Nannette's NaNoWriiMo

Sometimes it feels like the same old Biblical questions keep coming back like those urban legends keep showing up on the email. The same questions keep resurfacing and so we need to keep answering them.

I have a book entitled Pictorial Bible Dictionary. I think it was given to me by my mother. She sometimes bought books from door to door salesmen and gave them as gifts and I believe this is one of those books. It was published in 1975 by The Southwestern Company in Nashville, TN.

This question about Rachel is answered in the book under a section about archaeological discoveries.

As far back as 1925 the Nuzi Tablets were found in Iraq. These tablets revealed that possession of the family idols showed rights of inheritance. Like her husband, Jacob, who had “stolen” his brother Esau’s inheritance [Gen. 25: 29-34] and blessing [Gen. 27], Rachel had stolen an inheritance from her father as well.

David, of course, killed Goliath. But the confusion comes from the elliptical nature of the Hebrew text in 2 Samuel 21:19 which makes it sound like Elhanan killed Goliath . I Chronicles 20:5 makes clear that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath. In 2 Sam. 2:19 “the brother of” is left out.

I think all of us have two genealogies. We have our Paternal line and our Maternal line. Matthew gives the Paternal line through Joseph the foster Father of Jesus. He does not indicate that Joseph begat Jesus but only shows that Jesus had legal right to the throne through Joseph. Luke traces Jesus’ physical line through Mary.

Some scholars insisted that the Song of Miriam was not written until the time of the building of Solomon’s Temple. They argued that the phrase, “the mountain of Thine inheritance” was in reference to Zion and/or the Temple. Of course, if Miriam actually sang the song, then it would have to date back to the time of Moses.

In 1929 the Ras Shamra tablets were found on the coast of Syria. These tablets dated back to 1400 BC. They have the same phrase, “the mountain of thine inheritance” used to refer to a mountain in the region. We already knew that Miriam sang her song as a triumphal exodus but it is nice, since so many won’t accept the Biblical record as being as accurate as other records, to have the Ras Shamra confirm the use of the phrase in Miriam’s time.

There is much more in regard to dating of the Pentateuch, Israeli monotheism, sacrificial systems, Daniel, and Ezra, in which the the Nuzi Tablets, the Ras Shamra and the Elephantine Papyri support the Biblical narratives..

Fundamentalist

I was reading some info on the internet about Karen Armstrong and just wanted to make this comment about the word "fundamentalism."

Karen talks about:
"Religious fundamentalism stands at the heart of many of the most intractable conflicts in the world today; from the continued failure of Israel and the Palestinians to make a lasting peace to the influence of fundamentalist Christians in the US." http://www.thelavinagency.com/canada/karenarmstrong.htmlKaren

I have been thinking how it used to be good to say that I was a fundamentalist and it simply meant that I believed in the fundamentals of my faith. Now the word has taken on a frightening meaning.

After 9-11 when the Taliban was continually mentioned as a "fundamentalist" Islamic group the word began to be connected with terrorism. Karen connects the bombings at Oklahoma City and the killing of an abortion clinic doctor with "Christian fundamentalists."

I am thinking this must be what is known as "deconstruction." A word whose meaning has been garbled. When the meaning of words changes so quickly it makes it almost impossible to communicate with another peron. In the past, when I talked to people, both of us would have understood the word to mean the same thing. But, today, the word means one thing for some people I talk with and it means something else with another person I am talking with. I can't anchor myself in anything more than a superficial conversation because I have to stop and clarify what the other person means by their words. Today, it means one thing to them but tomorrow, it may mean something else. Communication is becoming harder and harder.

Calling myself a fundamentalist Christian does not mean at all what it meant earlier in my life. I think some are now trying to say they are "Bible Christians." Now we want to be anything but "fundamentalists." The connotation of the word fundamentalist has been changed to mean "terrorist."

Most certainly the men involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the man who killed the abortionist are not getting back to the fundamentals of Christianity else they never would have done such a horrible thing. Jesus warned us specifically against violence and violent actions. When the disciples wanted to rain down fire on a certain city He told them that they were of the wrong spirit. [Luke 9:54-55] We Christians who want to get back to the fundamentals of our faith are taught to "resist not evil" but to "turn the other cheek." [Matthew 5:39]

It is unfortunate that every crackpot in the world is now being labeled a fundamentalist.

As for the Oklahoma City bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing), these men were closer to Chistian Identity, a cult that is about as far from traditional fundamentalist Christianity as one can get.

I personally think that Karen Armstrong's rhetoric is as terrifying as that of any white supremacist. White Supremacists target people of other ethnic groups while she targets and labels violent people as relgious fundamentalist.

We live in America where freedom to express ourselves is given to all of us so I am happy to see Karen speak her mind. If her right to speak her mind is suppressed, then my right to speak my mind will also be suppressed. I am glad that people are telling me what they really believe. I hope that I never stop anyone from telling me their real opinions.

But I am frustrated and fearful that Christians, will become so intimidated by this kind of labeling that we will stop speaking out. What good does it do to have the right to speak if we are too afraid to speak? Or. of we just don't care enough to speak?

I remember when I first started the potentially dangerous messageboard, (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potentiallydangerousspiritualmovements/)I had called it "Silence of the Lambs" because I felt that Christians do not speak out any longer. We must continue to be that Voice crying in the Wilderness.

Jesus commissioned us to present the good news to the world. We have that commission even in places where we are not given that right. It is to our advantage to maintain the right of expression of opinions and not fall silent.

Thoughts about Postmodernism

Recently I surfed onto some online lectures from Covenenant Seminary in St. Louis and decided to avail myself of the free seminary "classes." http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/

I decided to read the series on Apologetics and Outreach and I've been moved and encouraged by the lecturer, Jerram Barrs. The last lecture I read, entitled Postmodernism and Truth, really touched me so I wanted to blog some of my thoughts tonight.

I realized I have unwittingly been guilty, at times, of falling into a subtle trap. I somehow learned from talking with people that I could get away with "giving an answer for the faith that is in me" so long as I prefaced my statements with "This is what I believe." Naive Nannette, here, had in her mind that I was doing a good job of spreading the gospel and , after having practically been stoned in the past, I was rejoicing in thinking that the "spiritual" climate of this age is so wonderful that people are now willing to listen.

Barrs points out that, today, with the way that postmoderns communicate, all I have been saying is that I believe in Jesus. My postmodern listener has been sitting there thinking, "That's great! That is true for you!"

In all my naivete I have actually been communicating a half-truth. I do believe in Jesus. That part is true. But the other half that I have not been effectively communicating is that this is true, not just for me and others who believe as I do, but it is true for everyone!

Since reading this lecture on Postmodernism and the Truth I am trying to commit myself to always be clear that I am not talking about Jesus just being True for me.

Barrs really brings out why it is so easy to fall into this trap of communicating that Jesus is just my "personal truth" rather than the Truth for everyone. It's becase I have learned that, when I do communicate Jesus as the Truth for everyone, that is when people turn on me. That is the point at which people will no longer listen to me. That is the point at which I become an offense to them. That is the point at which Postmodernists begin to view me as intolerant and Postmodernists pride themselves on being tolerant so they cannot tolerate anyone that is viewed by them as intolerant.

When I finally communicat the Truth, then I become an offense, and my chance of continuing any further communication or discussion is ended.

Another tension for me is that I personally would not have enough compassion for the lost to put myself out on a limb like that. Like most Christians I would like to be with "birds of a feather" than go out into the world and become an offense. The only thing that compels any of us to go out is what Paul says, "The love of Christ constrains me." This compassion is built up in us by the Holy Spirit and we are constrained by love to do what we do ... make ourselves offensive.

I have to be compassionate and offensive all at the same time. Which is painful.

Barrs mentions that many churches have opted for the less painful route and are now sticking with the "this is just what we believe" story. I think the consequence of that is that, even at church I cannot be sure who is a believer in Jesus as the Only Way, the Only Truth and the Only Life and who is just there in church because they opted, like Oprah Winfrey, to not believe in Jesus as the Only Way but to remain in the Christian community because, as she states, it is the culture in which she was raised.

We can't really go to church anymore and assume that everyone there believes that Jesus is the Only Way, the Only Truth and Life. We need to be careful how we communicate our faith even while at church, just as Jesus did when He went down to synagogue. He made it His habit to go and while He was there He presented Himself as the Messiah and the Truth. Not everyone appreciated it. He became an Offense to some. And for them and for all of us, was eventually crucified.

Meerkat Manor Pleasures and the dangers in personification of animals

In summary, the pleasure of personifying animals can be seen in how we relate to our pets by projecting human characteristics onto them. We also enjoy cartoons like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and derive great pleasure from their portrayal as having human qualities.

I use the TV show "Meerkat Manor" as an example of the danger in personifying animals. This show has been advertised as a children's show. While it might be a way of learning about Meerkats it is dangerous in that the narration personifies the animals causing them to appear as a human family with mother, father, brothers and sisters, neighbors, etc. But, when "grandmother" kills her "grandchildren" this could be traumatic to children who have begun to view the animals as human.

I use the movie "The Secret of NIMH", in which cute little cartoon animals are portrayed as being tortured due to scientific lab research. Even though there are strict guidelines against abuse in research labs, these ideas are distressing to young children who view the animals as human.

I present the danger of personification as neglecting the needs of humans in favor of animals. We are given the Biblical mandate to care for the animals but we are also taught that animals are for our pleasure and sustenance. Noah was told to kill and eat animals. I believe this showis that the needs of human beings take priority.

Krister Stendahl

I had never heard of Krister Stendahl until recently. Perhaps it is because he died recently on April 18. 2008, that I heard of him at all. He was a Lutheran Bishop.

Stendahl believed that Christians were "bad mouthing" other religions by sharing the gospel with them. He contended that even Paul had changed his position from believing that anyone who preached any other gospel was anathema to understanding that love was more important than witnessing.

Of course, if someone believes that all religions are just different ways to God and that Jesus is not the only way, then that person would be confused as to why the Bible teaches us to witness.

If all religions are saved, then Jesus did us a great disservice by giving us the great commission: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world. Amen." Many Christian missionaries have laid down their lives for the purpose of preaching the gospel to the unredeemed of every nation.

Can Jesus be called a great prophet and if He led His disciples so far astray as to tell them that He is God and that we are to preach His gospel to the whole world.

Did Paul really change his message from Galatians where he said that anyone who would preach any other gospel would be anathema to the message of 2 Co 13 saying that love would be more important than presenting the gospel. Is it "bad mouthing" another religion by obeying the Great Commission that Jesus gave us?

In this article Krister claims love for the Bible but says it is his own and not to be shared with people from other religions.

Script Frenzy Day 17

This is all harder than I thought it would be but I've learned a lot of lessons.

2. Try to write about something in your own time period. I've had to spend hours researching history and that has made me very unlikely to do 100 page script now.

3. Write about a culture you know. I just spent this morning looking up Comanche female names. Finally I got off the interenet some Comanche names for Sacajewea (who happens to be the ancestor of a friend of mine.)

Yes, To'sa-woonit, the white boy, is my son. Good son. Here is prairie flowers for you as gift.

The Passion of the Christ: A Trojan Horse in the House of God (Essay)

When a tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise? Apparently some of us don’t make a sound even if we fall in the mall the day after a holiday. And this may be why most churches are bereft of any discerning voices. Christians gifted with even the minutest amount of discernment are made to feel like voices crying in the wilderness and have consequently been silenced.

I dreaded going to church during Easter. It wasn’t the Easter bunnies or the Easter eggs that bothered me. Those things are so obviously not related to the Resurrection of Christ that they are hardly a temptation to anyone. It wasn’t the Easter bonnet or the people who only go to church once a year on Easter that made me dread the day. There’s nothing wrong with an Easter bonnet and once a year is better than none. These complaints have yielded to a larger issue of concern.

I dreaded going to church on Easter because I didn’t want to be confronted with images of James Caviezel [1] being flashed upon the walls again. Have I endured this blatant idolatry in silence? No! I’ve tried repeatedly to make my voice heard by anyone who would take a moment to listen. [2] I’ve said, “This is a slap in the face to every Catholic convert in the Protestant Church.” A few others have tried to do the same, but is anyone listening?

Former Catholic priest, Richard Bennett, is founder of The Berean Beacon. In his article, Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception, Bennett writes, “The Church of Rome has done much to lead modern Evangelicalism into making images of the Lord. Like the Catholics, many Evangelicals today seem not even to be aware that such activity is idolatrous.” [3]

Since images of “Jesus” were again presented in church this Easter, please allow me, once more, to state some of my concerns. Perhaps I have not been clear in the past. Habakkuk tells us to make our message clear so that the person who reads it may act upon it. [4]

Have we, the Church, totally dismissed the second commandment? As a new Christian back in 1968 I was taught the travesty and danger of entertaining graven images. No one really has to come up with a long list of reasons for not making graven images.

The most simple reason to avoid such images is because God has said, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God ...” [5]

Many times I receive emails of what are said to be “beautiful and inspirational pictures of Jesus.” Because I’m not sure they understand, I write back and say, “You do realize that these are not pictures of Jesus, don’t you?”

They are not inspirational to me because I know that no artist has ever actually drawn a picture of Jesus. I’m sure there were artists alive when Jesus walked the Earth but no one left behind any image of Him. Contrary to any traditions, He did not leave a picture of Himself in blood on Veronica’s veil nor did His resurrection leave a photo on His shroud. God would not leave a graven image of Himself after expressly forbidding such an image.

I believe God has a purpose in leaving us His Word but not leaving us His image. The anti-Christ will one day return and set up his own image in the House of God. This thought causes me to grieve for the church because we can’t see the danger of images of James Caviezel and other representations of Christ being placed in the House of God. We are being desensitized by these images of what we call Jesus so that we will not think anything is amiss when the “abomination of desolation” [6] comes to stand in the Temple of God.

“But,” you say, “it’s all right to view these images so long as we don’t bow down and worship them. “ But, I ask you this, “If you don’t intend for these pictures to be worshipped, then why are you bringing them into God’s House of Worship?” If you don’t intend these pictures to be worshipped why are you saying, “Look at this picture of Jesus?”

Why don’t you say, “Look at this picture of James Caviezel.” “Look at this picture of a man hanging on a cross.” Why do you call him Jesus, when he is not? Isn’t the whole purpose to evoke worship of the image?

Think of the priority of the second commandment. It isn’t the 10^th commandment. It is the second one, right up under “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” [7] Paul warns us that the breaking of this commandment leads to immorality. It leads to breaking the rest of the commandments.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” [8]

In 2005, a Trojan horse was dragged into the Church. I compare Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to a Trojan horse because, although it is only Mel’s interpretation of Anne Catherine Emmerich’s The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, our evangelical leaders proclaimed it to be “an excellent tool for evangelism” and “a true Biblical account.” This it was not.

Do people study demonology in this enlightened age? As a 25 year old new Christian my Pastor handed me Merrill Unger’s classic study on demonology. I learned early in my Christian life that demons, desiring worship, inhabit graven images. There is a spirit pulling people to come in droves and view these images but it isn’t the Holy Spirit. That “sweet, sweet spirit in this place” isn’t His. God does not inhabit the works of men’s hands. All kind of destructive heresies, demons and seducing spirits crawled out of the movie images as they were flashed on the walls of our congregations and slithered down the aisles of Reformation churches.

I was filled with shame for the Reformation Church when I heard Raymond Arroyo[9], Director of EWTN, gloat that his Protestant relative was doing the Stations of the Cross without realizing what he was doing.

I didn’t hear any of our leaders say that the movie Luther,[10] [11]which came out in 2003, was “a good tool for evangelism.” The movie Luther is gone and forgotten while The Passion lives on. Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraaf’s recently announced that The Word of Promise New Testament Audio CD he produced is “starring James Caviezel as Jesus.”

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism has been blurring for a long time now. The Passion movie helped cement an unholy alliance with, what Catholics call, Mother Church. Evangelicals dragged these graven images into our churches forgetting hundreds of missionaries in the USA and abroad whose major mission is witnessing to Catholics worldwide.

I usually bill myself on the internet as lastlivingcalvinist. With all the churches I’ve visited recently finding nothing wrong with either Catholic heresy or graven images, and no one protesting, it’s possible that I’m now the lastlivingprotestant. Easter has become very stressful.

[1] James Caviezel is the actor who portrayed Jesus in Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/

[2] I try to find a voice at

www.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potentiallydangerousspiritualmovements/

[3] http://www.the-highway.com/passionofchrist_Bennett.html

[4] Habakkuk 2:2

[5] Exodus 20:4-5

[6] Matthew 24:15;

[7] Exodus 20:3

[8] Romans 1:22-25

[9] http://www.raymondarroyo.com/biography.html

[10] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309820/

[11] http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2106253/

Click on “Guest Jim Caviezel-The Word of Promise” link.

Script Frenzy Day 12

When you don't know what you are doing ... you might as well quote the poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley from whence cometh the title of your Western screenplay:

I arise from dreams of thee In the first sweet sleep of night, When the winds are breathing low, And the stars are shining bright; I arise from dreams of thee And a spirit in my feet Hath led me – who knows how; To thy chamber window sweet. The wandering airs are faint On the dark, the silent stream – And the Champak odors fail Like sweet thoughts in a dream; The nightingale’s complaint, It dies upon her heart – As I must on thine as beloved as thy art! Oh lift me from the grass! I die! I faint! I fail! Let thy love in kisses rain on my lips and eyelids pale. My cheek is cold and white alas! My heart beats loud and fast – Oh, press it to thine own again, where it will break at last.

Day 5 Script Frenzy

Abby

I was grieving so much for my .little Pumpkin so Cuqui my daughter called me and told me that the Humane Society had an overllow of flood victims. I went to their website and found Abby. The next morning, we went over and adopted her.

She is a miniature schnauzer about 8 years old. Not a flood victim but her days were numbered as she had already been there a month. We call her Abigail with no tail, Mochita Bonita.

Nannette's NaNoWriiMo

Biblical Urban Legends

Fundamentalist

Thoughts about Postmodernism

Meerkat Manor Pleasures and the dangers in personification of animals

Krister Stendahl

Script Frenzy Day 17

The Passion of the Christ: A Trojan Horse in the House of God (Essay)

Script Frenzy Day 12

Day 5 Script Frenzy

Abby

About Me

Links

Categories

Recent Entries

Friends