Search This Blog

Monday, November 22, 2010

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

I was at the Triple Crown of Surfing on Sunday in Haleiwa, Hawaii and saw someone walking around with a shirt that had this quote on it. The quote is from Mohandas Gandhi, but he is quoting from the Old Testament law,

"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" Exodus 21:23-25
"Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered." Leviticus 24:19-20

"Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Deuteronomy 19:21
No doubt I would like to research a bit about the context in which Gandhi makes this statement, but here are a few first thoughts: Gandhi is speaking about the themes of justice versus grace. Gandhi is probably dealing with people who are crying out for revenge in the name of justice.

I agree completely that grace and forgiveness are the only way to achieve reconciliation... BUT I also believe that there can be no peace without justice. I wonder if Gandhi himself believed in the same paradox that I hold to here. Jesus taught that it was by grace that we were given reconciliation, but that it was in justice that we were granted peace with God.

Maybe I am taking Gandhi's quotes out of context, but I might say the same about how he quoted from Old Testament law. Regardless, I appreciate his effort to talk about grace and forgiveness. 

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

Doesn't this assume that the whole world has sight? Jesus said that the whole world has already gone blind, he came that they might regain their sight. 

Mr. Gandhi, the world doesn't need a prevention of blindness it needs the cure.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

The Last Templar: How much does historical fiction need to stick to history?

Raymond Khoury's work of historical fiction, The Last Templar, like Dan Brown's The da Vinci Code incorporates historical facts as arguments to support theories within the novel. The fictional characters of the book cannot be held accountable for the facts they present because they are by nature fictional. Yet it would seem that a fictional character who is an academic scholar (specifically one of the antagonists: Vance) should have their general facts straight. On several points in the book I was surprised to find that Vance had simple facts wrong. I don't know whether this is the result of poor research on the part of Khoury or the fact that Khoury didn't feel that his characters needed to stick to facts in certain contexts of the story. 

A very clear example of misinformation is Vance's account of how Hagar was banished.  
"... Abraham's wife, Sarah, couldn't have children, so he took a second wife, his Arab maidservant Hagar, who gave him a son they called Ishmael. Thirteen years later, Sarah manages to have a son, Isaac. Abraham dies, Sarah banishes Hagar and Ishmael, and the Semitic race is split between Arab and Jew." (The Last Templar, Chapter 68, page 327)
First of all, Hagar was an Egyptian (Genesis 16:1). Secondly the biblical account is that Abraham was the one to banish Hagar and Ishmael on Sarah's request, obviously while he was living (Genesis 21:14). These are not significant points upon which key arguments hinge but they are annoying to find these kinds of errors in historical fiction. I wonder if Khoury was using a Islamic account of this event, instead of a Judeo-Christian one. Is this sort of thing common in other historical fiction? I am not always knowledgeable in the culture, history and setting of other historical fiction I read. It could be that authors of historical fiction cut these kinds of corners all the time, and I have been oblivious all this time. 

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Why I try to not always give answers to questions

Socrates and Jesus asked many questions and gave more questions when asked for answers. They did not do this because they didn't want people to know the truth, quite simply the opposite was true. They desperately wanted the masses, both the elite and the common people to know the truth and to engage it.


Asking questions causes the hearer to think more deeply. It also causes people to suppress or forget their preconceived ideas in order to deal with the question at hand. This helps foster an inductive approach to learning and study.


Jesus and Socrates both noticed that people who want answers to questions many times have ulterior motives. For instance, when Socrates is approached by a young man who asks him for knowledge. Socrates proceeds to dunk the man repeatedly in the ocean asking him each time what he wants. The man terrified and gasping for breath says he wants air! Socrates then concludes that this young man will not receive knowledge until he desires truth more than air. (Apocryphal from  Diogenes Laertius)


The religious leaders asked Jesus for answers in order to trap him and discredit him (John 8:6). Another man who was an expert in religious law came to Jesus seeking answers but his motives were to "justify himself" (Luke 10:29). 


The simple and sad truth is that not everyone who asks for truth wants truth. Someone who doesn't want truth probably will get what they want. I think it was G. K. Chesterton who said, "To give answers to someone who doesn't love truth is to give more reasons for doubt." I hope that my questions will aid those who desire to know the truth and frustrate those who don't. 


P.S. However, a little frustration for all of us should be welcomed when dealing with questions. 

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Last Templar: Jesus authored his own gospel?

I'm currently reading Raymond Khoury's best seller: The Last Templar. If you haven't read it yet and intend to you may want to not continue reading this blog as I will be giving away part of the plot. 


If you have read Khoury's book you know that the plot hinges around the idea that "Jeshua" (Jesus) wrote his own an autobiographical gospel. In his gospel, he reveals that he is not God but merely a man. Aside from the content of this "gospel", I have often wondered why Jesus didn't in fact write his own gospel, or seem to have written anything. 


I posted a survey (at the bottom of this blog) a week ago not knowing that I would be reading about this very question in Khoury's book. If you look at the options I give for answers a few can be easily thrown out such as "He didn't have time", or "He asked his disciples to keep a journal, but they weren't very faithful in writing in it". 


As well, we can exclude the proposition that "He couldn't read or write very well". In Luke 4:16-17, Jesus reads in Hebrew from a scroll on the Sabbath, so he can obviously read and write. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic as this first language as well as Hebrew from religious schooling and Greek because he lived in the Roman empire. 


"He was too humble to record his own messages" at first resonates with Jesus, because he was "humble". But Jesus was not humble in the sense of shy, in contrast Jesus liked to stir the pot if you will. He would publicly call the Pharisees (the religious right): "you brood of vipers" (Matthew 12:34)! He unabashedly confronted, accused, pronounced judgments and wanted his teachings to be heard. 


Of course if you do not trust four biblical gospels then you must question their accounts of what Jesus was like and did, but that is a subject of another post or should I say posts! (Mark D Robert wrote an entire blog on this topic which was converted into a "blook": blog/book) I will be assuming that the four biblical gospels have reliable information about Jesus of Nazareth.


The remaining options are subject to a little more thought. 

  1. His message was purely spiritual
  2. He didn't want his message to become a religion
  3. He did but they were lost or are only included as fragments
  4. He wanted his movement to be grassroots
In The Last Templar, option number 4 would be true in that they were lost. As well option number 3 would be true as well. 

The biblical gospels show many examples of Jesus planning ahead for when he would leave his disciples. He is shown giving them instructions to his disciples about how they are to continue preaching the gospel, especially in a long monologue in John chapters 14-16. 

Jesus did not think it was critical to record written instructions for his disciples when he left them. In contrast he even thought is was better that he left!
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away..." John 16:7
Jesus seems to have explicitly chosen not to record written instructions. It wasn't an afterthought when his death seemed imminent or that he didn't consider his own words as important enough to extend beyond his own life - he was too intentional for that. But still: Why?

Monday, October 25, 2010

Self reflections

I would like to write a few words about my previous entries hoping to illuminate a little of my method by which I am writing blogs. 


So far I have only included entries from a series I have titled "Paradoxes from Jesus". I am hoping that these entries leave enough room for readers to answer questions themselves based on observations that I have made. Sometimes I have felt that I need to say more in these posts about what I think Jesus means through his paradoxes but I feel this is the best kind of reading to promote discussion and independent thought. I hope some readers appear at some point in the future who will engage my observations and post comments that lead to further posts at which point I will revisit past posts in greater detail. 


My hope that this blog equally engages readers who are inquisitive and thoughtful Christians as well as skeptical outsiders of the faith. This could possibly prove to be much to broad of an audience, but it's worth the effort I hope. I am open to suggestions in any part of writing this blog, grammar and writing style included. In the very least this blog allows me to think more about topics that I am interest in. 

Paradoxes from Jesus: Slave or Free




Jesus prophesied that he was fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy saying that, 
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives ..." Luke 4:18
What kind of freedom for captives was Jesus bringing? What were they taken captive by? 

In another situation, Jesus famously calls people to come to him for rest, 
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
But says that he will give them his "yoke", he doesn't completely release them from a yoke but frees them so that they would be captives again. Freedom for slaves to become slaves again? 

Again, Jesus instructs his disciples that they are to be slaves. 
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave..." Matthew 20:25-27 
 What is the paradox of freedom that Jesus is communicating? 

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Paradox versus Contradiction

A contradiction is a logical conflict of ideas and statements, that is irreconcilable for the given argument. 

A paradox on the other hand is a tricky thing, because it looks like a contradiction but is not. It feels as though their is a logical inconsistency somewhere, but given further thought and explanation the concept makes sense or at least leaves you unsure either way. 

The question is how do you know whether something is a contradiction or a paradox. The initial feeling and thought when we encounter both a paradox and a contradiction is exactly the same: it sounds false. 

In order to discern what is a contradiction and what is a paradox one must first have a keen mind to understand logic and probably some patience in turning over many stones in their mind and book pages. 

There seems to be a few patterns in identifying paradoxes. They are almost exclusively highly intentional and thought through. A good paradox usually comes form an intellect, writer, or thinker. 

As a simple example, Mark Twain once said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." He did not just randomly say this one day and then think about it and say, "Oh, I think I just used a paradox". He obviously thought deeply about education and wanted others to think deeply about it as well. More directly he wanted to influence people - he hoped to wake them up to the truth by saying something that would make them think. This helps us identify situations in which we might spend the extra effort to think more deeply about something that strikes us first as a contradiction that can't possibly work out logically. I would venture to propose that Jesus of Nazareth is one such individually who thought deeply about everything he said, and others who heard it thought is was damn well important enough to write down. 

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Paradoxes from Jesus: Prince of Peace

A bearded smiling man in long dazzling white robes carrying a peaceful lamb is the iconic image of Jesus of Nazareth. We know him as the "Prince of Peace". Even agnostics and followers of other religions and philosophies admire him as a great prophet or good teacher. What did he teach? I think most would (and do) say that he taught "all people to love and be at peace with their neighbors." Jesus" and peace seem to be parallel ideas. What do we find though when we read about Jesus... 
Zechariah prophesy over Jesus when he was a child that he would, 
"... give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace." Luke 1:79
Jesus instructs his disciples to bless the households of those who take them in while proclaim the gospel. 
"Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!'  And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you." Luke 10:5-6
In the famous Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, 
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." Luke 5:9
It seems however that people contemporary to Jesus' ministry thought the very same things that we modern readers think because Jesus had to dispel these misconceptions.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36
See Luke 12:51 for the same quote. 


What is the sword that Jesus brings? What is the peace that Jesus proclaimed?

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Paradoxes from Jesus: The cost of the kingdom

In the gospel of Matthew Jesus tells two similar parable to explain the kingdom of heaven. 


"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it." Matthew 13.44-46


The most basic and clear interpretation of these two parallel parable is that the kingdom of heaven is extremely valuable and comes at a very high cost to the seeker/buyer. In contrast, Christian evangelists often proclaim a gospel that salvation is a "free" gift and costs nothing. The quintessential reference for this idea comes from Paul's statement in Romans,


"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6.23


What is the "cost" that Jesus is referring to?