Monthly Archives: August 2022

I have heard it said that one can be Jewish without believing in God. I came across an article by a rabbi who tears that notion to shreds. But the problem he cites and the issues he raises are relevant for Christiansand those who claim to be Christiansalso.

He is responding to an earlier article by Andrew Silow-Carroll, who describes the phenomenon as fictionalism. Silow-Carroll defines the term as pretending to follow a set of beliefs in order to reap the benefits of a set of actions. He quotes philosopher Philip Goff, who relates the term also to Christianity:

Religious fictionalists hold that the contentious claims of religion, such as God exists or Jesus rose from the dead are all, strictly speaking, false. They nonetheless think that religious discourse, as part of the practice in which such discourse is embedded, has a pragmatic value that justifies its use. To put it simply: God is a useful fiction.

Silow-Carroll gives the example of a Jewish professor who fasts on Yom Kippur and celebrates Passover even though he is an atheist.Its just what we Jews do, he explained. It keeps me connected to a community I value. He went on to say,When it feels like the world is falling apart, I seek refuge in religious rituals but not because I believe my prayers will be answered.

Silow-Carroll respects this position, seeing Judaism and religion in general in terms of actions, ethics, and ritual, rather than beliefs and doctrines. Fictionalists differ from humanists and new atheists because they keep God and the observances of religion, including prayer and worship, in the picture. They just think God is fictional, prayer is a useful form of meditation, and worship is beautiful.

I have heard from Catholic fictionalists, who say, Of course, I dont believe all this stuff, but I am a Catholic, and this is what Catholics do. Also liberal Protestants, including Episcopal bishops who publicly reject Christs resurrection, but soberly intone the Easter liturgy. In fact, much of liberal Protestant theology is fictionalism, denying the tenets of Christian belief while still carrying on the ministry of the churchpreaching, teaching, leading Bible studies, conducting worship services, praying, singing hymns, and offering spiritual counselingas being somehow valuable, even though they consider Christian teachings like the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the atonement, salvation, eternal life, and the Word of God to be untrue. They dont believe the Bible, but consider it to be a good piece of fiction, even though, as C. S. Lewis shows, fiction written like the Bible would not be invented until the 1700s.

I suspect this can be found also among evangelicals and even confessional Lutherans. Pastors, I suppose, have a profession to consider, so that if they lose their faith, they have to keep on in their jobs. They become fictionalists, either teaching their whole congregation to be the same, or, probably more commonly, keeping their unbelief to themselves, but persisting in the traditional forms.

I suppose in the latter case, the members of the congregation can still receive the sacraments and hear Gods Word from a faithless preacher. At least thats what the orthodox side said in opposing the Donatist heretics. Meanwhile, some laymen might come to church to keep a spouse happy or because they enjoy the music or even because they think religion conveys psychological or social benefits, even though they dont believe in it themselves.

Rabbi Goldstein refutes Jewish fictionalism, saying, among other things, that,

if you remove God from Judaism it ceases to be recognizable as such. When we say may the Omnipresent comfort you at a funeral , or God who blessed bride and groom at a wedding, or God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh during Kiddush, or God is one every morning and evening, and on our deathbed these are all just fictions? If so, Judaism is meaningless; it becomes a system based on falsehoods. . . .

The only form of Jewish identity that has proven itself capable of surviving more than a few generations is one rooted in the complete embrace acceptance of the truth of all the factual claims made by Judaism, including belief in God and His authorship of the Torah. Throughout our long history no Jewish community has ever survived without a belief in the foundations of our faith. A pretend Judaism wont cut it. Only the real thing is worthy of us and our children and a guarantee for a bright Jewish future.

One could say the same about Christianity. A pretend Christianity wont cut it.

This syndrome would be an example of holding the form of religion but denying the power of it (2 Timothy 3:5). Simply holding onto the forms is not just a matter of denying the doctrines of the religion, as fictionalists assume. It also denies the power that those doctrines testify to and that the forms of the religion convey.

As Hamann reminds us, doctrines are not just abstract ideas, to be debated or proven or refuted or disagreed with. Rather, they are mighty realities that we neglect to our ruin.

Put another way, religion without faith is dead.

Image byGerd AltmannfromPixabay

Go here to see the original:

The Fictionalist Approach to Religion | Gene Veith - Patheos

Shia LaBeouf arrives for the Hollywood Film Awards in 2019. DFree / Shutterstock.com

Pio saved my life, this is not just a movie or something, and I dont mean that lightly, said Transformers star Shia LaBeouf in a soulful interview with Bishop Robert Barron. In the course of their conversation, the actor laid bare his encounter with Catholicism, mediated by St. Padre Pio and the friars of the Capuchin Franciscan San Lorenzo Seminary in Santa Ynez, California.

My life was on fire. I was walking out of hell, said LaBeouf. The actor, who has appeared in 40 movies, confessed that when he accepted the role of Padre Pio in an upcoming film, he didnt want to be an actor any longer. His world had crumbled. I hurt a lot of people, he told Bishop Barron. I felt deep shame and deep guilt.

A former Jewish atheist, the actors moving comments about his experience of religious faith have touched many. One YouTube viewer commented, I started watching this dismissively, knowing hes an actor and expecting him to put on a perfunctory show. The same viewer went on to say: Id like to apologize for my own presumptuousness and small-mindedness. God deflated my ego when I watched Shia engage so openly and straightforwardly, and so humbly admit to his own humanness and wrongdoing and the hurt hes caused.

Others have answered LaBeoufs newfound religious faith with unchanged suspicion. The interview with Bishop Barron was released concurrent with a development in the sexual battery and assault lawsuit from singer FKA Twigs, his former girlfriend, which will go to trial next April. To others, the interview seems like an amazing promotion strategy for the Padre Pio biopic.

Only time will offer more evidence of LaBeoufs conversion. But for now, I think we should take him at his word. Id rather believe in the power of conversion and the healing grace of the Holy Spirit than live under the tyranny of constant cynicism and suspicion.

I will also insist that my interpretation is not Pollyannaish. LaBeouf offers considerable engagement with the Faith. From his thoughts on the Latin Mass to his experiences reading St. Augustine and Thomas Merton, this is a man who seems to have undergone a genuine change of heart. His affection for the Franciscans, including Father James, Father Jude and Brother Alex, was evident. LaBeouf marveled at how the friars invited him in to their life by laughter, joking, petting cats and eating ice cream. And they did all of this without asking him for anything.

For me, the most powerful moment in LaBeoufs story comes when he describes what it was like to read the Gospel of Matthew for the first time. LaBeouf undertook the task to prepare to be St. Pio. He said John the Baptist made a deep impression, that he felt like an old Western character. The actor found the Forerunner rustic and strong and masculine.

Then, unexpectedly, the Gospels story of redemption began to capture him. I started reading about a route, a map, toward something that felt like let go,' LaBeouf says. The actor emphasized: Thats really what I got out of the Gospel. If I could wrap it up in two words it was, let go.' With his life slipping away, having no place else to go or turn, he found himself embracing the Gospels message of surrender. For LaBeouf, that message of surrender became more than preparation for a role. It stops being this prep of a movie and it starts feeling like something beyond all that, he told Bishop Barron.

We ought to listen to LaBeoufs words. Too often, we doubt that the life of Jesus has the ability to touch a soul. We can so easily forget the liberating power of the basic tenets of the Gospel. We shouldnt gloss over LaBeoufs troubled past marred by plagiarism, alcoholism, theft and accusations of sexual assault. In the days since the interview with Bishop Barron, the actor admitted another deceit: the depiction of his father in the autobiographical film Honey Boy was nonsense.

Christ can overcome all these things and greater wrongs still. Let us pray for LaBeouf and that every suffering soul might discover the message of the Gospel to let go.

Father Patrick Briscoe, OP, is editor of Our Sunday Visitor.

More:

'Let go': Shia LaBeouf on conversion and the meaning of the Gospel - Our Sunday Visitor

Dont let a crisis go to waste.

Let difficulty transform you. And it will. In my experience, we just need help in learning how not to run away. Pema Chodron

I was strolling through a Michael's art supply store a few weeks ago with my daughter. I hadn't been feeling all that great and had noticed a fluttering sensation on the left side of my chest earlier in the day. "Probably nothing," I thought, though I really should have stayed home that evening.

Strangely, I began to feel increasingly lightheaded as we milled about the Oak Tag paper, non-hardening modeling clay, and various other artistic knickknacks. "This is getting bad; I really need to get into the bathroom before I pass out and my daughter completely freaks."

Instead I told her that I was "a bit dizzy" and that we needed to leave.

As I (stupidly) drove home, I texted my wife to have an ambulance at the house for when we arrived. I learned later that I was experiencing something called "presyncope," which is a fancy way of saying that you're close to losing consciousness (or at least feeling that way). The EMTs checked my vitals and told me that, considering all that was going on, it would be a good idea to go to the ER.

I have never been in an ambulance before and can report that it's a very weird experience (those lights and sirens are supposed to be for other people, not me). As I watched my house, with my distressed family, recede in the distance, I entertained the thought that perhaps I'm having a cardiac episode and this is the last time I will see them.

This was one of my most sobering moments to date. It was all very unpleasant, and though the doctors couldn't find anything wrong and chalked it up to dehydration, I learned a few new things about the (potential) benefits of this kind of challenge.

In moments of duress, there is a sharp mental bifurcation between what is essential and what is not. Who thinks about good fried chicken or an amusing film they recently saw when faced with a serious health crisis? One quickly realizes (or rather remembers) that there are only very few things that matter to us and that most of what we obsess over daily is just noise.

Keeping this in mind in our ordinary, non-crisis lives is one of humanity's greatest challenges and thus pays the most significant dividends to those who succeed. It seems to me that most serious challenges we endure are the proverbial "wake-up call." They're an opportunity to shake things up, break through the emotional calcification and recalibrate the trajectory of our lives.

Most spiritual traditions are aware that there is a correlation between the reduction of the attention we give the body and a heightened sense of the transcendent. The ultimate goal of fasting, meditation, and even things like sensory deprivation tanks is to temporarily diminish the strength and influence of our physical selves, allowing our inner selves (which some call a soul) to expand.

I noticed that there is no desire for physicality of any sort in a crisis state. I had no appetite, no desire to go for a stroll, get a massage, or enjoy some good coffeenothing. The mind is squarely and exclusively fixed on processing what's occurring and the effect that it could have on "the things that actually matter."

It's famously said that there are no atheists in a foxhole. I dont believe this. I do believe, however, that there are relatively few of them in there. I am not an atheist, but even as a theist, in this situation, it seemed much more natural, easy, and obvious to reach out beyond the doctors and the equipment to an Ultimate Source for help.

There's a point at which one realizes that the nature of physical reality is incomplete - it has no inherent power to help. As skillful and well-intended as they are, the doctors only make educated guesses and are fallible. The tests and procedures they use are generally effective but not foolproof.

In these moments, we can be squeezed into the understanding that our confidence in corporeal things is misplaced and that there is a wisdom and an energy at work that quietly guides all that transpires. This wisdom is the address for our pleadings and the only true hope for our deliverance from the crisis.

The net effect of this whole process is, if we allow it, to become more spiritual. And though it's very uncomfortable, in this sense, it's a blessing.

Read this article:

The Spiritual Benefits of a Medical Scare - aish.com - Aish.com

YORK COUNTY, Pa. (WHTM) Still no after-school Satan club at least, not unless a court eventually overturns that decision but The Satanic Temple can hold a one-time back-to-school event in Northern High Schools auditorium.

Nice achievement, from the organizations point of view?

Oh, no. Were going to litigate against them for not allowing the after-school Satan club, said Lucien Graves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple. And were going to win.

The them Greaves is suing is the Northern York County School District, whose board voted 8-1 in April to reject the ongoing after-school club which The Satanic Temple wanted to offer at Northern Elementary School but approved a one-time use (the night of Sept. 24) of the high school auditorium, provided the temple pays $1,260, which the district said covers the cost of renting, cleaning and securing the facility and using its technology.

At the April meeting, parents and students spoke overwhelmingly against the club; many held anti-Satan club signs.

Why allow the upcoming event despite rejecting the club?

As a public school district, the use of our school facilities by outside organizations must be permitted without discrimination, the district said in a statement. The moment we allowed the first organization to use our facilities, we opened the door for every organization to do so provided they satisfy the conditions and application requirements as set forth in policy. We cannot and do not arbitrarily pick and choose which organizations may or may not use our facilities.

Considering what might seem like a partial victory, why does Greaves seem to remain so entirely dissatisfied?

The back-to-school night was supposed to celebrate the opening of our club originally, but now we dont have the club, he said. It just kind of underscores the absolute incoherence of the school board when it comes to policies of equal access and nondiscrimination, showing that they dont actually understand how or when its appropriate to apply them. So while you might think we would be celebrating that we have this equal access, its actually something thats not theirs to take away from us.

But first: What exactly is an after-school Satan club?

Start with what its not: something that has well anything to do with devil worship, Greaves said.

Our after-school club was going to focus on critical thinking, science and that kind of thing, said Greaves, who describes himself as an atheist who views all religions as superstitions. We always get that pushback where people say, Well, why Satan?'

Well, then: Why Satan?

We view Satan metaphorically, Greaves said. Its not up to the school board to say theyre going to allow a Christian club and not allow a Hindu club or the after-school Satan club.

Greaves says Northern York facilitates a Christian club where parents voluntarily allow their children to be bused during the school day, and equal treatment based on his interpretation of a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling would require allowing the after-school Satan club.

Following its initial statement to abc27 news that it felt compelled by law to allow the back-to-school night despite rejecting the after-school club, the district didnt respond to a question asking to clarify the difference between the two. But the disagreement between Greaves and the district seems to revolve around how similar the Christian club during the school day but off site is to a hypothetical after-school religious club on school grounds, which the district doesnt have.

Somehow to them, this is a distinction that makes all the difference, but for us it doesnt make a bit of difference, Greaves said. If you have any after-school clubs at all, those principles of neutrality and free expression take hold and the school district doesnt have a say as to whether somebody has access to that or not.

Greaves claims the after-school Satan club never mind its name isnt just about trying to make a point.

We realized that some parents who were not inclined to have their children proselytized to, nonetheless felt a need to send their kids sometimes to these proselytizing religious after-school clubs because they didnt have another means to provide them daycare, Greaves said. If youre going to have a religious club that proselytizes towards children, to take one point of view, we will offer an alternative.

But if this isnt really about Satan at least, not the Satan most people think of, which drew countless protestors to the school board meeting why use such a controversial term? Couldnt they just call it, say, the after-school nothing club?

Yeah, but it would be that much less meaningful to us, as it would be to everybody else as well, Greaves said, although he acknowledged theres always that balance between making a point and overplaying ones hand.

Paul Tucker, a local atheist and co-founder of a group called the Dillsburg Area Free Thinkers, agrees with The Satanic Temples philosophy so much that the Free Thinkers will attend the temples Sept. 24 event some of the members of our group are very into fossils, and they want to present something on archeology and science at the meeting, Tucker said.

But as for the organizations way of communicating its message?

Tucker said he couldnt speak for his whole group after all, he deadpanned, how can you speak for a group of free thinkers? but some of us in the group are not particularly fond of some of the tactics.

He said the Free Thinkers support the schools science programs.

Im not sure whats going on right now at Northern is a good thing for [The Satanic Temple] to be doing, Tucker said. Were not trying to just rile people up and get people upset. Were more interested in having a conversation, a dialog.

Greaves is confident hell win the legal battle.

The school board gave themselves no possibility of justifying their previous actions, he said. They were openly, baldly discriminatory. They took upon themselves authority they dont have, and they fully deserve to lose in court over this.

As for the public opinion battle?

I think ultimately youre going to see a lot more of our clubs in years to come, and its going to stop being shocking to people because as our clubs take place, people they just dont have problems, Greaves said. After something goes on long enough with no problems, people tend to calm down.

See the rest here:

Despite event approval, Satanic Temple still suing Northern York, and were going to win - ABC27

Roger Williams agreed with the Puritan overlords of Massachusetts Bay on most points of doctrine, but when his thinking diverged from accepted orthodoxy, he said so. Plainly and without apology.

In The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, Peace and Truth are portrayed as unrequited lovers who have long been separated by religious intolerance. There can be no peace without truth, Williams says, and truth never will flourish unless men and women are allowed to live in peace. Williams found the place where truth and peace embraced, and there he made his stand.

Most precious Truth, Peace exclaims, you know we are both pursued and laid for. Mine heart is full of sighs, mine eyes of tears. Where can I vent my full, oppressed bosom than into yours, whose faithful lips may for these few hours revive my drooping, wondering spirits, and here begin to wipe tears from mine eyes, and the eyes of my dearest children?

Peace and Truth never could consummate their love, Williams believed, until a stake was driven between the practical affairs of civil society and confessional religion. All should be free to believe, or disbelieve, he said, according to the dictates of conscience. The work of civil society should be placed in the hands of the most gifted persons available without regard to religious confession. In such a world, Williams was convinced, men and women could pursue God without hindrance.

Clarity was a rare commodity in Williams day and is rarer still in ours. Politicians aspiring to maximize their vote count speak with polished imprecision. Frank speech is considered a rookie error. You arent supposed to say the quiet parts out loud.

Politicians aspiring to maximize their vote count speak with polished imprecision.

Congregations that span the ideological spectrum rarely hear sermons on culture war issues like immigration policy, reproductive health and gay marriage. Speak clearly on these matters, young pastors are told, and you will anger half your congregation. Much better to preach on the secrets of personal happiness.

Of course, not all preachers and politicians must appeal to a diverse audience. When your constituency is in broad agreement on the pressing issues of the day, preachers and politicians are allowed to speak clearly, so long, that is, as the audience dictates the message.

I used to enjoy listening to Jimmy Swaggart work his audience. When Jimmy introduced a tirade with some of you arent going to like this, you knew a standing ovation was waiting in the wings. Similarly, Donald Trump is free to trade in unfounded allegations and conspiracy theories because he understands the fears and prejudices of his chosen audience.

The clarity practiced by Roger Williams rarely found a favorable reception. The Church of England and the divines of Massachusetts Bay disagreed on many points, but all parties insisted that politics and religion be joined at the hip. Every religious pronouncement had political implications. Inevitably, politics bled into religion. To Williams, this was a recipe for cowardice and hypocrisy.

Those who insist on ideological purity must dream of absolute victory. Roger Williams didnt have that luxury. His desire to separate church and state was, at best, a fringe sentiment, and he knew it.

In The Bloudy Tenent, he confessed that this discourse against the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience would gain much traction, even among the sheep of Christ themselves. Still, he persevered. Having bought truth dear, he cautioned, we must not sell it cheap, not the least grain of it for the whole world; no, not for the saving of souls.

Having bought truth dear, we must not sell it cheap, not the least grain of it for the whole world; no, not for the saving of souls.

Persecution was necessary, the religious establishment insisted, because eternal salvation was at stake. The lords of New England could tolerate disagreement on inconsequential matters; but when erroneous ideas had foolish people teetering on the lip of hell, they clamped down.

Only the power of love can draw us to the truth, Williams answered. The only species of salvation worth troubling about must flow from the love of truth, from the love of the Father of lights from whence it comes, from the love of the Son of God, who is the way and the truth.

Williams could speak clearly because he wasnt trying to win. He couldnt erect a wall between church and state in England or in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay. He couldnt make the wider world safe for Catholics, Quakers, Baptists and atheists. But he could carve out a little patch of freedom in the New World, and that became his lifes work.

Our fear of failure causes us to speak in garbled platitudes. Preachers and politicians (in these latter days it is difficult to tell them apart) are afraid to challenge established opinion because, as Dylan put it, they just want to be on the side thats winning.

We speak as much truth as the market will bear.

We say what we are expected to say. We speak as much truth as the market will bear. We lie about our history. We lie about sex and gender. We lie about guns and empire. We fling a curtain of denial over genocide, rape and plunder. We shave off shards of pleasantness, then lapse into silence.

Like Williams, we inhabit an age of political and religious upheaval. We dont want to compromise our principles in the slightest particular. Liberal purists call their ideological opposites toxic; purists on the right regard their enemies as literal demons. Christian denominations are fracturing along ideological lines. In the political arena, liberals and conservatives wage uncivil war. Our opponents arent just wrong; they are devils.

Williams never shrank from controversy. Like all Puritans, he was a despiser of Papists. He expressed his disapproval of Quakers in a screed marked by extravagant vitriol: George Fox Digged out of his Burrowes. Yet all were welcomed to the haven he had planted in Providence. He insisted on the freedom to follow the truth wherever it led and extended that freedom to everyone else. In the unlikely event that an atheist, a Hindu or a Muslim wandered into his community, Williams said they should be welcomed as equals. The strident clarity of Williamss religious opinions didnt stop him from cooperating with everyone and anyone. He understood that genuine cooperation requires mutual clarity.

Of one thing Williams was certain: Those with the power to dictate truth rarely possessed it. So had it ever been. The unknowing zeal of Constantine and other emperors did more hurt to Christ Jesus crown and kingdom, he declared, than the raging fury of the most bloody Neros.

Truth had been defended by a bloody sword for so long it was all but impossible to find. By this means Christianity was eclipsed, and the professors of it fell asleep, he lamented. Babel, or confusion, was ushered in, and by degrees the gardens of the churches of saints were turned into the wilderness.

Here too, Williams was right. Before we can speak clearly, we must acknowledge our confusion. The world is too much for us. We are adrift on a sea of bewilderment. But Williams was convinced that, just as God has spoken in Jesus Christ, God would speak again. It was that confidence that fired the spirit of prophecy, in his day and in ours.

Alan Beanis executive director of Friends of Justice, an alliance of community members that advocates for criminal justice reform. He lives in Arlington, Texas.

Related articles:

Roger Williams, John Cotton and the future of the American experiment| Analysis by Alan Bean

Roger Williams, the father of American deconstruction | Opinion by Alan Bean

More:

Roger Williams and the courage to speak clearly - Baptist News Global

Over the course of this series, we have been exploring the Biblical case for the divinity of Jesus. I believe that this matters because, to put it simply, if Jesus made claims to be God should take them seriously. Even more so, if Jesus claims to be God happen to be true, then we owe Him the same honor, and worship that Yahweh is afforded.

The claim that Jesus merely thought of himself as a moral teacher, a revolutionary, or even just a prophet is quite common today. Among some progressive christian , Islamic, and even some Atheist Circles, the idea of Jesus claiming to be nothing more than a mere man is about as common as seeing a tourist in New Orleans wearing Mardi Gras Beads in July (Sorry yall. I had to go there). Yet, a case can in fact be made for Jesus self-thought divinity.

So far we have dove into the HANDS acronym*. We have looked at moments where Jesus accepted honor and praise as if he were God, moments where he shared in the attributes of God, and moments where Jesus has shared in the names of God.

As a quick summary:

Together, all of these moments form a cumulative case for Jesus self-afforded divinity.

The next letter in our HANDS acronym represents the idea that Jesus shared in the deeds of God. We are going to look at three specific instances where Jesus does this. Three of the biggest things Jesus could do in His Jewish context would be: forgive sins, heal others (bonus points if on the Sabbath), and control the weather. So lets dive in.

The question of Jesus healing people seems like an obvious one. If Jesus were God, he should be able to heal people who are deaf, unable to hear, and/or are blind. In the Gospel accounts, not only do we see this happen, but we see Jesus raising people from the dead. Check this out:

As Jesus was saying this, the leader of a synagogue came and knelt before him. My daughter has just died, he said, but you can bring her back to life again if you just come and lay your hand on her.

So Jesus and his disciples got up and went with him. Just then a woman who had suffered for twelve years with constant bleeding came up behind him. She touched the fringe of his robe, for she thought, If I can just touch his robe, I will be healed.

Jesus turned around, and when he saw her he said, Daughter, be encouraged! Your faith has made you well. And the woman was healed at that moment.

When Jesus arrived at the officials home, he saw the noisy crowd and heard the funeral music. 24 Get out! he told them. The girl isnt dead; shes only asleep. But the crowd laughed at him. 25 After the crowd was put outside, however, Jesus went in and took the girl by the hand, and she stood up! 26 The report of this miracle swept through the entire countryside.

Matthew 9: 19-26

Jesus was in the middle teaching while a local synagogue leader came and knelt before him. Notice the honor being given to Jesus here. Its almost worship-like. The synagogue leader tells Jesus that his daughter had just died and that Jesus is able to bring her back to life. As He was on His way, a man who had constantly bled for 12 years touches his robe and she is instantly healed and then He continues to raise the dead girl from the dead.

If Jesus were but a mere man, then this obviously would not have happened. Yet I think this passage also fits what a lot of historians call the criteria of embarrassment. If the writer was making a story up, he or she would make sure that the account was clean and polished to make the hero as grandeur as ever.

Not so with this account. Jesus is touched by a woman who is bleeding (which would make him ceremonially unclean). And Jesus is mocked when telling the crowd that the dead girl is only asleep. It seems to me that the likelihood of the events in this passage are more probable to have happened the way they did than not.

Jesus showing of His ability to heal the sick and raise the dead is 1 piece to the puzzle of a long line of circumstantial evidence of His divinity. And this is only one time in which He shares in the deeds of God.

So, weve seen Jesus heal the constantly bleeding woman and raise a girl from the dead, but did Jesus show that he could control the weather? If he were God, it seems to me that he should be able to do this at least once. Well, it turns out, He has:

One day Jesus said to his disciples, Lets cross to the other side of the lake. So they got into a boat and started out. As they sailed across, Jesus settled down for a nap. But soon a fierce storm came down on the lake. The boat was filling with water, and they were in real danger. The disciples went and woke him up, shouting, Master, Master, were going to drown! When Jesus woke up, he rebuked the wind and the raging waves. Suddenly the storm stopped, and all was calm. Then he asked them, Where is your faith? The disciples were terrified and amazed. Who is this man? they asked each other. When he gives a command, even the wind and waves obey him!

Luke 8:22-25

When the disciples were crossing the lake, a great storm began to swirl he winds and waves. Rain pelted the boat and fierce lightning struck the heavens. The disciples were terrified and called to Jesus for help. Jesus immediately stood out of His nap, ridiculed them for their lack of faith, and calmed the storm. This is another moment where the criterion of embarrassment comes into play.

If Luke were making this account up, then he simply would have left the part about the disciples being terrified of the storm out of the equation. No ridicule would have needed to have happened. After all, the disciples in this boat end up being heroes later on in the story and questioning the authority of Jesus and wondering who this guy is would be confusing to add if this account were simply made up.

Jesus calming of the wind and waves serves as an example of Him showing his ability to control the weather, something only God can do.

One of the biggest things that Jesus could do in order to claim the title of God would be to forgive the sins of humans. Weve seen Jesus heal the sick and raise the dead, but in order to forgive sins, Jesus would need to think of Himself as to have such as large of an authority as God Himself. Of course, WE DO see Jesus forgiving sins and claiming this authority unto Himself. Check this out:

Jesus climbed into a boat and went back across the lake to his own town. Some people brought to him a paralyzed man on a mat. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, Be encouraged, my child! Your sins are forgiven.

But some of the teachers of religious law said to themselves, Thats blasphemy! Does he think hes God?

Matthew 9: 1-3

Jesus is brought a paralyzed man. Instead of healing the man, Jesus decides that it is more important to forgive His sins, something that people with a mind for missions should take note of. And notice the response of Pharisees.

They call this blasphemy. Why?

The entire sacrificial system is built around God forgiving the sins of His people. Grain offerings, animal offerings, and the like were all given to atone for sin and to restore the relationship between the Hebrews and the Lord. People may be able to forgive each other personally, but the forgiving of sins, rebellion against Yahweh, was for Yahweh to do only. And for Jesus to forgive a mans sins well is nearly as if He is claiming to be Yahweh Himself. In fact, thats exactly what He is doing.

Jesus, unless He is God, has no authority to forgive sins. As a rabbi, He would know this. As a Jew, He would know this. Yet, He has the authority to do so. At least He claims to.

This is blasphemy. But only if He is incorrect in doing so. Which, based on the other evidence for His divinity, Im thinking He has the authority to do so.

Also, after this event, Jesus did heal the paralyzed the man. The people freaked out over it.

Through this series, we have seen many examples of Jesus making an astounding claim: He is divine. This is done implicitly through this actions and teachings and explicitly through showing the authority to forgive sins and in His association with the name Jehovah. Jesus divinity is shown in his actions, his words, and his teachings. And whats more is that there is one more strand of evidence that Jesus at least saw Himself as being deserving of the title Lord. We will take a look at Jesus claiming The Seat or Throne of God. We will wrap up our exploration of the divinity of Jesus with this topic in our next article.

* For more information about the HANDS acronym and for more of an in-depth look, check out the bookPutting Jesus in his Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski*

View post:

WDJD: Jesus Shared in the Deeds of God - Patheos