Using Words

Brain Diet

2011-12-20T14:15:00.000-08:00

Hmmm. Maybe I need to change my diet a bit -- )See the following article --> Brain Diet). The diet with 70% fewer calories helped mice live much longer and think better. I have heard that a calorie restricted diet is often the common lifestyle attribute among Centenarians. Smoking, drinking, sexual activity varied widely among Centenarians, but they all ate simple, small meals with little variation.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to lose that spare tire 10 lbs.

--- a Japanese study lists several items for longevity, but I believe the low-calorie is particularly important for reaching the 100 year mark ---

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian)

A diet that is heavy on grains, fish, and vegetables and light on meat, eggs, and dairy products.
Low-stress lifestyles, which are proven significantly less stressful than that of the mainland inhabitants of Japan.
A caring community, where older adults are not isolated and are taken better care of.
High levels of activity, where locals work until an older age than the average age in other countries, and more emphasis on activities like walking and gardening to keep active.
Spirituality, where a sense of purpose comes from involvement in spiritual matters and prayer eases the mind of stress and problems.

Public Transportation

2011-12-13T12:14:00.000-08:00

There isn't much of a push for public transportation now days. The political conservative prefers the independence of cars. However, even my little community suffers from pollution and traffic congestion associated with cars, trucks, and more cars. There are continuing political efforts to remove the small bus system that we do have.

Logan, Utah had a trolley car running down main street in the 1930's when it was a tiny town. How can it not be economically advantageous to continue developing a public transportation system as Cache county continues to grow?

Here is an interesting study for a more populous community (Washington D.C.). It will point out a few things that you may not have considered before with respect to the cost of autos only transportation system.

D.C. without public transport.

A New Bob Dylan Sings

2011-11-14T15:03:00.000-08:00

Once in a generation there comes an artist that distills the tragedy of humanity into song. Bob Dylan offered the twin challenge of "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They are a-Changin'".

Someone has stepped up to give voice to the Occupy Movement with an elevating phrase "Occupy with Aloha". Aloha means approximately the same as shalom: peace, love, kindness, mercy, compassion. This is all that is good. This new voice is a Hawaiian folk musician who barely commands a page in Wikipedia.

Makana

Here is the song that will propel him to the foreground of our attention: We are the Many

You watch. This song will challenge the political marriage of government leaders and corporations. Greed and power always produce ugly children. This song will call us all to elevate our hopes towards a world of Aloha communities.

Indeed. Occupy with Aloha.

A Mormon Meets Modernity

2011-10-27T11:13:00.000-07:00

The fundamentalist in Christianity has a problem with modernity. The struggle to blend modern world with a conservative religious tradition is an issue that every Christian must face. This is a difficult task for the faithful Christian. Now consider how difficult this task is for the faithful Mormon who lives in an authoritarian hegemony.

Thoughts from a Mormon Feminist

The Current Economy of Immoral Lions

2011-10-27T09:07:00.000-07:00

Diane Rehm is probably the most important interview shows for the American citizen. She talks to politicians and intellectuals to help us gain insight into important current issues. Here is an excellent interview on capitalist economics The Darwinian description of Economics. Professor Robert Frank has some great suggestions on taxation at the end of the program.

Great Business Venture to Serve Christians

2011-10-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

Pet service specifically for Christians

More Fun Physics

2011-10-21T14:22:00.001-07:00

Minute Physics @ YouTube

Here is Neat New Physics

2011-10-15T11:37:00.000-07:00

The edge of modern physics always stretches the mind a bit. Time invariance is something to think about as a physicist. The classical laws of physics are time invariant, meaning the laws work identically if time moves forward or backward. The progression of time in one direction was often claimed to be just an illusion of our senses. The arrow of time progressing in one direction has always been an unexplainable phenomenon in terms of classical physics. Einstein demonstrated relativity physics that seemed to treat time as merely another spatial dimension (almost). Classically, moving back and forth from east to west should be the same as moving between ago and soon. Scientists were disturbed in the early 20th century by the concept of the Big Bang beginning to the universe. Now the arrow of time also included a beginning. The 'human time-illusion' could not be claimed so dogmatically. The arrow of time seemed to be a consequence of a beginning and the expansion of the universe.

The post-classical standard model that includes quantum mechanics and field theory now recognizes a time-reversal violation, but only barely. Here is an article that sees a larger role for time-reversal violation in the understanding of the Standard-model.

Time Reversal, A Simple Particle Could Reveal New Physics

Wisdom from an Atheist

2011-10-05T12:55:00.000-07:00

I have read a broad array of books in theology and philosophy, in particular. There are books that were a waste of my time, but generally I have stayed with important and recognized authors. The authors have been Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, etc. It is important to read authors with different world views. This has helped me in two ways. First, I can benefit from the wisdom of each author, if my mind is attentive and discerning as I read. Augustine's quote, "all truth is God's truth", is good to remember. It means that I don't have to 'out-of-hand' disagree with an author because she is a Buddhist and I am a Christian. To reject something because of the source is ad hominem fallacy. Secondly, I more honestly perceive my opponents when I am in disagreement with their thinking. Ad hominem dismissal is good indicator of fundamentalist thinking. Fundamentalist's have no ears to hear their opponents with kind inquiry. Instead they work up arguments against their opponents of other faiths or views in a way that mistreats the opponents views. They build a strawman to pummel.

Reading widely helps one to enter into discussion with real people thinking real thoughts. So receive some wisdom from an Atheist on thoughtful living:

Irrational Beliefs

Yes, yes. I know. It is an article in Christianity Today. But the advice originates from a Psychologist who was a prominent atheist. It is advice that I wish I had heard when I was in my 20's.

The Church of Humility vs The Church of Arrogance

2011-08-16T11:12:00.000-07:00

A young friend of mine recommended this opinion article from the Salt Lake Tribune. It is excellent.

Two Religions.

I agree. There are reasons I am a Creedal Christian, but I embrace the bedrock described in this article as more foundational than my Creeds. Underlying true faith about G-d is not certainty in the Creedal 'facts'. Instead living faith shows itself in kindly actions and attitudes toward other humans and all creation. Kindness is the visible reality that proves a living faith. Jesus, Paul, and James all tell us that the 'good fruit' of a person's life are the evidence of a real faith (Matt 7:15-22; Gal 5:22-26; James 1:26-27).

We should live kindly and graciously toward other people and all creation.

The Elders

2011-04-28T13:24:00.000-07:00

In older societies there would be a group of elders at the city gates. They would mediate disputes within the community, provide information about the city to travelers, and tell stories of meaning about the city's past.

It seems the world has gone mad in many ways with only bureaucratic structures trying to address or ignore the issues based on rhetoric or sluggish policy. There is a group that offers advice and mediation towards wise solutions. As citizens of the world, we should learn more about 'The Elders' as a group and about each individual elder in the group.

The Elders

Ash Wednesday

2011-03-08T16:09:00.000-08:00

March 9 is Ash Wednesday. Lent is an ancient tradition in the Christian Church. Only modern Evangelical Protestants leave the Lenten season behind. Lent is a time to prepare and participate in the Crucifixion of Jesus prior to the celebration of the resurrection.

Often the observing Christian decides to fast for a period and give some pleasure up for the 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter. The loss of some pleasure (coffee, chocolate, etc) is a way to remind you daily to think of Jesus' sacrifice for you.

Eastern Catholics prepare for this season by doing a bit of spiritual assessment prior to Lent. This prayer is used as a spiritual rumination in this self assessment:

The Prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian

O Lord and Master of my life, keep from me the spirit of indifference and discouragement, lust of power and idle chatter. [kneel/prostration]

Instead, grant to me, Your servant, the spirit of wholeness of being, humble-mindedness, patience, and love. [kneel/prostration]

O Lord and King, grant me the grace to be aware of my sins and not to judge my brother; for You are blessed now and ever and forever. Amen. [kneel/prostration]

On Wednesday consider participating in an Ash Wednesday Service and enter Lent with a purposeful decision to omit some pleasure as a way to remind you daily of the sacrifice of Jesus for your Peace. We can celebrate together on Easter after this time of structured humility.

USU Religious Studies Club

2011-03-01T09:13:00.000-08:00

This ought to be interesting ---
USU Religious Studies Club Presentation will be on Wednesday, March 2, at 4:00 PM in Old Main 121.

Being Skeptical of Scientists

2011-01-20T19:53:00.000-08:00

A professor at USU forwarded a provocative article on being skeptical of scientists.

LINK: The Perils of Unleashing Students' Skepticism

It begins -- "Don't always believe what scientists tell you. Be skeptical." Read the article and develop your thoughts. I expand on mine below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the writer, John Horgan, -- on the main point of being skeptical --- of scientists. However, he did make me think a bit more about the limits of skepticism. The introductory sentence really captures our current western culture of individualism, particularly, if I rewrite it, "Don't always believe what ______ tell you. Be skeptical." At various times the blank has been 'parents', 'people over 30', 'The Church', 'scientists', 'politicians', 'economists', etc. Eventually, this radical skepticism can fall into becoming an individual's despotic egotism. Somehow, the individual has to employ skepticism, but also move beyond it to develop a relational conversation based on (skeptical) trust towards the wisdom of the community.

To help the individual move beyond skepticism of 'the other', one must be equally skeptical of one's own understanding. I need to know that I don't know. (See the tag line beneath this blog's title.) Humility and skepticism are the necessary pair for a real foundation of wisdom. Socrates epitomized this.

Just as John Hogan suggests, Skepticism should be encouraged towards a particular scientific study or what the 'experts' say. Skepticism of entrenched theories of physics enable new and better theories to arise. Unfortunately, skepticism of science is encouraged. This is not the same as skepticism of theories and scientists. Skepticism often is accompanied by entrenched personal opinion. People with entrenched positions are often not the vehicles of scientific advancement. Advances have more frequently been made by people who were willing to question their own views in the face of observations. Skepticism must always be willing to give way to the data.

I do NOT encourage skepticism of science itself. The science is the process of testing theories against observations of physical reality. Science project depends on open publication of data and details of theories. It depends on peer review because science is a community project. Skepticism of science only reinforces hardening of unfounded personal opinions based on a personal faith inspite of observations of the real world. 'Belief' is not a part of the scientific method. Science is a methodology for working through each flaw in our current understanding and each dispute of opinions. The methodology is public, deliberative, and rational AND based on observations of the real world.

It takes about 20 years to get a well studied consensus on well posed topics. It takes maybe 100 years to get a well studied consensus on larger paradigm shifts in theories (i.e. evolution or general relativity or quantum mechanics). But science does work!

Reading Old Books

2011-01-12T10:42:00.000-08:00

I ask, 'Who are some of your favorite authors and what are your favorite books?" Do you name only contemporary books and authors? Have you read the great books of the past by the ancients (Homer, Plato, Aenid, Augustine) or the classics (Shakespeare, Dickens, Dumas, Luther) or the moderns (Dostoevsky, C.S. Lewis, Kafka)?

The philosophy blog at Utah State University recently posted an excerpt of C.S. Lewis's introduction to his translation of an early Church Father's writing:

“There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire. This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

“Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

“Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.”

From the Introduction of Lewis's translation of Athanasius' writing "On the Incarnation"

Pope Causes a Stir by Insisting That God Created the Universe!

2011-01-06T07:59:00.000-08:00

Pope Benedict XVI is a Thomist theologian who believes that God's revelation comes through nature, the Bible, and the Church (history) --- and these revelations do not conflict. Conflicts only arise in our own dim perceptions of history, science, and theology. Yesterday the Pope spoke on his understanding of the natural and theological revelations about the creation of the universe.

Pope's Statements on the Science and Theology of Big Bang Creation (Reuters News Story)

The Pope says that God was behind the Big Bang creation of the Universe. The news story states:

He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world. But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

These statements arise from the Pope's new focus on having a rational discussion with the dominant religion of Europe --- Atheism. The Pope is particularly well suited to this discussion. Read his book "Introduction to Christianity" (by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). He is a brilliant rationalist and theologian. For you Evangelicals, Pope Benedict understands Martin Luther's protest much better than most Evangelicals understand Thomas Aquinas, the theologian who essentially defines modern Roman Catholic Christianity. I don't agree Pope Benedict's early pronouncements on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but to his comments on the Big Bang I say, "Here, here."

A Rabbi's Estimate of the Age of the Universe

2011-01-03T18:17:00.001-08:00

Recently, my brother-in-law identified an interesting article written by Rabbi Adam Jacobs about a medieval rabbi's estimate of the age of the Universe. Rabbi Isaac Ben Samual of Akko (born around 1250AD) was an important Kabbalist Rabbi living in the region of ancient Israel. His estimate of the age of the Universe was based on Psalm 90:4

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

Each divine day is 1000 solar years so each divine year is 365,250 solar years. Based on Talmud writings about Genesis where early days of Genesis 1 are increasingly longer in solar years, he arrives at approximately 15 billions years for the age of the Universe. The current scientific estimate is 13.5 billions years.

Here is the article:

A Jewish View of Creationism

Here is the Wiki-article on the Rabbi:

Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Akko

Here Is An Interesting Science Development

2010-12-24T09:21:00.000-08:00

Evidence of Multi-Universes

For the uninitiated in cosmology, the Big Bang moment of creation has always been a problem for physicists. They were very disturbed by the FACT of a beginning to this universe. They very much preferred an eternal universe. I never understood why some Christians were so opposed to the science of the Big Bang. It supports the Biblical concept of a beginning.

Stephen Hawking has suggested that there is not really a beginning to the universe. Somehow the moment we see as the beginning really connects to the rest of the universe in a non-beginning space-time manner. I have never been convinced by his arm waving. A more interesting idea was proposed about 30 years ago. That is,there is a foam of pre-big-bang stuff that is bubbling continually with the time-space continuum all mixed up. Each bubble is a big bang event creating a ordered space-time universe. Many of the individual bubble universes are not started with the right conditions to last billions of years, but the inflation into a bubble orders the time-space continuum into a progressing timeline with an ordered history. Most Universes quickly collapse back into the frothy deep (I use 'the deep' with biblical purpose). Some universes quickly expand into nothingness without developing galaxies and stars. Some bubble universes last long enough to develop galaxies of stars but maybe not last long enough to permit the many supernovas need to produce material for the hard planets and eventually life. Every once in a while or maybe just once, a very long-lived universe bubbles up with perfect conditions for planets and life --- ours. A couple physicists proposed that we could tell if our bubble universe gets bumped by a neighboring bubble universe or two. Now they think they may have found a spot in our universe where we have been bumped by another universe. Atheists and agnostics feel comfortable again that science has no need for the hypothesis of God to initial the Big Bang. Here is an article reporting the possible evidence of MultiVerses.

Evidence of MultiVerse -- Article

A Theist's Thoughts

Even if this is true, I remain a theist. One primary foundation of my faith is knowing that God is primarily a hidden God. God reveals himself to us but this is a limited and incomplete revelation. His name states His hiddenness from our understanding ('I WILL BE WHOM I WILL BE'). In other words, our concept of god does not define God. Also, I have to remain humble in understanding the Jewish-Christian creation story in Genesis 1-3. These early chapters are behind the flaming swords of angels (last verse of Genesis 3). This last verse means to me that humanity cannot definitively understand Genesis 1-3 with any historical, scientific, or rationalistic exploration. This section of Genesis must remain a parable that speaks truth to us from an infinite distance as if from a vision or dream. Genesis 1-3 is true in some way, but it is not historical or scientific. From Genesis 4 on there is a relationship to discoverable history.

That said, I will ponder cosmology and Genesis together. One of the interesting concepts of Genesis 1 is the turbulent void of verse 2. It is related to the ancient concepts of 'the deep'. From this chaotic void, God puts order into creation by separating light from dark, day from night, seas from land, seasons, animals, and humanity. Augustine in his Confessions (Books 11 and 12) talks about this void as a created 'stuff' from nothing -- ex nihilo creation (verse 1). There is no 'before creation' because time is created with space by God and God is not in space or time. To Augustine, Genesis 1:1,2 is a creation of stuff which still remains in a pre-time pre-space bubbling chaos of 'the deep'. You get the idea from verse 2 that there is a dark, sad pause before God begins to speak to 'the deep'. What is amazing to me is that Augustine ponders what this bubbling turbulence is doing when it is still outside of ordered time! He asks what is motion before there is ordered time? Augustine's turbulent void concept might be very close to a modern cosmologist's bubbling froth. Then in verse 3 God begins to speak to the deep to bring forth ordered time and space to produce a useful world. This seems mighty similar to the bubbling universe concept, but I agree with Augustine that we must remain humbly tolerant when interpreting these difficult portions of the Bible (he states this at the end of Book 12 in his Confessions).

What about the existence of other universes from this pre-Big Bag froth? Scientists now suspect that there are many universes expanding from the froth. It is interesting that the Jewish Kabbalahist tradition teaches that God tried several times to create an inhabitable universe. There were several creations that were not good for humanity. This universe was somewhat successful. However, when God tries to place His light (Goodness) into this universe the jars that contain His light of goodness are broken. The shards of these ‘goodness jars’ are scattered throughout creation but are hidden. God’s hiddenness is an important thing to know. The job of God’s people is to look for the hidden ‘sparks of goodness’ in every place and time of this world. When they find one and release it to this world then they are ‘repairing the world.’

What meaningful story do I overlay on the Big Bang and the multiverse science? We had a beginning in ordered time. God spoke and brought order out of chaos. God and His Goodness are with us but are hidden. But most importantly, we must look to Repair the World by finding moments of goodness in this world. These sparks of goodness are for us to reveal. The Kabbalah tradition was developed after Jesus' life, death, and life. 'Finding Sparks of Goodness to Repair the World' is the same thing as bring Shalom to the world (Peace on Earth). Jewish Shalom means health, rightness, goodness, good relationships, and peace. It is truly saving the world. Jesus' teaches the same thing as 'finding sparks' in his teaching on prayer --- " ... may Your Kingdom come on earth as in heaven." Jesus' followers have the task to bring heavenly goodness to earth as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Christian terms, we are 'Saving the World'. Heaven is quite hidden like the sparks of divine goodness in the Kabbalah. It is the Christian's task to make God's Kingship evident in our actions on earth. This includes acts of kindness towards people, animals, and land. This also includes a call to other humans the good news that they too can become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven to help 'Save (Repair, reconcile, bring peace to) the World'. Will you join me in bringing Shalom to the relationships we have with God, people, communities, and the earth. Let's reveal God's Kindgom together.

Next post: Yes, Virginia, there is a World-to-Come.

Dr. Ruth asks Rabbi Steinsaltz a Question About Sex

2010-11-08T23:12:00.000-08:00

Dr. Ruth Asks: What is Sex For?

I have recently been reading about an important Jewish scholar, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, who had just finished translating the Talmud from ancient Aramaic to modern Hebrew. On his website (www.steinsaltz.org) I found a small but insightful answer to a question posed by Dr. Ruth Westheimer. You may have heard of Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the renowned psychosexual therapist. She is the bold and funny author of several books on human sexuality. She asks Rabbi Steinsaltz a question about sex. The answer is short but profound. Her question and the Rabbi's response:

see Rabbi Steinsaltz on sex

Dr. Ruth's question:

The old-time Jewish comics made it seem that Jewish women are more prone to having headaches than sex. The jokes may have been funny, but they became part of a folklore which isn't based in Jewish roots. The truth is that the Talmud instructs Jewish men to make sure that they satisfy their wives; I don't believe you'll find such instructions in any other religion.

Why does Judaism believe that intimacy should be pleasurable? What role do you think sex plays in our lives?

Rabbi Steinsaltz's response:

Judaism does not view sex as unclean, as a necessary humiliation for the purposes of increase. Judaism does not see sexuality only as an instrument for the propagation of the human race, a means of being fruitful and multiplying.

According to Jewish tradition, in the right context and when engaged with conscious purpose, sex is seen as a positive commandment because, in contrast to food and money, sexual pleasure is not connected with ownership. It is a pleasure derived from giving and being connected with another; it can become a most meaningful expression of love, charity and benevolence. It can become an expression of holiness.

It has been a long 1800 years for Christianity to overcome the dark Christian view of sexuality. Perhaps in this last generation, Christians have begun to release sex and sexuality from their dark sinful coloring. Jews have always scratched their collective heads at the asceticism of the early Desert Fathers and the Christian Church in general. In the Talmud, Rabbi Rav states that "Man will be obliged to give an account and a reckoning before the judgment seat of God for every legitimate pleasure he denied himself in this world." These are God's gifts to humanity. We should not despise His creative blessings.

A Break From Christianity

2010-09-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

I just listened to an interview of the Economist and Dartmouth Professor Robert Reich. The interview was on NPR's Fresh Air. Dr. Reich's most recent book is about a long forgotten Federal Reserve Chairman named Marriner Eccles, who helped FDR develop the economic safeguards and programs that laid the foundation for the modern prosperity of the second half of the 20th Century.

Marriner Eccles was born in Logan, Utah, where I live. He also happens to be my first cousin twice removed (his father was the brother of my great grandfather). You should listen to the interview or read the excerpt from his book. Marriner has the definitive insight on why the current Great Recession will be a long drawn out recession.

Robert Reich

Just a note: My grandfather (Marriner's cousin) was Marriner's missionary companion in Scotland as they served their Mormon mission assignment. My grandfather, Roland Scow Eccles, was a wealth lumber baron in Oregon and Idaho. Marriner Eccles moved out of his father's lumber business in Utah and expanded into banking and construction instead. During the depression Marriner called in a lot of loans to keep his banks solvent. My grandfather's loans were called in and he had to sell his business or give the business to Marriner. As a result, the name Marriner Eccles was forbidden in my grandmother's presence. She and my grandfather went from wealth to lower middle class in one year. The lesson to my side of the family is "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" but if you need to chose --- be a lender.

In any case, Marriner Eccles's insights as a capitalist banker into the reasons underlying the Great Depression are very pertinent to understanding the Great Recession particularly for the U.S. middle class. Note that he came to his capitalistic repentance a full 4 years after the stock market crash of 1929. Our current political climate blames the democrats for the length of the recession, but the one flaw of the Obama Administration is --- he won too soon. The Republicans should have won the 2008 electron so they could properly take the blame for the tragedy of their economic malfeasance from 2000 to 2008. Tax cuts for the wealthy, government spending towards large corporations (military and otherwise), the destruction of working class rights and benefits, the destruction of the social safety net (Social Security) ... all a part of trickle down Reaganomics. The democrats have not helped by any means. Democrats have generally favored welfare state doles instead of working class benefits since the 1960s. The welfare state is a hopeless boondoggle. Safety nets should be safety nets not luxurious couches.

I have always agreed with Marriner Eccles's insights. You should at least consider them.

Loving Neighbor

2010-09-15T08:22:00.000-07:00

Reya (ray'-ah) neighbor, another, associate, brother, friend, or simply, an other. There is a hebrew word for friend, for husband, for brother. Reya is the more inclusive. Given Jesus parable on 'The Good Samaritan' we should hold a very inclusive interpretation of neighbor.

Jesus identified Leviticus 19:18 as the second central teaching that sums up the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets.

Lev. 19:18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. (NIV)

It is quite easy to see that this is quite literally true for the Torah (Pentateuch). A word search for 'neighbor' at BibleGateway.com demonstrates how central 'neighbor' is to living ethically. Why in the world don't we, as Christians, spend any time learning the specifics of 'loving our neighbor'. Similarly, the Psalms and the Prophets provide expansions and warnings based on the Torah teachings.

But is the Torah for the Christian or just for the Jew? What do we Christians have to do with 'The Law'? Hasn't it been put aside? To quote Paul --- "NOT SO!"

I read Jesus and the writers of the epistles teaching the follow theological overview: The Accusing One has a valid claim against us --- we have failed to 'Love our neighbor', which is our ethical obligation in obedience to the one true G-d. Thus, we owe a debt of blood to cover our sins. Through Jesus' death, the accuser receives payment of the Son's blood to cover these debts. Through Jesus' life, G-d incarnate has sanctified human lives anew, that is, we live with his life as a new adam (human) through his living spirit. We can now let our old sinful adam (human) die. Through Jesus' resurrection we acknowledge the Son's authority over sin and death. The New Adam, Christ, and Lord has now been lifted up to the heavens over all creation to demonstrate our G-d's approval of Jesus' obedience to the Father. Now we can live as a new creation with the spirit's help to fulfill the Torah anew. As Gentiles we don't have to live the Jewish purity mitzvahs (rules of living), but we must strive to live the ethical mitzvahs.

After that theological description of the New Creation, we can turn again to understanding the general mitzvah of 'Love our neighbor' through specific mitzvahs taught in the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets. Jesus and Paul teach about the theology of the new order of godly humanity (Kingdom of God), but they both spend MOST OF THEIR TIME giving rabbinical commentary on the 'Love God -- Love neighbor' mitzvahs of the Torah. This is very evident in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and parables. Jesus is unfolding Torah most of the time! Most evangelical Christians think Paul spends his time teaching about the theology of salvation and evangelizing. He is more frequently trying to teach Torah ethics and wisdom to gentiles. He even uses his Hillelite training. For example, in Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14 Paul repeats the summary of Torah given by Hillel and Jesus:

Romans 13:9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (NIV)

Galatians 5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself. (NIV)

He expands on 'Love your neighbor' throughout his letters.

Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NIV)

Romans 15:2 Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. (NIV)

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. (NIV)

James also repeats the summary in his letter:

James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. (NIV)

This ROYAL LAW is indeed an incredible summary of the Torah and the rest of Scripture. The New Testament books are TEACHING TORAH, that is, how we are to live ethically (godly - if you prefer). This ROYAL LAW is a very important interpretative key that we cannot set aside. Spiritualizing interpretations, eschatology emphasis, theoretical theologies about angels are interesting, but the rubber meets the road when we go to scripture to learn how to 'love our neighbor'. Let us be more like the Modern Jew in this respect by discussing the specifics of how to live and love!

I suggest you go back to the link above that searches out the verses in the 5 books of Moses (Torah) that contain neighbor. Ponder how G-d desires you to live out 'Love your neighbor.' Make sure that you look at the context of each verse, then always judge your interpretation of a verse by how well the interpretation illuminates 'Love your neighbor'.

If you are a pastor, then try teaching on these things once in a while. WWJD? He did.

Loving God

2010-09-07T16:26:00.000-07:00

'AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

The second part of Jesus' response to the scribe is to "Love G-d". I did ignored this part of Jesus summary of scripture in my post (3 posts ago). Why? Because, in Islam and Christianity, 'Loving G-d' forever decays into 'hating neighbors'! This is the despicable truth of these two theist religions. So what does Love YHWH your Elohim! mean?? Is singing worship songs 'loving G-d'? Is praying, tithing, Bible study, fasting or having impeccable theology a part of 'Loving G-d'? The end of Jesus summary of Scripture in Mark 12:28-40 we have the scribe paraphrasing other portions of scripture stating that G-d hates acts of worship under certain conditions:

The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

The scribe is restating any number of verses from the Psalms or the Prophets.

Ps 40:6
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. (NIV)

Isa 1:11-15
"The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals. I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers." (NIV)

Worship, prayer, fasting, or whatever solitary act toward G-d is not the core of what G-d seeks from us. These may certainly benefit us if done properly, but they do not equal 'loving G-d'. It turns out we can turn to the Ten Commandments again for a good definition of 'loving G-d' and evening 'hating G-d'.

Exodus 20:4-6
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments." (NIV)

Hmm. Loving G-d is obeying His commandments. Hating G-d is obeying other gods (idolatry). In many ways this points simultaneously to the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the Lord is G-d. The Lord is one.") and the second great command ("Love your neighbor as yourself"). Loving G-d means to acknowledge (fear) G-d and then love one's neighbor. And the only way to measure 'fear of G-d' is by obeying 'love one's neighbor'!

The practical equivalence of loving one's neighbor and loving G-d is stated and restated again and again throughout the Bible.

Micah 6:8
"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (NIV)

I John 4:20
"If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."
(NIV)

Matt 25:37-40
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (NIV)

Again, I state that Jesus' summary of the Torah, Prophets, and the Writings repeated Hillel's summary: 'Love G-d and love neighbor' and we need to see the corollary of 'love G-d' is that you 'love G-d' by obeying 'love your neighbor'. This is the emphasis of the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus reiterates this same emphasis in his New Covenant with his followers in John 15.

John 15:9-14
"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. (NIV)

No matter how one examines 'Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.' one gets 'Love your Neighbor as yourself.' If I fear G-d, then I obey G-d, and He is asking me to 'love my neighbor as myself.' Only then does my worship, tithing, fasting, etc mean anything to G-d.

Summary of Scripture

2010-09-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

Mark presents the fullest of Jesus' scripture summary. Just before this section, the scribe that approaches Jesus was listening to Jesus confound the Sadducees.

Mark 12:28-40

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that (Jesus) had answered the (Sadducees) well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"

Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.

First, in the first sentence of the section it states that Jesus is arguing with somebody. The translation is from the New American Standard Bible, which I like, but 'arguing' is probably better translated by the King James as "reasoning together'. This 'argument' was probably similar to the typical Jewish discussion that occurs in synagogues everywhere, that is, 'reasoning together'. (It's a Jewish cultural thing.)

Now, this section of Mark 12 is a summary of the Torah, but it also summarizes the 10 Commandments as well as the prophets and the Psalms (Matt 22:40). If the interpretation of scripture is not directed at this summary, then the interpretation is useless at best and is a divisive speculation at worst. Jesus answer to the scribe is the answer of Hillel, too. Jesus is agreeing with Hillel and everyone in the crowd knows that he is. Let's dissect its parts.

Part I. Jesus quotes the Shema -- "Hear, Oh Israel. The YHWH is our Elohim. YHWH is one." Deut 6:4

The Shema! The Jewish creed. Elohim is the transcendent creator of the universe (Gen 1). YHWH is G-d who becomes known personally to Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. YHWH speaks to Moses. Jesus just got through telling the Sadducees that YHWH is the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are alive in YHWH now. The personal G-d, YHWH, is the Creator G-d, who is one. Really, every Jew would agree that this is number 1.

The Shema! The first Jewish prayer. This is the most fundamental prayer taught to every Jewish child and recited twice a day; at sunrise and at sunset. It is a call to the Jew to know that there is one G-d and their G-d is that one G-d. Jesus prays this. Paul prays this. Paul uses the idea of the Shema as he writes to the Gentile Christians (I Corin 8:6 -- "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.")

This is primarily a statement of monotheism and that the G-d of Abraham is that one God. It effectively repeats the first command of Exodus 20.

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me."

I often see Church Statements of Faith that over emphasize a Trinity. The Nicene Creed begins with it's own Shema - "We believe in one God". Christians are monotheists. We worship one G-d. Paul would say that Gentile followers of Jesus have been grafted branches into the Tree of Israel, so --- "Hear, O Israel. YHWH is Elohim. YHWH is one."

Next: Loving God.

Jesus' Summary of Scripture --- Prologue

2010-08-27T13:57:00.000-07:00

Kris stated, (that I) seem to blatantly miss half of Jesus' summary. Jesus clearly emphasized "love the Lord you God..." *and* "love your neighbor as yourself". It seems pretty hard to sell the former as just a subset of the latter. Certainly there are elements of loving God that don't necessarily directly impact my neighbor, hence Jesus felt compelled to distill his summary down to two points.

Actually, I did. (Thanks Kris, continue the discussion). There are reasons I did "blatantly miss half of Jesus' summary." I do this purposely to emphasize some points that most Evangelical Christians miss. Evangelical culture too often misses the point of the first half of the summary and blatantly miss the second half. So lets look at the 'full' summary (see Mark 12:13-34). I will have several posts that look at the three parts of Jesus' summary of the Bible.

BUT FIRST A LITTLE CONTEXT

I have given this context before but I will repeat what I know of the cultural context around the period of Jesus life and ministry. Jesus' summary is really just reiterating a previous summary posed by Hillel the Elder, who was an important Rabbi during the reign of King Herod, but let's digress.

In the period just before Jesus is born, two rabbis dominated the Pharisee movement: Shammai and Hillel. And (as most Christians know) there are two very important Jewish groups mentioned in the New Testaments: Pharisees and Sadducees. This is good to remember, but we also need to remember that there are two schools within the Pharisees, too.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees both had a strong desire to control the temple and the sacrificial system. However, the Sadducees had made a political alliance with the Romans and King Herod, so they were given the position of High Priest and the responsibility to oversee the Temple sacrifices. Their political association and the temple system were very profitable to the Sadducees. They become an elite wealth class. They were often the owners of large portions of land and many Jews work as debt laborers for the wealthy land owners. Many small farmers had fallen into debt and had to sell their farm and sell themselves into slavery to the wealthy land owners. Jesus teaches frequently with parables based on this tenant farm system. I note that not all priests who served in the temple were Sadducees, but most likely nearly all chief priests and the high priest were Sadducees.

The Pharisees were often the respected elders of the community but they are political outsiders and outsiders to priestly Temple cult, which was a primary focus of Judaism. The Pharisees are more rural (generally more important in Galilean). They become very nationalistic, but through their religious observances of purity and zealousness against gentile influence in traditional Israel. As temple outsiders, they teach that every man is a priest, every home is a temple, and every dinner table holds the showbread. Separation from the Greek and Roman world is important to being a good Jew, thus, the Sadducees are corrupt compromisers. Torah observance and national zeal become hallmarks of the Pharisees.

The two Pharisee schools of Shammai and Hillel approach things a bit differently. Shammai taught a very strict observance of Jewish tradition designed to make each Jew a righteous patriotic Jew. Religious zeal was equivalent to national zeal. You were not a good Jew if you did not observe a ritually clean life. In this national zeal Shammaites refused to have anything to do with gentiles, in fact, treated them with contempt. Hillel taught not to separate oneself from the community but to live a life of love towards one's neighbor. His interpretations were less harsh and less legalistic than Shammai's. He posed the Golden Rule as the summary of Scripture. Finally, he was courteous towards gentiles.

Jesus' teachings and ministry generally agrees with the tone of Hillel's teaching. Jesus repeats Hillel's summary of Scripture. Though Jesus does disagree with Hillel on some teachings about marriage, debts, and the Jubilee year, where Jesus takes a stricter view on Torah obedience. During the life of Jesus, the Shammaites dominate the Pharisee movement and the Hillelites are a small minority (N.T. Wright estimates 5%). Nationalistic zeal against Gentile rule and against the Sadducees corruption was a good program for enlisting followers to the school of Shammai. Hillel's gentile wisdom was respected but not as exciting as a nationalistic zeal against the Romans and Sadducees.

Most Christians know that the Sadducees only believe that the Torah (5 books of Moses) is valid scripture and they did not believe in an afterlife. For obvious reasons they also did not like the idea of a Messiah King coming to purify the Temple. The Pharisees on the other hand hold that the Prophets and the Writings are also important scripture from G-d though less important than the Torah. One can understand the reason the Sadducees would not like The Prophets as scripture, because the prophets often stated "G-d hates the sacrifices and offerings being made in the temple" (e.g., Isaiah 1:11-16). And G-d instead desires a contrite and kind heart (Ps 51, Micah 6:7-9). G-d hating the hypocrisy of the sacrificial system is not what you want to hear when your very comfortable livelihood depends on the temple sacrifices and offerings. Jesus obviously is in agreement with the Pharisees in regards to 'The Law (Torah), The Psalms, and The Prophets' (Luke 24:44). Jesus also cleanses the temple courts and predicts the destruction of the Temple which irritated the Sadducees toward Jesus' eventual crucifixion. Many Pharisees would praise Jesus' cleansing of the temple, but they would have thought "if he is the Messiah (priest/king), then he would surely put the Pharisees in charge of the Temple system, right?"

The zealous, literal, and nationalistic teaching of Shammai obviously raised Jesus' anger too. Their teaching was so legalistic that fulfilling Torah was destructive to people's lives and relationships (Matt 23:23). Jesus grew up among the common laborers, farmers, and fishermen of Galilee. The interpretations of Shammai could not be carried out by the poor laborers, who had no time or education to follow Rabbi Shammai. It seemed that only a wealthy man had the time to be righteous (Matt 19). Instead Jesus taught a lighter yoke of how to live in G-d's kingdom.

Eventually, Jesus' actions, teachings, and popular following caused the Sadducees to see him as a threat to their political situation. They were privileged priests and they did not need a messiah-king to throw them out of their profitable temple cult. So the Sadducees and the High Priest (a Sadducee) conspire with the Romans and King Herod's son to have Jesus crucified around 26 AD. After the destruction of the Temple by the Roman army in 70 AD, the Sadducees disappear from Judaism. They were merely a rich political group rather than a proper religious group with staying power.

The Shammai Pharisees probably were often not very happy with Jesus and viewed him as a poor example of a righteous Jewish citizen. The Shammaite leaders in the Sanhedrin would not have offered much defense for Jesus during the trial of Jesus. But they probably wouldn't have pressed the Romans for a crucifixion. Remember that many of the Sanhedrin were not invited to the trial by the powerful leaders of the Sanhedrin (Sadducees). Probably no Hillelite Pharisees were invited. It is the "priests and the temple guards and elders" who come to get Jesus in the Garden (Luke 22:52). The temple guards are under the control of the Sadduces and not the Pharisees. Elders of that trio were most likely other ruling Sadducees leaders and maybe some angry Shammaite Pharisees. If you read Luke 23, notice how the 'Chief Priests and the Scribes' are leading the crowd against Jesus in the audience of Pilate and Herod. The Shammaite Pharisees are so nationalistic and self righteous that they would have refuse go to a gentile governor to make a ruling on a rogue Jewish rabbi. Shammai would have nothing to do with gentiles. It would compromise their purity to talk with idolaters! Jesus Crucifixion was probably a Sadducee and Roman team effort.

The Roman army in 70 AD also destroyed the Jewish Nation as a political entity. The Shammaite Pharisees, who viewed their strict observance of the Torah in very nationalistic terms, were completely lost after the destruction of the nation. In fact, the school of Shammai was soon officially designated by the post-nation Jewish movement as a minor rabbinical school that interpreted Torah too legalistically. Shammai was designated a minor rabbi.

Most importantly --- It was the smaller Pharisee group of Hillel that becomes THE Jewish movement after 70 AD and for the next 2000 years. Today's Jews are not descendants of the Jewish groups who joined the Romans in having Jesus crucified (Temple priests and Sadducee party, who collaborated politically with the Romans and the Herod family). Indeed they are not even the legalistic nationalist Pharisees that Jesus stood against in the harsh Woes of Matthew 23. Instead, the modern Jews are followers of the School of Hillel, who often responded to Jesus' teachings positively and sometimes became Jesus' followers (e.g. Nicodemus). There are definite disagreements between the Pharisees of Hillel and the teachings of Jesus, but the disagreements between Christians and modern Jews have been unnecessarily larger. Christians have colored the Jewish movement as if the school of Shammai IS Judaism. It is not.

Here are several Pharisees of the NT, who are probably Hillelites are:

* Nicodemus (John 3, John 7:50, John 19:39)
* Joseph of Arimathea (Matt 27:57, Mark 15:43)
* Gamaliel (Acts 5:34) .. He is Hillel's grandson.
* Paul! (Acts 22:3) .. His teacher was Gamaliel though he sometimes acts more like a follower of Shammai before he becomes a Christian, but I will show that he teaches like a Hillelite in his letters.

The first three were maybe on the ruling council (Sanhedrin) but the party of the High Priest (a Sadducee) dominated the Sanhedrin in power. Luke 23 says that Joseph of Arimathea argued against the Sanhedrin's judgment against Jesus. Acts 5 shows Gamaliel advising against the Sanhedrin's harsh punishment of Peter and John.

This is my amateurish sketch of the complicated 1st century Jewish situation. This sketch ignores other Jewish groups like the Essenes, Hellenistic Jews, Galilean working class Jews, etc. as well as the complexity of the pharisee movement as well. Most of these groups are described in Josephus's "The Jewish War" & "Antiquities of the Jews" or/and discussed in N.T. Wright's "The People of the New Testament".

Now lets examine Jesus' summary of Scripture and my neglect of the first half of his summary (next post). Read Mark 12.

Evangelical Exaggerations

2010-08-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

Theological Overemphasis

The gentile Christian Church has a strong tendency to hold 'right-thinking' as the key to heaven, e.g., "this is how to think for your salvation". The focus on theological metaphysics (unprovable theories) on angels, the future, creation specifics, the inner workings of G-d, are often not important to one's life and being, but are elevated to enormous walls of division and damnation. There is a real issue of knowing that G-d's grace is a key to peace with G-d and humans, but it is not in the factual knowing of grace. Rather, salvation is found by embracing grace of being a new creation. -- it is not right action or right thinking -- it is right being (which affects action and thinking).

The Antidote to Making Metaphysics Too Important

Jesus supported and extended the advice of Rabbi Hillel. That is the whole Torah can be summarized by "Don't do to others, what you don't want them to do to you." All else is commentary on that summary. Jesus added that all the Torah, Prophets, and Writings can be summarized by Hillel's statement plus 'Do to others what you want done to you." Everyone listening would know of Hillel's statement and Jesus didn't say "Hillel is wrong" rather he was saying "Hillel is right but there's more".

Any theological interpretation can be judged by how well these summaries are enhanced. For instance:

The theological hermeneutic based on a key of a trinitarian God often states that all human-form theophanies in the Old Testament are really pre-incarnation revelations of the Jesus Christ. The Bible (New and Old) does not specifically state this, but the trinitarian key would suggest it. Is this an important interpretation? Well, how does it expand on the Hillel-Jesus hermeneutic key: Does the interpretation help us know 'how NOT to treat another human being' or how TO treat another human being"? I suggest that it doesn't help understand this at all. One has to unfold the versus of theophany a bit more to make then a useful interpretation. I hold that a pre-incarnation theophany of Jesus is really just a speculative and unnecessary interpretation. Who among men is wise enough to say how or why G-d created theophany experiences?

Now you might be able to see why Jewish Rabbis don't spend much time on theology. They are too busy trying to understand how to BE the people of G-d in this world rather than spending time on speculative metaphysics. The basic hermeneutic for Biblical interpretation provided by Hillel and Jesus is a hermeneutic based on being G-d's People. This we can discuss and find important according to the above summaries of Scripture.

This antidote is not an example of a works-based hermeneutic. In fact, it can be based in a context of G-d's grace. G-d's people is not a special people (I use people here as a singular to reinforce community over a collection of individuals). However, this people of the Kingdom become a new creation, a new community through the grace of G-d by His call to this people and His life in this people. A People of Grace. What good news!