are claiming should be a holy scipture, that makes claims about the life of Mary and Jesus that do not line up with that of the New Testament (which, by the way, HAS been shown to be likely written by those who claim to have written it, and WHEN they claimed to have written it). The writer of this book starts off by claiming to be someone who he is not, a.k.a. lieing. Then the author goes on to make said claims. If the writer of this book was not James the Just, how could he have known at all about the personal lives of Mary and Jesus? Especially since this was written over 100 years after they all lived together, by someone who was not even living in Jerusalem (actually he probably lived several hundred miles East of these events). So I have to ask, why would anyone claim that this book is holy scripture? Why would anyone accept it as truth over the New Testament? How could someone trust a writer who begins his account with a blatent lie?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Protoevangelium of James
I am writing a sermon on the prophecies of Christ's coming, so naturally I am researching the first possible prophecy of a Savior from sin, Genesis 3:15 - a.k.a. "the protoevangelium." In doing some Online research I stumbled across "the protoevangelium of James". Protoevangelium simply means "first gospel" or "first message", so I wasn't sure what this "first gospel" or James was all about.
In looking into it, it is an aprocryphal book written around 150 AD which describes in great detail the life of Mary. The writer of this book is claiming to be James the Just, which is one of the brothers of Jesus (or half brothers rather, since they would have been the offspring of Jospeh and Mary, as where Jesus was the offspring of Mary and the Holy Spirit) and the writer of the New Testament book "James". Thus, by claiming to be James the Just the writer of The Protoevangelium of James is establishing his credibility as a source of information about Mary, because he would have lived his entire life within her household. Some of the claims that the writer of this book makes are that Mary was always a Virgin, and that James and his brothers were actually born from a previous wife of Joseph. Theses, and many other, claims of this writer do not fit into the claims of the New Testament and even contradict the facts of the New Testament.
What troubles me is that this aprocryphal book, and many others like it, are considered to be just as true and valuable as the New Testament books by many people, and especially the Orthodox Catholic Church (by which I mean those in charge of said Church). From the apocryphal books we find many extra doctrines which do not show up in the New Testament at all, such as Pergatory, Mary's Emmaculate Conception (that is referring to Mary being Emmaculatly Conceived, NOT Jesus Christ), and Mary's constant state of Virginity.
What confuses me about this is that most of these books have been shown time and time again to be NOT written by those who claim to be the writers. For instance, the Protoevangelium of James could not have been written by James at all for many reasons. Firstly, James the Just was put to death around 62 AD during times of persecution against Christians, so he could not have written a book around 150 AD. Secondly, scholars have shown that the writer of this book used the Greek Septuagint (a.k.a. LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for his quotes and references, rather than the Hebrew Massoretic Texts (Accepted Hebrew cannon, in Hebew), as where James, a Jew living in Jerusalem, would have used the Hebrew text as his starting point, even if he were going to translate said Hebrew into Greek for his book (The LXX has many variances that make it obvious when someone has used it as their source). Lastly, anyone with an elementary understanding of Hebrew/Jewish customs and culture of the first and second century who reads this book can point out immediatly that the writer of this book had very little or NO understanding of said customs and culture, thus, it could not have been James the Just, who, as I have stated, was a Jew living in Jerusalem.
So, we have a book that people are claiming should be a holy scipture, that makes claims about the life of Mary and Jesus that do not line up with that of the New Testament (which, by the way, HAS been shown to be likely written by those who claim to have written it, and WHEN they claimed to have written it). The writer of this book starts off by claiming to be someone who he is not, a.k.a. lieing. Then the author goes on to make said claims. If the writer of this book was not James the Just, how could he have known at all about the personal lives of Mary and Jesus? Especially since this was written over 100 years after they all lived together, by someone who was not even living in Jerusalem (actually he probably lived several hundred miles East of these events). So I have to ask, why would anyone claim that this book is holy scripture? Why would anyone accept it as truth over the New Testament? How could someone trust a writer who begins his account with a blatent lie?
In looking into it, it is an aprocryphal book written around 150 AD which describes in great detail the life of Mary. The writer of this book is claiming to be James the Just, which is one of the brothers of Jesus (or half brothers rather, since they would have been the offspring of Jospeh and Mary, as where Jesus was the offspring of Mary and the Holy Spirit) and the writer of the New Testament book "James". Thus, by claiming to be James the Just the writer of The Protoevangelium of James is establishing his credibility as a source of information about Mary, because he would have lived his entire life within her household. Some of the claims that the writer of this book makes are that Mary was always a Virgin, and that James and his brothers were actually born from a previous wife of Joseph. Theses, and many other, claims of this writer do not fit into the claims of the New Testament and even contradict the facts of the New Testament.
What troubles me is that this aprocryphal book, and many others like it, are considered to be just as true and valuable as the New Testament books by many people, and especially the Orthodox Catholic Church (by which I mean those in charge of said Church). From the apocryphal books we find many extra doctrines which do not show up in the New Testament at all, such as Pergatory, Mary's Emmaculate Conception (that is referring to Mary being Emmaculatly Conceived, NOT Jesus Christ), and Mary's constant state of Virginity.
What confuses me about this is that most of these books have been shown time and time again to be NOT written by those who claim to be the writers. For instance, the Protoevangelium of James could not have been written by James at all for many reasons. Firstly, James the Just was put to death around 62 AD during times of persecution against Christians, so he could not have written a book around 150 AD. Secondly, scholars have shown that the writer of this book used the Greek Septuagint (a.k.a. LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for his quotes and references, rather than the Hebrew Massoretic Texts (Accepted Hebrew cannon, in Hebew), as where James, a Jew living in Jerusalem, would have used the Hebrew text as his starting point, even if he were going to translate said Hebrew into Greek for his book (The LXX has many variances that make it obvious when someone has used it as their source). Lastly, anyone with an elementary understanding of Hebrew/Jewish customs and culture of the first and second century who reads this book can point out immediatly that the writer of this book had very little or NO understanding of said customs and culture, thus, it could not have been James the Just, who, as I have stated, was a Jew living in Jerusalem.
So, we have a book that people are claiming should be a holy scipture, that makes claims about the life of Mary and Jesus that do not line up with that of the New Testament (which, by the way, HAS been shown to be likely written by those who claim to have written it, and WHEN they claimed to have written it). The writer of this book starts off by claiming to be someone who he is not, a.k.a. lieing. Then the author goes on to make said claims. If the writer of this book was not James the Just, how could he have known at all about the personal lives of Mary and Jesus? Especially since this was written over 100 years after they all lived together, by someone who was not even living in Jerusalem (actually he probably lived several hundred miles East of these events). So I have to ask, why would anyone claim that this book is holy scripture? Why would anyone accept it as truth over the New Testament? How could someone trust a writer who begins his account with a blatent lie?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Is God fair?
Once again I have been inspired to write a blog post (my apologies for the few weeks lacking) while I am researching for a sermon.
Is God fair? Is God full equitable? Is God impartial? Does He treat all peoples the same? And in His actions is He being fair to the parties involved one hundred percent of the time?
Obviously the New Testament makes it quite clear that God considers faith in Christ as the only stipulation and the only road to salvation. So in this way we can assume that God has no partiality toward any people group or type of person.
But, depending on your view of foreknowledge and pre-destination, it could be possible to argue that God has a pre-disposition toward certain people based on His choice of who will be saved. The depths which that thought could go are a bit astounding now that I think about it. If you have any insights, please enlighten the rest of us.
Now when it comes to God's actions being "fair" to all parties involved, we humans like to push our sense of "fairness" and what is right and wrong onto God. For instance, a common query is: "If God is fair and just, how could He allow an innocent child in Africa to die of starvation or be forced to be a child soldier and commit attrocities." I think that the main problem with this is that we are saying that there is some cosmological right and wrong, or just and unjust standard that God must follow for Him to be just and fair. But God IS the ultimate standard by which rightness and justice and goodness must be compared. God does not conform to any other standard or power outside of His own character and being. That means that we are in complete error when we ask God how He could allow X and Y to happen if He was just! Who are we to question God on a matter which we have no clear understanding of and which He has full and complete understanding and control over?
Is God fair? Is God full equitable? Is God impartial? Does He treat all peoples the same? And in His actions is He being fair to the parties involved one hundred percent of the time?
Obviously the New Testament makes it quite clear that God considers faith in Christ as the only stipulation and the only road to salvation. So in this way we can assume that God has no partiality toward any people group or type of person.
But, depending on your view of foreknowledge and pre-destination, it could be possible to argue that God has a pre-disposition toward certain people based on His choice of who will be saved. The depths which that thought could go are a bit astounding now that I think about it. If you have any insights, please enlighten the rest of us.
Now when it comes to God's actions being "fair" to all parties involved, we humans like to push our sense of "fairness" and what is right and wrong onto God. For instance, a common query is: "If God is fair and just, how could He allow an innocent child in Africa to die of starvation or be forced to be a child soldier and commit attrocities." I think that the main problem with this is that we are saying that there is some cosmological right and wrong, or just and unjust standard that God must follow for Him to be just and fair. But God IS the ultimate standard by which rightness and justice and goodness must be compared. God does not conform to any other standard or power outside of His own character and being. That means that we are in complete error when we ask God how He could allow X and Y to happen if He was just! Who are we to question God on a matter which we have no clear understanding of and which He has full and complete understanding and control over?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Death & Time
Since we are already on a kick about time, I thought we could do a little speculating on death with the consideration of time.
I just watched "What Dreams May Come". For those of you who haven't seen it, it is about a man who dies.... sorry, did that spoil it for you?
I have been considering what happens when one dies and what is the experience like. Many people believe that in death time flows, but the opinions on HOW it flows are quite different. For instance, it is a popular belief that there is a sense of time in death, but that a human life is as a heart beat in the afterlife.
Another common opinion is that in death there is no time and therefore we will all arrive at it at the same "moment". Thus, with the Christian worldview in mind, those of us who are saved would all either a) die and be resurrected immediately from our point of view, or b) die and all be in heaven immediately from our point of view, depending on your opinion on what heaven is and the end times.
Personally, I am very unsure about this matter. Obviously this is a topic that has no effect on what actually happens, and what you believe about it is basically inconsequential. Regardless, I would like to hear other opinions on the matter.
-M.W.J.
I just watched "What Dreams May Come". For those of you who haven't seen it, it is about a man who dies.... sorry, did that spoil it for you?
I have been considering what happens when one dies and what is the experience like. Many people believe that in death time flows, but the opinions on HOW it flows are quite different. For instance, it is a popular belief that there is a sense of time in death, but that a human life is as a heart beat in the afterlife.
Another common opinion is that in death there is no time and therefore we will all arrive at it at the same "moment". Thus, with the Christian worldview in mind, those of us who are saved would all either a) die and be resurrected immediately from our point of view, or b) die and all be in heaven immediately from our point of view, depending on your opinion on what heaven is and the end times.
Personally, I am very unsure about this matter. Obviously this is a topic that has no effect on what actually happens, and what you believe about it is basically inconsequential. Regardless, I would like to hear other opinions on the matter.
-M.W.J.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
New Horizons and Considerations on God and Time
I have, for now at least, decided upon a course and purpose for this blog. I have outlined this on the side panel of the blog. If you have any additional thoughts on the purpose statement there-in please feel free to leave me a comment.
For my first truly thought out query, I ponder the relationship between God and Time. I approach this topic currently because it is a primary topic of a sermon which I am preparing for next Sunday.
My personal predisposition is that God created Time. This is based on the fact that God created the Universe and all things in it. Genesis 1:1 simply establishes God's creation of all things, but does not specify many details. But because God created literally everything, I must presume that He created the realm, physically and metaphysically, which all things reside in. Thus, reality itself, matter, energy, time, were all part of God's creation. This being so would mean that God is in control of all of these things and thus not under the influence of any of them Himself. This would lead to the conclusion that God is, in actuality, outside of time all together. This is a very difficult consideration to process for the human psyche. Everything in our existence, everything we think and do are all quite dependent on time and the movement of time. Thus, to even consider or ponder something or someone that is outside time is quite impossible for the human, for even our thoughts deny us the ability.
The conclusion then is that God is not under the influence or dominion of anyone or anything, including metaphysical substances such as the flow of time (if such a thing can truly be called a substance at all). Humans however are under the influence and dominion of many things, moreover, humanity is dreadfully dependent on a plethora of objects. This is an incredible dividing line between God and everyone else. God is the creator, and therefore the great influence and the great independent provider. But Man is God's creation and thus dependent on other parts of God's multi-faceted creation.
Do you have a differing opinion on this subject? Or an addition to make to this query? Please comment and discuss.
For my first truly thought out query, I ponder the relationship between God and Time. I approach this topic currently because it is a primary topic of a sermon which I am preparing for next Sunday.
My personal predisposition is that God created Time. This is based on the fact that God created the Universe and all things in it. Genesis 1:1 simply establishes God's creation of all things, but does not specify many details. But because God created literally everything, I must presume that He created the realm, physically and metaphysically, which all things reside in. Thus, reality itself, matter, energy, time, were all part of God's creation. This being so would mean that God is in control of all of these things and thus not under the influence of any of them Himself. This would lead to the conclusion that God is, in actuality, outside of time all together. This is a very difficult consideration to process for the human psyche. Everything in our existence, everything we think and do are all quite dependent on time and the movement of time. Thus, to even consider or ponder something or someone that is outside time is quite impossible for the human, for even our thoughts deny us the ability.
The conclusion then is that God is not under the influence or dominion of anyone or anything, including metaphysical substances such as the flow of time (if such a thing can truly be called a substance at all). Humans however are under the influence and dominion of many things, moreover, humanity is dreadfully dependent on a plethora of objects. This is an incredible dividing line between God and everyone else. God is the creator, and therefore the great influence and the great independent provider. But Man is God's creation and thus dependent on other parts of God's multi-faceted creation.
Do you have a differing opinion on this subject? Or an addition to make to this query? Please comment and discuss.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Seeking Forgiveness
When seeking forgiveness for ones sins, there are two persons who are generally to be sought out. In the past I have spent much time apologizing to the one who forgives sins, being God. More recently I have been confronted with the realization that many persons have been offended, slighted, and sinned against by myself and my actions. I am struck down and my pride is broken. With each apology, with each shameful remembrance of my sins against another, I am more free from my bonds and my past.
As I am considering these things, I must also consider how un-repentent sin, before God and before man, has kept me from blessings and growth in my life. How much have I missed, and how often have I held myself back because of my stubbornness and blindness to see my own sin.
These are quick thoughts, I ought to spend more time on them. But for now that is all.
As I am considering these things, I must also consider how un-repentent sin, before God and before man, has kept me from blessings and growth in my life. How much have I missed, and how often have I held myself back because of my stubbornness and blindness to see my own sin.
These are quick thoughts, I ought to spend more time on them. But for now that is all.
My Quest for Humility and Knowledge
What is this humility?
So many consider it a debasing of self, a lashing and strangling of one's own qualities and knowledge lest one be puffed up with pride. But humility, true humility, the kind of humility that our savior displayed for our example by not considering equality with God a thing to be grasped, that kind of humility is what I seek. Christ never pretended to be something He was not, nor did he deny his gifts and knowledge, rather, He chose to count others more important than Himself, and used His strengths for the sake of others.
A man much wiser than myself once told me that humility is knowing your place in Christ and in Christ's kingdom and acting accordingly. If I am to be a preacher and shepherd to the flock of Christ, I should not deny that I am gifted as such, this would not be pleasing or honoring to the God who gifted me as such. Instead, I ought to praise the God of the universe and my salvation for these abilities and use them for His glory.
So then, I have my working definition and understanding of humility. With that in mind how might I seek knowledge, which puffs up the prideful flesh of man, and stay true to this God honoring trait.
So many consider it a debasing of self, a lashing and strangling of one's own qualities and knowledge lest one be puffed up with pride. But humility, true humility, the kind of humility that our savior displayed for our example by not considering equality with God a thing to be grasped, that kind of humility is what I seek. Christ never pretended to be something He was not, nor did he deny his gifts and knowledge, rather, He chose to count others more important than Himself, and used His strengths for the sake of others.
A man much wiser than myself once told me that humility is knowing your place in Christ and in Christ's kingdom and acting accordingly. If I am to be a preacher and shepherd to the flock of Christ, I should not deny that I am gifted as such, this would not be pleasing or honoring to the God who gifted me as such. Instead, I ought to praise the God of the universe and my salvation for these abilities and use them for His glory.
So then, I have my working definition and understanding of humility. With that in mind how might I seek knowledge, which puffs up the prideful flesh of man, and stay true to this God honoring trait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)