Cat chases it's tail.

Cat chases it’s tail.

Jesus laughs as Zebedee

yells and shakes his hands


Boanerges is an Aramaic word meaning "sons of thunder."  Jesus gave this nickname to his disciples James and John. The term is never explained further and has engendered many attempts at interpretation.

The Bible says that Jesus knew the hearts of men (John 2: 24-25) and some commentators believe that Jesus gave the nickname to the men in reference to the two brother's loud and hot-headed nature as shown in Luke 9:54.  This may well be the correct interpretation, but there are others.

Dr. James Blevins, my Greek professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, believed that the meaning of the phrase laid in "thunder" rather than "sons." The nickname was humorous. He envisioned Zebedee as red-faced and spitting and bubbling as his sons tossed away their fishing nets and followed Jesus.

Stirring Up a Hornet’s Nest

Read about the Ariel Castro kidnapping case in these links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ariel-castro-had-ropes-an_n_3237412.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/castro-berry-cleveland/2140619/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57583428/ariel-castro-cleveland-kidnapping-suspect-helped-look-for-missing-girl/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320564/Ariel-Castro-pictured-Suspect-Amanda-Berry-Gina-DeJesus-Michelle-Knight-kidnap-arrested--BROTHERS.html

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/tv_station_reports_berry_dejes.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/16/letter-asks-prosecutor-to-charge-ariel-castro-over-five-forced-abortions/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/10/ariel-castro-cleveland-kidnapping-rape-charges.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57583620/michelle-knight-told-cops-ariel-castro-threatened-to-kill-her-if-amanda-berrys-baby-died/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0510/Could-Ariel-Castro-be-tried-for-murder-Case-would-be-unprecedented

The prosecutor in this horrible case is about to stir up a hornet’s nest.  Ariel Castro stands accused of kidnapping three women and holding them against their wills for ten years.  He repeatedly raped and sexually abused all three, impregnating two of them.  One of the women was impregnated five times.  Castro ended each of the five pregnancies by starving and beating the woman.  One child, now six years old, was born to another of the hostages.

Abortion and the question of when a fetus officially becomes human are sharply divisive issues in the United States at this time.  There are already arguments beginning over whether Castro’s termination of the pregnancies constituted feticide or homicide.  If the killings are declared to have been homicides, then Castro is eligible for the death penalty.  But, if the killings are declared to have been homicides, then the fetuses will have been declared to have been human.  Obviously, for supporters of abortion rights, this just will not be acceptable.

This places the abortion supporters into a tight spot.  Virtually everyone is agreed that Castro’s crimes against the three women (they were still legally children when he abducted them) are heinous and evil.  Abortion supporters may be forced into a corner where they have to downplay the seriousness of some of Castro’s crimes.  It is a corner of their own making.

This is, of course, a religious issue, but I believe that an atheist could come to the same conclusion that I have: the killings of the fetuses were murders.

Why Life Begins At Conception, Part 1

Over the next few days I will be posting, in several parts, on the subject, Why Life Begins at Conception.  The posts may not be on consecutive days but they will make the most sense to you if they are read in consecutive order. 

The subject has become a very hot topic in the United States because of the poorly thought out comments (I would say something more harsh except for the nature of this blog) of one of the current United States Representatives. 

The current controversy concerns abortion and certain types of contraception and the timing of when a developing fetus becomes “human.”  Does life begin at conception or sometime later in the pregnancy? Does the developing fetus have legal rights as a person?

The question is presented by many as a religious question, and it is, but a rational and scientific case can be made for opposition to abortion without any reference to religion.  Many people will not listen to a religious argument, but they might listen to a scientific one.

The posts in this series will present, in a highly simplified way, the scientific information necessary for a case against abortion and some forms of birth control.  Also, the very strong emotions of persons on both sides of the issue will be discussed.

1.     This is not, never has been, and never will be, a political blog.

2.     I am qualified to present this particular scientific information because my undergraduate degree is in biology with a concentration in developmental genetics and embryology.

Christian Heresies: Eutychianism

Eutyches (ca. 380-ca. 456) was the Archimandrite of Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey).  He was an ardent anti-Nestorian and declared that Jesus had only a divine nature and not a human one.  His views were also condemned.  This is one of the many Trinitarian heresies.

Something to Think About: Robotic Humans

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT: Robotic Humans
This is a recurrent segment in this blog and is dedicated to questions not yet being asked by most people, but which, inevitably, will come up. If you think about them now, you won’t be caught unaware when they arrive.
____________________________________________________
In Rome in 2008, Pierpaolo Petruzziello moved his arm and hand and felt sensations even though he no longer had an arm and even though the arm and hand which he was moving were attached to his body by electrodes inserted into the stump of what was left of his arm. Other than the wires placed into the stump, the mechanism was not attached to the patient. The hand was entirely mechanical and was controlled entirely by Petruziello's thoughts. Presumably, the mechanism could be controlled from a distance by remote control.

The science fiction dream of brains kept alive in robotic bodies will eventually be realized. Will paraplegics be able to live and experience normal lives within mechanical bodies? Will the resultant persons still be human? Will they be able to remain alive for centuries by switching to new robotic bodies as the old ones wear out? Will living tissue one day replace the robotic mechanisms? Will it be ethical to discard the living bodies for new ones?

Will someone realize another science fiction concept and produce long-distance soldiers such as the beings seen in the 2009 film, Avatar? Mechanisms (robotic or living tissue) controlled like today's military drone airplanes by someone safely miles or even continents away from the deadly action? What will this mean for the value of human life? Will remaining human in one's original body be seen as a liability? Will cybernetic implants enhance their recipients?

On the Human Knowledge of Christ, Part 1

     For the next few days I will be posting, with slight editing and in short manageable segments, a paper I submitted on 3 Dec 1976 in Dr. Frank Stagg's New Testament Theology class at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.  My personal inclination is to take the Bible at face value but the issues discussed in the paper are important because others do not always do so.

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

     "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus."  So says the highly respected Albert Schweitzer.  Many modern theologians have felt this same way.

     There is a problem in recovering the exact words of Jesus but to declare that nothing can be known of Jesus or of his mind is a mistake.  It is also an error to declare that everything possible is known about the mind of Jesus.

     Dr. Frank Stagg, for many years a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary spoke to the issue; "The student of the New Testament cannot afford to be intimidated by what has been written in disparagement of a 'self-interpretation of Jesus.'  It is not naive to understand Jesus as concerned with his own identity and mission."

     It is also not naive to attempt to study the question of Jesus' personality, especially that part of the subject dealing with his human knowledge.

     Inherent in any study of Jesus' human knowledge is the question of Christology.  One part of this question which must necessarily come up is the problem of whether admitting that Jesus did not have absolute knowledge is also to declare that he could be in error.

     Traditional Roman Catholic scholastic theology attributed to Jesus a human knowledge of all created things of the past, present, and future, at least as far as these things were related to Jesus' work in salvation.  The scholastics also believed that Jesus possessed the beatific vision  from the moment of His conception in Mary's womb.  "Scholastic theology is not content that the soul of Christ knows all, but will have it that it knows all in all ways."  Earlier, Jerome, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria all attributed no ignorance and no mental development to the Christ-child.

     The Catholic Fathers all rejected the apocryphal Childhood Gospels but they did not attack or condemn the portrayal of Jesus' childhood as being one of absolute perfection.

     The New Testament writers seem to have felt this same reluctance to attributing any sort of limitation to Jesus, especially concerning His inward nature.  They do admit that He underwent moral and spiritual growth.  They seem to regard Him as statically perfect.  This is the ground on which the Fathers and the later scholastics built.

     There is a middle view spoken of by Benjamin Warfield, "One fresh from reading the gospel narrative will certainly fail to understand the attitude of those, who we are told exist, who for example, 'admit his growth in knowledge during childhood,' 'yet deny as intolerable the hypothesis of a limitation of his knowledge during his ministry."

     Some theologians, such as E. L. Mascall and C. K. Barrett, believe that Jesus was in error on some points.  Barrett said it was necessary for Him to be in error to be fully human.

 

 

Film Comment: The Man Who Could Work Miracles

Movie Comments: The Man Who Could Work Miracles (1936)

     Roland Young (1887-1953) was one of those constantly working, highly talented, and versatile actors of the early Twentieth Century who could elevate any part he played, even if the film he was in was, itself, inferior.

     The Man Who Could Work Miracles (1936), remade as the comedic Bruce Almighty with Jim Carrey in 2003, plays it straight instead of going for the yucks.  The special effects are astounding for 1936.

     The gods wonder what would happen if they suddenly gave the full range of their powers to a man.  They choose an unlikely little guy (Young) who is an unnoticed clerk working in a department store.

     At first, the man plays with his new powers, but, soon, he gets ambitious.  He's going to fix the world.  That's when the trouble starts.  He quickly learns that divine is divine and human is human.