RE

JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Principles of the Kingdom of God

 The kingdom of God is a concept which runs through the teaching of Jesus. It is the spiritual and economic rule under which Jesus and his disciples live. The importance of an ‘economy of salvation’ in Luke will become clearer as we consider the topic of ‘Salvation’ and ‘Rich and poor’. The principles of the Kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus provide an overarching framework under which Jesus and his disciples operate. The principles of love, generosity and mercy are pre-requisites for becoming sons of the Most High (Luke 6 vs. 35-36)- Jesus’ disciples are taught not to be vengeful or spiteful. Giving, yielding, lending, passing by the desire to judge (6 vs. 27-42): these are actions which demonstrate another rule is at work and different principles are operating to the normal type of career path.

 These principles do not come naturally- they have to be taught and lived out. Jesus assumes two things in teaching them. Firstly, that he knows God’s will, and secondly that he is able to identify whether this is being followed. Thus he addresses his disciples directly, and particularly, as those living under his rule: ‘Blessed are you who are poor for yours is the Kingdom of God’, 6v.20. Their voluntary poverty and association with suffering and difficulty does in the immediate term result in a blessed or happy life. (Notice the present tense here). By contrast it is future woe that is announced for those who receive the comforts and status of the present day (vs. 24-26). The Kingdom of God is neither presently among them nor will it be so. A present life that not only says what is right (vs.43-45), but also does what is right (v.46) becomes in the future established and unshakeable (vs. 48-49).

 Spiritual warfare and the Kingdom

 A pre-requisite of Jesus’ Kingdom mission programme in Luke is the indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit. This has a clear purpose as the experience is outworked in spiritual confrontation. After his baptism, and prior to this desert experience Luke records Jesus as being ‘full of the Holy Spirit’ (4 v.1). He is then tempted by the devil in the desert and emerges from the desert ‘in the power of the Holy Spirit’ (v.14). During the trial there is a hint of Jesus’ coming Kingdom proclamation. This occurs in the devil’s second temptation (4 vs. 5-7) in which Jesus is offered the kingdoms of the world in exchange for bowing down and worshipping the devil. This also offers insight into both the scope of the devil’s rule which extends to the ‘kingdoms of this world’, and its nature which is more political and focused upon the present. Although the political element is far from absent in Jesus’ ministry, his notion of the Kingdom is directed more towards the eschatological i.e. God’s rule over all time (see Luke 21).  

Luke’s particular focus on the Holy Spirit is also seen in his treatment and placement of Jesus’ teaching on prayer (Luke 11 vs. 1-13). Importunate asking, seeking and knocking is said to result in the giving of ‘the Holy Spirit’ in Luke, whereas in Matthew it is ‘good gifts’ (Matt. 7 vs. 7-11). This teaching on prayer is also placed before Jesus’ main discourse on spiritual warfare (11 vs. 14-28), as though these prayers are a necessary experience of equipping for spiritual battle.

In chapter 11 Jesus is accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub (Satan). The Oxford Bible commentary notes Jesus’ identification of the non sequitur in the argument of his opponents – how can Satan drive out Satan? If this were so it would mean his Kingdom would be divided. These statements made by Jesus are evidence of his awareness of the confused and divided thinking of his opponents. (‘Jesus knew their thoughts’ – v.17). Some are accusing him of using a wrong power source (v.15), others are asking for a sign from heaven (v.16). Jesus’ thinking does not contain this division between the visible sign and the unseen power source. He drives out demons by the finger of God, an unseen power source, which results in visible signs. Overall, these two elements are a single and undivided manifestation of the Kingdom of God (v.20). A real and undivided power source produces a real, tangible and unmistakable result. By contrast the underlying beliefs of his opponents about the divided nature of Jesus’ ministry will result in division in their own ranks (v.19).

Posted by Nick Bensted

To take a look at Nicks' courses go to Courses and then click on: More RE courses.

JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

The Kingdom of God is differentiated in the synoptic gospels to the Old Testament concept of the Messianic Kingship and subsequent conquest of foreign armies. The notion is predominantly eschatological as becomes increasingly clear towards the end of the gospel. The earthly geographical space of the Kingdom, however includes the Gentile nations, but contains no thought of military conquest. In Luke there is a clear staging towards the Gentile mission eventually described in Luke’s second book the Acts of the Apostles. This is not the initial focus of Jesus, who sets his sights on Jerusalem, but his fate there is a prelude to the realization of his mission beyond (24v.46).

 Proclamation

 Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God is also set within this context of a dynamic mission and destiny. This begins with Luke 4 v.43 in which Jesus states, ‘I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other towns also because that is why I was sent’. The word ‘must’ (‘dei’) denotes necessity, an element absent in Mark’s account in which the preaching tour is presented as more of a suggestion (1v. 38). In chapter 8 verse 1 Luke’s use of the Greek verb ‘poreuomai’ as he describes Jesus’ ongoing Kingdom mission is a striking one. This word is used in connection both with Jesus’ determination to reach Jerusalem and his ongoing journey to this destination. In chapter 9 v. 51 the word is used to describe Jesus resolutely setting out, in verse 57 ‘walking along the road’ and in 13 v.33 to ‘keep going’. The first two references to the word are found at the end of chapter 9 from verses 51-62. Here, they explain the connection between the kind of leadership Jesus exercises and the Kingdom of God. The narrative describes the sense of movement generated by Jesus’ journeying, which attracts the interest of three separate individuals. All three, it appears, are either dissuaded or distracted from following Jesus by the cost involved or by their particular responsibilities. This grouping of incidents is summarised by Jesus’ words to the third individual: ‘No-one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God’ (9v.62).

 Mission

 The key emphasis on the mission of Jesus comes in chapter 9 vs. 1-6 and in the following chapter, but Luke pre-empts this by bringing attention to the traveling mission associated with Jesus in 8 verses 1-3. These verses provide the link between the initial call to follow in chapter 5 verses 1-11 and the commissioning of all twelve disciples in chapter 9. This time has been spent with Jesus (note 8 v.1).

 The fact that the twelve are sent without resources has more definite significance in Luke given his earlier inclusion of Jesus’ programmatic proclamation of good news to the poor (Luke 4 vs.18-19). As they bring this good news the disciples are identified with the recipients of the message by being made so ill equipped. Luke 9v.2, v.11 and 10v.9 all associate the message of the Kingdom with healing, an exercise which is conducted liberally by both Jesus and his disciples. It seems that the disciple’s presence with Jesus has trained them in the proclamation and works of the Kingdom before he sends them out in verses 1-6.

Interestingly Luke includes a second commissioning which is not mentioned in the other two synoptic gospels nor in John. This is perhaps testimony to his particular interest in the subject of mission. Recorded in chapter 10 this account throws light on the scale of Jesus’ mission – a further 72 are sent out two by two ahead of Jesus. They appear to be a kind of advanced team visiting ‘every town and place where he was about to go’ (v.1). Although ‘the twelve’ are still accorded privileged status at the close of the mission (vs. 23-24) these Kingdom workers are privileged enough to carry out the very same works- healing the sick, proclaiming the Kingdom and driving out demons. This latter work is one that has occupied their attention (verse 17), but Jesus turns their thoughts towards the greater privelege of having their names written in heaven (v.20).

The close of this mission is something of a high point in the experiences of Jesus that are recorded in Luke’s gospel. Jesus is ‘full of joy’ as he offers praise to the Father through the Holy Spirit (v.21). This is on account of the manner and choice of the revelation of the Father that has taken place in the mission. The seventy-two are ‘as little children’ in comparison with the ‘wise and learned’ in Israel, and it is therefore all the more miraculous and remarkable that the Father should choose to reveal himself to them. The significance of these verses is perhaps underlined by Luke’s sequencing – they are followed by what has been described as a ‘Johannine thunder bolt’ in verse 22. This feature in which the Father and the Son are closely co-ordinated in the work of revelation is found nowhere else in Luke, yet well known in the gospel of John. It brings into focus the authority of Jesus’ mission; ‘All things have been committed to him by the Father.. (v.21). These are the extraordinary trinitarian reflections of Jesus on a powerful, exciting and successful mission.

 Posted by Nick Bensted.

To take a look at Nick’s courses. Go to Courses and then click on: More RE courses.

 

The boy Jesus at the temple

We have noted Luke’s reference to the temple at the beginning for his birth and at the end of his gospel. These references thread the narrative through completing a single tapestry of the setting of Jesus’ life and origins and the ongoing apostolic witness. This short incident focused upon in chapter 2 and verses 41-52 is the first occasion that Jesus himself chooses to position himself in such a way that indicates his future calling. And again the location is the Jewish temple.

The record of Jesus’ age in verse 42 is significant because this was the time that a boy was supposed to become an adult according to Jewish custom. This story shares a similarity with other famous biographies circulating at the time. Typically these contained early events from the childhood of a future hero. Such characters would have included Daniel and Solomon from the Jewish tradition and Alexander the Great or Epicurus from the Greek tradition. (De Jonge, ‘Sonship’, p.317-24). Luke’s purpose here is to demonstrate not only the clear academic ability and knowledge of Jesus (v.47), but also his purpose, his objective and his leadership qualities (v.49). The theology of Luke summarises the passage with the benefit of hindsight in the final verse (v.52) For Luke it signals not the precociousness of a child, (in v.48 the Greek is teknon meaning child) but as evidence of growth and maturation towards manhood. The crowning element, however, is the presence of divine favour.

 The event begins with a regular year by year trip to Jerusalem which is undertaken by Jesus and his parents. Passover was one of the three great annual pilgrim feasts that involved travelling to Jerusalem (Exod. 23 vs. 14-17, Deut. 16 v.16, Nolland). As with the Nunc Dimittis there are Old Testament parallels. 1 Samuel 1 v.3, v.7, v.21, and 2 v.19 speak of regular family sacrifices whilst the prophet was a boy. Further evidence that this comparison is intended is to be found in 1 Samuel 1 v. 26 which has a clear resonance with the final summary in verse 52. The reason Jesus’ absence passes without notice is explained by the word ‘company’ (v.44) This word is rarely used and carries the meaning of travelling party or caravan. The scene is further depicted by the parents’ search for him among their relatives or friends, thus identifying the party as at least largely, if not completely from Nazareth.

The scene in the temple itself is the centre-piece in the narrative. The anxious parents contrast with the amazement of the people at Jesus’ understanding and answers. These display the wisdom Luke has already told us he has grown into (v.40). The anxiety of the three days of searching exhibits itself in the language of Jesus’ mother – the word ‘odunoamai’ is stronger than anxiety meaning distress and pain. Jesus expresses surprise at his parent’s ignorance of his activities. The phrase he uses in v.49 can mean either ‘in my Father’s house’ or ‘about the things of my Father’. Either would locate his whereabouts in the temple, but the latter is the more literal translation. Also undetected in the English translation is the Greek ‘dei’ meaning it is necessary. Just as it was necessary for Jesus to be with his earthly Father it is equally natural for him to be in the house of his heavenly Father. The understanding of his relationship to God as Father eludes his parents (v.49), but there is no implied conflict between the two in Jesus’ answer. This is confirmed by Luke’s note in verse 51 that he returned with them ‘and was obedient to them’.  Thus Luke’s final and concluding remark that he ‘grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and with men’.

 Posted by Nick Bensted.

To take a look at Nick’s courses. Go to Courses and then click on: More RE courses.

 

Presentation in the temple

Luke's gospel brings us some unique glimpses into Jesus' early life. Here we look at his presentation in the temple.

Jesus’ early life

i) Presentation in the temple

This short section features the famous verse of Simeon known as the Nunc Dimittis. It parallels an earlier passage, in that just as Zechariah foretells John’s ministry by the Holy Spirit, so Jesus’ future is supernaturally revealed by Simeon through the Spirit. Before this point the Holy Spirit, a particular feature in Luke, also plays a key role in Simeon’s preparation to meet the child as he waits, receives revelation, and is moved thereby (see 2 vs. 25-27). The distinctive in this case in not an infilling as with Elizabeth and Zechariah (1 v.41, 67), but rather presence and inspired foreknowledge. It is the child’s future that fills the centre stage of the narrative, but Luke continues his programme of grounding his account in its Jewish heritage. The conformity of Jesus’ parents to the religious law is stressed in chapter 2 verses 22-24. Furthermore, both Simeon and Anna are very much associated with the Jewish temple. We may surmise that Simeon is a priest given the blessing he grants Jesus at the time of the presentation. This resembles the standard priestly blessing conducted by Aaron and his sons at the command of Moses in Numbers ch.6 vs.22-27. With closer association to the present context, Eli prays a blessing over Elkanah and his wife in the temple for the birth of children (1 Samuel 2 v.20).

Simeon’s utterance itself has its roots in Old Testament prophecy, rather than law. The most conspicuous association is with Isaiah, and his theme of Israel and the nations. The thought of Israel being a light to the Gentiles and of the nation itself being the recipient of glory emerges from Isaiah 42 v.6 and 60 v.1. Remarkably these ancient promises are concentrated on the child, who is specifically identified by Simeon. We are informed that this identification has been anticipated (v.21), and that further details of the significance of the child were previously known by Simeon (v.31).

Mary is addressed by Simeon with a separate word of prophecy that refers both to the child she has borne and her own suffering in relation (vs. 34-35). The language here seems to be reminiscent of ‘stone’ texts in the Old Testament that are combined in the Christian tradition (1 Peter 2 vs. 7-8, Rom. 9 vs. 32-33). This is because of the Greek verb ‘keimai’ used at the very beginning of the sentence, which can refer to a stone being laid. The analogy cannot be pressed too far since the juxtaposition of ‘falling and rising’ represents a different set of imagery. The main point is that the child is set to be the cause of political upheaval and repositioning in Israel. The opposition generated by this will be such that Mary will also be sharply impacted (v.35). The language here resembles the effect of the word of God described by the writer to the Hebrews (4v.12).

Anna the prophetess is in some ways a familiar figure to the other characters we have met so far. She is looking forward to the Messiah, she frequents the temple, and is associated with prophecy. But her uniqueness impresses itself through her extraordinary piety, demonstrated by constant fasting and prayer in the temple. This activity has enabled her to build up a witness concerning the child, which she then shares with two different groups. Firstly, those with Jesus and secondly those in a wider group who are looking forward to the ‘redemption of Jerusalem’ (v.38). The noun ‘redemption’ is not common among the other gospel writers. A further example of its use by Luke is in chapter 21 v.28 within his eschatological discourse. Again this picks up on the theme of the Jewish expectancy concerning the coming of the Messiah to the city of Jerusalem (note also 21 v.24). This expectation is a characteristically Jewish notion and one that Luke, as a Gentile, identifies because of his interest in history, rather than because of a concept of Jewish brotherhood, more characteristic of Matthew (23 vs. 8-12). The words ‘redemption of Jerusalem’ are a suitable contrast to Simeon’s opening phrase ‘consolation of Israel’, and serve to connect the whole account together as a whole.

Posted by Nick Bensted.
To take a look at Nick’s courses. Go to Courses and then click on: More RE courses.

Honey I Shrunk the Earth!

No, it's not a joke.

It's a petition to stop the end of the world

You think that's nonsense?

Some scientists are very concerned…

Update: European Lawsuit filed August 26, 2008

Update: LHC Safety Refuted by German Astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga who concludes in his August 10, 2008 paper “exclusion of dangerous mBHs thus remains not definite.” and “there is a definite risk from mBHs production at colliders. This final conclusion differs completely from the one drawn by G & M.”

To date, Dr. Otto E. Rössler is the most notable scientist to have the courage to speak out about the potential dangers of running the CERN Large Hadron Collider.Here is Dr. Rössler’s plea to the world:

A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemma

by Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, F.R.G.

Abstract. A nightmarish situation, that can still be hoped to be averted in time through communication within the scientific community, is drawn attention to. Only a few weeks remain to find out whether the danger is real or nothing but a mirage. After this time window is closed, it will take years until we know whether or not we are doomed. The story line has all the features of a best-selling novel. The reader is asked to contribute constructively.

Introduction

A surreal situation is described as being present: the greatest conceivable danger – the end of both history and future. This author still stands almost alone with a few hard results that completely change the status of a currently running public endeavor. What can and must rationally be done in what order?

The most economic way would be to find out where the error lies in the perceived new danger. Since time is running out, the help of other scientists needs to be solicited. This proves not easy. The two major science journals refuse to publish but equally steadfastly refuse to give a scientific reason for their verdict. The unwillingness of the scientific community to falsify the danger takes the public hostage. This remains true even if the whole danger is only a mirage. To publicize the danger because time is running out is a big decision. The legal term for doing something like this is “instigation of irrational panic.“ Can anyone take this on his or her shoulders?

Most likely, of course, the silent scientific establishment is well-advised to ignore the danger. Nevertheless a younger-generation Nobel laureate in physics recently suggested I should go on – even CERN would profit from the publicity. But at the expense of many ordinary citizens being unnecessarily scared to death, I added.

All I suggest to do is to convene an independent safety conference within the remaining four to ten weeks time. This is very little to ask, but exactly this bit is being refused. Why? It looks as if my scientific proposals are so far-off that anyone who ever had a physics course grasps this immediately while everyone else is deeply impressed by the arguments. Or is this just a crime story made up to boost the publishing rights of an unnamed person?

The Rational Dilemma

The scenario looks unbelievable enough: that a prestigious group of ten thousand mostly young and enthusiastic scientists should unwittingly prepare the greatest conceivable risk to the planet. Both “Trinity“ and “Eniwetak“ – the two previous Russian-roulette feats of our species – would be dwarfed by this third instance, without the protagonists‘ noticing.

You will have realized by now that I do not have a 100-percent proof to offer – just probabilities. The latter can be summed up in 7 points. Those points I have put into the Appendix for conciseness. Here let me at last say what we are talking about. The experiment in question is called the LHC (“Large Hadron Collider“) and is the most expensive and prestigious non-military scientific endeavor ever. Hadrons (protons) are to be hauled against each other at 14 times the power of the previous generation of accelerators and 7 times the maximum energy ever achieved (2.000 Giga-electron-Volts).

The experiment at CERN is completely normal science as far as an understanding of every single element is concerned. Only the implications are unusual here since an unexplained natural threshold (called the electro-weak unification barrier) will be surpassed for the first time. This excites string theorists – perhaps the most sophisticated brand of theoretical physicists – since they have a way to predict that even these minuscule energies (compared to the Planck energy thought necessary before) will be sufficient. Mini black-holes could then arise for the first time in history.

Now my group has discovered that black holes possess a new property (lack of evaporation). The two possibilities – that string theorists are right and that we are right – taken together make for a volatile mixture. In such a case it is the most rational thing for the world to convene a scientific conference to discuss the joint implications before the experiment is allowed to become overcritical.

If this plea is heeded, everything is going to be alright. For we will then all know how the leading experts of the world sum up both their mutual consensus and their currently unresolvable dissent. In either case everyone will see clearly what is the most reasonable response to take. Since rationality will be back, no dilemma will remain.

This statement concludes the rational dimension. What about the two other dimensions?

The Moral Dilemma

This second aspect arises because of the following fact: If anyone points out the rational danger, he or she cannot possibly know what this information will entail in the longer run. People could be misled into panicking, for example. But only if the experiment becomes overcritical before a scientific consensus has been achieved (our current situation unless a miracle happens). Or else after it has been done with the dreaded outcome so that the catastrophe takes its course.

Unexpectedly, there exists a third dismal possibility: that the experiment proceeds and no mini black holes are found. This profoundly distinguishes the present situation from Trinity and Eniwetak (the first atomic fission and fusion explosions which fortunately did not engage the atmosphere). While the probability of a dismal outcome is perhaps no greater this time than it was in the previous instances (“1 percent“), it will not be possible to return to business as usual after the event, this time around: the danger will not be over once the scientists declare that their attempt to produce mini black holes has failed since they found no trace of them. For if mini black holes do not evaporate as predicted, they also leave no decipherable sign of their existence – at first. So a negative and a positive outcome are indistinguishable.

This difference to its predecessors makes the current experiment a guaranteed success: at causing an unprecedented amount of human suffering. For there will be no way to explain to anyone that he or she is safe nor to apologize for the suffering to expect. The rational fear unavoidably caused can only be made to go away by convening a post-facto scientific world conference that proclaims absolute safety. Unfortunately, every scientist who would not agree with this preassigned verdict would act irresponsibly. Since this will be obvious, no one would ever again believe a single word from a scientist. Anti-scientific fundamentalism would have won – even if the experiment proves innocuous in hindsight.

Hysterical irrational responses from the part of the up-until-now uninformed majority of persons and countries on the planet would be preprogrammed for years to come. This medieval angst is a danger almost as great as the experiment itself. No one will be astonished in retrospect that 10,000 scientifically trained minds were unable to anticipate this predictable consequence since this rational deduction belongs, not to the realm of the natural sciences, but rather to that of the humanities and arts. The oversight would nonetheless not be forgiven. This second catastrophe can only be avoided through rapid action – the very safety conference already proposed above.

Source: http://www.lhcfacts.org/

Professor Otto Rossler says that nothing will happen for at least four years,’ he said. ‘Then someone will spot a light ray coming out of the Indian Ocean during the night and no one will be able to explain it.

‘A few weeks later, we will see a similar beam of particles coming out of the soil on the other side of the planet. Then we will know there is a little quasar inside the planet.’

Prof Rossler said that as the spinning-top-like quasar devoured the world from within, the two jets emanating from it would grow and catastrophes such as earthquakes and tsunamis would occur at the points they emerged from the Earth.

‘The weather will change completely, wiping out life, and very soon the whole planet will be eaten in a magnificent scenario – if you could watch it from the moon. A Biblical Armageddon. Even cloud and fire will form, as it says in the Bible.’

He said that attempts were still being made in the European Court of Human Rights to halt the experiment on the grounds that it violated the right to life. The court has, however, already rejected calls for a temporary delay in the project, and it is unlikely to come to a speedy decision about whether the CERN experiment should be halted for good.

Three or four years?

Mayan prophecy anyone?

These particles?

Try researching Gog and Magog

But when Gog and Magog are let loose and they rush headlong down every height (or advantage). Then will the True Promise draw near - (Qur'an 21:96-97)But when Gog and Magog are let loose and they rush headlong down every height (or advantage). Then will the True Promise draw near - (Qur'an 21:96-97)

Something to read and consider during Ramadan?

Let's start off with a link about the Imam Mehdi  and also Iran and also some scholars Possibly the end of the world in a few days so...end of world possible in 9 days = 11/9/08 = 911 = 19 (see Koran) (11 + 9 + 8 = 2 + 9 + 8)

 

 

Then there's this video on Youtube

But if Imam is on his way - where is Jesus?

 

Well Satan is here (and that's who Imam and Jesus fight):

 

In Luke 10:18 Jesus states,

“I beheld Satan as Lightning fall from Heaven.”  How does a Jewish Rabbi, which Jesus is credited with being (John 1:38), say in HEBREW, that Satan is like LIGHTNING from heaven?

Barack, also transliterated as Baraq in Hebrew, is LIGHTNING (Strongs Hebrew word 1300). Even in Greek, Barak is LIGHTNING (Strongs Greek word 913) for the name of a person!

The ONLY WAY, a Jewish Rabbi can say in Hebrew that SATAN is LIGHTNING is, SATAN BARACK! Interestingly, the “Greek” verse of Luke 10:18 does not contain an actual Greek word to translate into “Fall”. The Greek word translated as “Fall” appears to be a rare form of a Hebrew word for “transgressions”. So, the words of Jesus in this verse probably refer to heavenly transgressions.

In Hebrew poetry from the dominant book that the New Testament draws upon, to validate the “works” of Jesus as “proof” of poetic prophecy,  the use of BAMA (Strongs Hebrew word 1116) is used to refer to the  “heights” of heaven. That book is Isaiah. Christian scholars would agree, that much of the New Testament refers directly to passages of Isaiah's poetry.

Isaiah is also the source of origin for the Christian concept of “Satan” or “Lucifer” Isaiah 14:12. In the verses of Isaiah that refer directly to “Lucifer” in King James translations of Isaiah, sure enough, BAMA (Strongs Hebrew word 1116) is used to refer to the “Heights” of Heaven (Isaiah 14:14)!

In Hebrew, the letter vau is transliterated as an “O” or “U”. It is primarily used as a conjunction to join concepts together. So, to “join” in Hebrew poetry the concept of lightning (Barack) and a high  place like heaven or the “Heights of Heaven”, the letter “O” or Hebrew vau would be used. Bama is most commonly used to refer to a high sacred place, as well as to the “Heights” of the heavens or clouds. So, Barack O Bama in Hebrew poetry, similar to the style of Isaiah, would translate literally as Lightning and the “Heights” of the sky or heaven!

Satan is Satan in Hebrew. So the Jesus “Prophecy” of Luke 10:18, if spoken actually by a Jewish Rabbi influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, would have said the verse Luke 10:18 as: Satan Barack O Bama

That would be Hebrew for Satan is Lightning (Barack) and the heights (BAMA) of heaven or the sky. Since the oldest copy of Luke 10:18 is recorded in Greek, the only word we need to add, is the incorrectly translated word for a “fall”. Thus far, Christian scholars claim the word translated as “fall” is  Strongs Greek 4098, Pipto. In Luke 10:18, in GREEK, Pipto is not used. The word is pesouta. This is probably a Greek phonetic usage of the Hebrew word. Like Satan is Hebrew and translated phonetically as a Hebrew word, it seems pesouta, a Hebrew word, was not correctly translated, since a Greek word NOT IN THE GREEK TEXT for “fall” is credited by scholars as being in the Satan is Barack (Lightning) verse.

The Hebrew root of pesouta is a word normally used to refer to a “transgression” or a sin.

Pesa (Strongs Hebrew word 6588) refers to a revolt, rebellion or sin, a “transgression”. This is the exact concept normally associated with “Satan” in Christian theology. So, Luke 10:18 is correctly translated as; “Satan is like Lightning (Barack) and the Highest (Bama) heavenly rebellion/sin/transgression!!

While Christians consider “Sin” a humanly “fall” from Grace, the Greek word for a “fall” is not used in Luke 10:18. Interestingly, we now have a political leader on the threshold of obtaining control of the largest arsenal of NUCLEAR WARHEADS on this planet! If you were SATAN, or Barack (Hebrew for Lightning), what army would you try to take control of, so you could unleash 10,000 NUKES upon  mankind and DESTROY what he hates (Humanity)?

That army, is the army of the United States of America! Interestingly, another world figure named Barack, is already in  control of over 100 NUKES! The minister of Defense of Israel is named  Barack! The New Testament records Jesus saying LIGHTNING, or Barack in Hebrew, only three times! Luke 10:18 is clear. SATAN is BARACK or Lightning! In Matthew 24:27, Jesus explains how his “coming” will be connected to LIGHTNING (Barack)!

Matt 24:27  “For as the Lightning (Barack) cometh out of the east and shineth unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be!” The Greek word translated as “For” in this verse is gar (Strongs Greek word 1063). This word can also be translated as SEEING or WHEN. So seeing Barack or when Barack comes from the east and shines unto the west is a TIMING EVENT for the “Coming of Jesus”!

Barack Obama grew up in the “East”, in the country of Indonesia! His political career is now about to shine upon the West, the United States!

Can it be, the “Coming of the Son of Man” is nigh?

According to New Testament verses, Lightning or Barack is SATAN and his travels from the East in Indonesia to his accession to the throne of power in the West, the United States, signals the “Coming of the Son of Man”!

In Luke 17:24, Jesus once again uses Lightning (Barack aka SATAN) for a timing prophecy of his “Coming”! Once again, the Greek word gar (Strongs Greek word 1063) is translated as “for”. However, it is also “seeing” or “when”. So, Luke 17:24 can also be read as: “Seeing/when lightning (Barack) comes out of Heaven... so shall also the Son of man be in his day!”

So, Jesus used Lightning (Barack in Hebrew) to literally describe SATAN! He then tied his “Coming” to the appearance of “Barack” or Lightning aka SATAN! Many political pundits describe the charisma of Barack Obama as “Messianic”! Perhaps they should read their Bibles closer and see it is really SATANIC CONTROL!

The modern “Jewish” concept of SATAN is not like the Christian concept of SATAN! “Jews” with a traditional “Jewish” view of the Old Testament consider SATAN to be an “accuser” or an “opponent”, not a “fallen angel” out to DESTROY Mankind!

In fact, SATAN is actually two different words in Hebrew. The second SATAN means literally PISS ON THE WALL! In fact, the Hebrew word SIN means the same thing PISS ON THE WALL! (See Strongs Hebrew word 8366 = Satan/Piss/Sin).

The Satan Christians comprehend, is Strongs Hebrew words 7853 and 7854. The ADVERSARY, slanderer, opponent or accuser! The Christian version of Satan was influenced by the Greek version of the Old Testament, created about 300 B.C., the Greek Septuaginta. That Greek view of “Satan” probably emanated from contemporary Hebrew thought that was not part of mainstream Judaism. That view, was of the separatist Jews now known as the “Essenes”. The Essenic concept of a  Great War in Heaven between the Sons of God was written about in Essenic literature that is not part of traditional Bibles now. However, their poetic prose about the “Great Battle” between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness were rediscovered not long before Barack was born! That discovery was the Dead Sea Scrolls!

Most Christian Scholars now connect Jesus to the group of Essenes that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, primarily due to their communal concept of life, devotion to a minimalistic lifestyle almost in poverty, and of course ritual bathing or baptism. The Essenes were also acclaimed “Healers”, in the mode of the “Miracles” of the New Testament!

So, is Satan like what “Jews” are taught? An accuser? Or PISS ON THE WALL? Or, is Satan really LIGHTNING/BARACK who now strolls the earth, walking to and fro, and about to take CONTROL of over 10,000 NUKES? If SATAN is a real diabolic fallen “angel”, then the rise of Satan/ Lightning/Barack is THE SIGN that the COMING of IMMANUEL is nigh...

 

Setting of the birth narratives in Luke's gospel

Last time we had an introduction to Luke's gospel and a summary of the basic content of the narratives. This time a brief look at their setting.

The priestly setting of the narratives

Luke begins and ends his gospel in the temple and includes a number of references to it throughout. Jesus is presented in the temple in Jerusalem (2v.21) and announces the purpose of his ministry in an equivalent rural place of worship - the synagogue (4v.16). The final verse of the gospel refers to the disciples’ activity after Jesus’ resurrection appearance; ‘…they stayed continually at the temple, praising God’. These references to the temple are an indication of how Jesus’ message, although profoundly new, was nonetheless continuous with the Old Testament law. This law emphasised the need for sacrificial worship conducted by priests.

We encounter one such priest, named Zechariah, right at the beginning of Luke, in the account of the birth of John the Baptist. In fact, both Zechariah and his wife are of priestly lineage. This fact is designed to alert the reader to the significance of these characters, since many in the ancient world regarded one’s descent as of particular importance. Other references to the Old Testament can be found to the couple being ‘upright in the sight of the Lord’ and the similarities which exist between Elizabeth’s sterility and a number of other Old Testament women, such as Sarah, Hannah and Samson’s mother. Each of these women later give birth to Jewish prophets, men of courage and importance in Israel.

The angelic appearance to Zechariah takes place in the temple, where the presence of God is said uniquely to reside. It is here, that the birth of John, the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets (Luke 7 v.28) is heralded. It is only Luke that emphasises the close correspondence in family background between John and Jesus. Thus Luke’s historical interest is further pronounced.

The prophetic setting

Luke’s inclusion of the stories of Jesus’ birth also reveal an Old Testament continuity in that they herald the coming of God’s reign. The Nicene creed accurately summarises the message of the Old Testament prophets as heralding God’s future rule of ‘righteousness, justice and peace’. This is not only a message of what should be, but also what will be. By including prophetic messages of the Messiah’s ministry, Luke cleverly aligns the Old testament prophetic message with the events of Jesus’ birth, and yet at the same time refocuses this message not only to Israel, but more broadly towards ‘all people’ (2 v.31). This foretelling at the time of birth is a kind of preliminary drum roll prior to the epic narrative of Jesus’ adult life. This collection of accounts are strategically placed in the run up to the New Testament era. Whilst the priestly setting provides a more personal historical background, the prophetic foretelling points to the transcendent dimension of these events.

Posted by Nick Bensted.
To take a look at Nick’s courses. Go to Courses and then click on: More RE courses.

Philosophy

Note,
Please excuse me for the lack of paragraphs. They appear normally in the original version.  (They have now been corrected!)

Philosophy

Philosophy #2
Physics

Like every respected gentleman who describes himself with the glorious term of a 'philosopher', I also would like to be able to prove, or at least pretend I was not asleep during biology, chemistry and physics lessons in school. However, I can not. Because apart from being treated as so called difficult youth, back talking and behaving in the utmost inappropriate manner, I reckon I was thinking too much. I also do have to admit, that after all I was in a way treating science lessons as a nap break. This allowed me somehow to figure out everything on my own. As I have experienced a bitter failure and misunderstanding from most of my readers in the previous, first blog entry, I want to apologize for any further misconception about the purpose of my writing. This is also the reason I would like to straighten all the things now.

My idea behind this blog was to present and confront with all who only would like to my very own ideas and thoughts, by now already formed into a certain and specific vision of existence or so called philosophy. I never wanted to simply discuss any of philosophy topics each of You can in a few seconds look upon in the internet. I set my approach in this particular way for two reasons.

First, it would be just less boring for the reader I thought to read something new and maybe in a way challenging. Second and the more pragmatic one, I do not feel enough qualified in any way to divagate on something I still know so little about. That is both my request and answer to any of those who will wish to glance through my works. Please do not expect of me a solid and detailed account on for example 'dualism' as it is a task for an experienced and fully educated academic who will spent at least ten years and five hundred pages for this single topic.

I am simply not able to list, describe and discuss all of the aspects of dualism. Please forgive me this imperfection of mine. Then onwards I can with entire responsibility and in full consciousness promise I will do my best to simplify and perform my ideas in the clearest possible way.

Coming to the matter of physics itself I have more than little to say. The primary question for me is 'is the matter from which the world is constructed a single or partial being?' Of course the answer seems obvious in the light of todays science, however from the point of view of philosophy it is still an open to discussion issue. The second question I pose concerns more specific problem. On what basis can we distinguish and classify a particular as well as general understanding of any kind of Being.

Answering these questions, I can not see in reality any logical manner in which the matter would be divided. We can speak of atoms, molecules or any other form of arrangement of this matter. However approaching this problem from the philosophical angle we can not speak of any division of the matter reality is composed of whatsoever. It is a case of logical correctness. We are not even able to imagine the pure matter on its own. There is no entirely independent matter which could exist not within any aspect or presence of at least other form of the matter. This is the reason why hypothetically 'the table' should not be imagined or even possible to imagine without for example floor or the air around him.

Second part of the answer may be both considered as a counter argument or just another aspect confirming the thesis. As stated in the previous chapter #1, 'dualism', we can not be certain of the authenticity of our perception of reality. Our body which can not be proven in an undeniable way (hence: philosophy #1, dualism) to be ours provide us only with the mere concept of the reality our consciousness exists in. It concludes than, that on the basis of any empirical perception we are not given any valuable information or solutions to the questions concerning reality. Which leaves us with the only way to define it as a consequence of any logical process. Though even that much can be denied by saying that we still under any circumstances we need the minimum of sensual experience to define at least the nature of our interaction with the reality, matter.

Than how come do we still consider this subject? The best possible solution is to identify most concrete and certain basis of our experience by the degree of possibility and repetition of the parallel results. This is about as far as we can get to any source of information based on experience which is irreplaceable for further conception of a thesis.

The last but not least aspect of this case is the matter of human abilities to diverse the reality. We can not say if for example a wolf is capable of creating or considering to a certain extend the universal idea of a chair. We have to accept that animals are able to differentiate for example various types of herbs, but we will never know if they do so consciously. This however is not of a great matter to the case of a human, because for a one a wolf is just as part of the same matter as given table. Then how it happens that we humans are most capable in the most sophisticated way to define the terms conditioning all tables or chairs. And what terms are these which decide about which is which and why we do not confuse each other.

In this sense it is human ability to dig as deep as to seek and find the first basic component of such matter. We have to notice now one change in our argument. (We accept the certain extend of the variety of the matters, or even different, particular Beings, though still composed and sunk in the same matter. How come all the wise men in the world did not realize that 'subjective' and 'objective' does not stand in contrary.) In the more simplified manner, we are able to find the overlapping areas in the particular concept of thing's specific features in Logos (hence: philosophy #1, dualism, I will also expand on this aspect in further chapters) of two at first different tables. This allows us to call both Chinese and European chairs 'a chair' though they can have least possible in common.

Philosophy

Philosophy #1
Dualism.
Though it may seem a little trivial talking about dualism nowadays, as pros and cons of it are widely acknowledged by now. Both sides remain firmly settled and proven in a million ways and by thousands of arguments, we however, reasonable and prudent people will not fall for neither unless the ultimate solution reveals. This state of being could last for ever tearing apart the world into those of whom we have two and those of whom we have one. But no one ever really examined the nature and actual importance of settling either way as a undeniably true one. As a preface to hopefully future philosophical system based on my very own experience and hours of puzzling my thoughts into a reasonable shape I would like to pick up this topic for further purposes, clarity and consistency of my path of thinking. First of all I would like to be understood in the right way by saying that I have never been seeking for any distinct dualism or pluralism in a human being. I treat metaphysical philosophy as a 'science' which field is everything but the reality and its only tool our experience from the real world along with the reason. Therefore comes the explanation why in this work I only examine and base anything claimed here on the basis of myself and others in concern of myself. Coming to the topic of dualism itself I have confined my views to a certain and basic assumption. Not using the word 'dualism' itself, as it restricts us to a usage of particular and stiff vision of a human, engaging such terms as the body and soul, I simply notice and diverse natures of two basic components of human being misleadingly converged into word 'human'. These are our body which is actually defined as our consciousness and the second is the reason, the mind but most accurately called by the ancient Greeks 'Logos'. The most principal reasons for differentiating these two are not any former assumptions but the ways of our perception of these two. Lets begin with the more obvious one which is the more realistic part of a human. Unfortunately by no means we can definitely say that we as such are a material beings, that I am a part of this empirical world in a constant change. The role of my perception of reality has my empirical or sensual consciousness. It interprets the stimuli of my senses, and converges me with the body. We have to remember though that in any loss or disruption of the consciousness I lose the contact with the empirical world. If I faint I am no longer conscious of my body nor I have any contact with the reality. In this manner consciousness is our communication device with what we call other Beings, standing for sensually perceived matter. However there are moments when we can observe our consciousness fading. A perfect illustration to it is a mirror. A mirror which is a mysterious Being shows us the illusion of the real world. Sometimes we discover ourselves asking over and over again the same question, 'who is it'. I do not mean however any problem of psychological nature with defining ourselves as a particular person. I think of more complex and advanced event of losing self consciousness of both your body and existence. Along with that we are deprived of false assumption of our individual mind. Then we experience 'Logos' or in other words we exist only as a 'Logos' we have experienced.
Then on what basis we differentiate 'Logos' from the reality and claim it as a metaphysics? The most crucial difference are the categories of understanding of both. Our categories of understanding the reality are most primary time and space. These two not being of real existence themselves are invented tools of hierarchization of the empirical matter. Whereas we must deny the time and space would be of any use in understanding 'Logos'. Later on in the chapter on Nature of Logos we will examine it more closely. As for now however let us imagine the way we measure our thoughts and things far beyond that with the usage of time and space. Though it is an infantile to deny the existence of the real world as we have at least five sensual proofs for its entity. We are also able to prove the uncertainty of the sensual perception and sometimes its undeniable falseness. These conclusions may be drawn from the nature of a lie, creating new, uncertain reality, the power of autosuggestion, considering also religions and beliefs, etc. All of above both argue for the superiority of the 'Logos' over consciousness and pose the question to the reader 'which one do you identify with, your Mind or your Body?'