Hope
Reply
Electrocution
I was helping our landlord take out the fan above the kitchen stove. He was struggling with disconnecting the electricity from the fan, teaching me many new “Spanish” words in the process, when he finally got to a point where he grabbed a wire cutters and said, “I can fix this…”.
I stuttered “Do you think I should shut off the…” and then there was a crack, a brilliant flash of light, and 220 volts of electricity flowing through the air.
I am not exactly sure what happened next but I was a step back and he was off the ladder muttering, “no big deal. Nothing happened.”
When I flipped the breaker back on I swore to remember an important lesson, always let someone else deal with the electricity in your home…and know the number for emergency services.
Hike
We took a day hike from Ponferrada with friends to a reservoir above the city. It was probably about 9 miles round trip.
Our group
In the picture below you can see hill that contains an ancient sacrificial altar – supposedly human sacrifices (on the left) and a monastery (across the reservoir on the right).
Someone needed a rest
Hiking back to Ponferrada
Overlooking our city
WikiTheology: What if Jesus never existed?
Here is an explanation of WikiTheology. For similar posts, see why we have arms, why we don’t eat snowy owls, why Hell might not be what you think, and why your stomach still growls.
¿Qué pasaría si Jesús nunca existiera?
Amigo: ¿Cómo puedes estar seguro que Jesús aún existe?
Yo: Piensas que Jesús es el Papa Noel del primer siglo? (Lo siento si todavía crees que él es real!)
Amigo: Sí. Quizá alguien le inventó intencionalmente, o involuntariamente. ¿Qué pasaría si fuera una leyenda, pero se convirtió a una realidad en las mentes de la gente? ¿Cómo sabemos que Jesús era una persona real?
Es una pregunta interesante. Si alguien supone que la Biblia fuese el único registro de Jesús del primer siglo (que hasta ahora lleva como nombre – “a.C y d.C”), sería la teoría de la conspiración del…universo.
Dejando la version histórica de la Biblia, creo que todavía existe más pruebas de la existencia de Jesús que muchos otros líderes espirituales o figuras históricas.
Dos de los historiadores más conocidos quienes escribieron algo de Jesús son Tácito y Josefo. Se podría hablar también de Julio Africano citando a Thallus, Plinio el Joven, Talmud de Babilonia, Luciano de Samosata, y Mara Bar-Serapion (para ver más puedes echar un vistazo a gotquestions.org).
Tácito, un historiador romano del primer siglo, dijo algunas cosas muy negativas de Jesús y sus seguidores. Anotó que los Cristianos fueron aborrecidos por sus “abominaciones”, eran parte de una “superstición maliciosa”, cuya religión era “malvada”, y eran parte de todo lo que era “horroroso y vergonzoso”. Ahí hablaba de Cristo, de quien recibieron los Cristianos su nombre, quien fue crucificado por Poncio Pilato. Es muy improbable que un Cristiano del primer siglo falsificara un párrafo como ese para soportar una religión falsa.
El segundo es Josefo, un historiador judío, quien escribió otros datos de Cristo. Jesús era “un hombre sabio”, “un bienhechor de obras maravillosas”, “un maestro”, “el Cristo”, matado por Poncio Pilato, y que apareció a sus seguidores después de su muerte. También hablaba de Santiago, “el hermano de Jesús, quien le llamaron Cristo”.
Es complemente aceptable (y yo diría, esencial) que evalúes a Jesús y lo que enseñaba acerca de sí mismo. También puedes decidir de creer que nunca fue un Jesús histórico, pero tienes que darte cuenta que la carga de la prueba está encima de tus hombros. Estás listo a correr este riesgo?
What if Jesus never existed?
Friend: How can you be so sure that Jesus even existed?
Me: You think that Jesus might just be the first century Santa Claus? (I don’t mean to burst your bubble if you still believe he is real!)
Friend: Yes. Maybe someone invented him intentionally, or unintentionally. What if he was a legend, that just became real in people’s minds? How do we know he was a historical reality?
That is an interesting question. If someone assumes that the Bible is the only record of Jesus from the 1st century bearing his name (B.C. and a.d.), then I suppose this could be the conspiracy theory of the…universe.
Putting aside the Biblical account, I believe there is still more historical evidence than many other famous spiritual leaders or historical figures.
Two of the most common historians who refer to Jesus are Tacitus and Josephus. One could also look to Julius Africanus quoting Thallus, Pliny the Younger, The Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, and Mara Bar-Serapion (for more see gotquestions.org).
Tacitus, a Roman historian from the 1st century, had some negative things to say about Jesus and his followers. He noted that Christians were hated for their “abominations”, were part of a “most mischievous superstition”, their religion was “evil”, they were part of everything “hideous and shameful”. In there he states that Christ, from whom they got their name, was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is very improbably that an early Christian would forge something like this in order to prop up a false religion.
A second source is Josephus, a Jewish historian, who had other things to say about Jesus. He was a “wise man”, “doer of wonderful works”, “a teacher”, “the Christ”, killed by Pilate, and he appeared to his followers after his death. He also spoke of James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”
It is completely acceptable (and I would say, essential) for you to question Jesus and his claims. You can even choose to believe that there never was a historical Jesus, but just recognize that the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Are you ready to take that gamble?
Runnin’ Away
I woke up and realized I was in Scotland
WikiTheology: Why is there still hunger if Jesus could solve that issue?
Here is an explanation of WikiTheology. For similar posts, see why we have arms, why we don’t eat snowy owls, and why Hell might not be what you think.
¿Por qué todavía hay hambre si Jesús hubiera podido acabar con el hambre?
Amigo: Si el Nuevo Testamento es verdad, y Jesús pudiera alimentar a miles de personas, y hacer desaparecer al hambre, ¿Por qué no lo hizo?
Yo: ¿Por qué no dio provisiones interminables a la gente?
Amigo: Y a nosotros. Si Jesús pudiera solucionar el problema, ¿Por qué no lo hizo?
Yo: Es una buena pregunta. Sabemos que algo no es correcto en este mundo cuando hay tanta hambre. La vida no es para ser solo una lucha para sobrevivir. Si fuera así, no nos hubiéramos hecho esta pregunta!
Desde la perspectiva de la Biblia, tenemos que empezar desde el principio. En Génesis vemos que el hambre no es malo, Dios creó nuestros cuerpos para procesar comida y el hambre es la que nos indica que debemos comer. Entonces, no hay nada malo con el hambre. Pero sí hay algo malo con morirse de hambre. Si rechazamos la hipótesis de la evolución, morirse de hambre no empezó hasta que los hombres se rebelaron contra Dios. El pecado, el morirse de hambre, y la muerte vinieron como consecuencias de rechazar a Dios como rey (Génesis 3).
Cuando leemos los evangelios, los libros dedicados a la vida de Jesús, vemos que él pasó hambre porque era completamente hombre. Comió lo mismo que los demás. Le encantaba comer y conversar alrededor de la mesa. No hay nada intrínsecamente malo con el hambre, el comer, y disfrutar de la comida. Tampoco no hay nada intrínsecamente bueno si rechazamos lo bueno del mundo material. Pero Jesús veía un problema con el hambre que lleva a una persona a una angustia física. Por ejemplo, cuando alimentaba a las cuatro mil personas, él estaba preocupado en que la gente no pudiera llegar a casa por causa de su hambre (Mateo 15:32ff). Pero, ¿El hambre físico era la preocupación principal de Jesús? No. Jesús sanaba las enfermedades, expulsaba a los demonios, y resucitaba a los muertos. Pero ninguno de esos temas, ni todos, eran la preocupación principal de Jesús. Él no vino simplemente para sanar la gente de sus enfermedades. Vino para tomar encima de sí mismo nuestra rebelión contra el Creador y restablecer nuestra relación con Él mediante su muerte sustitutiva. Dijo, “Porque el Hijo del hombre vino a buscar y a salvar lo que se había perdido” (Lucas 19:10). La manera en que lo hizo fue exactamente como él dijo varias veces a sus seguidores, “Tengo que morir” (Lucas 9:22, 44; 18:31-34). Si hubiese venido simplemente para mejorar nuestras vidas, hubiera podido hacerlo sin morir.
Y quizá el propósito último de Jesús nos lleva a la razón por la cual no absolvió el hambre cuando él podía hacerlo, o ¿por qué no nos creó sin la habilidad de tener hambre? Quizá el hambre físico puede dirigirnos a algo más grande. Quizá el dolor que sentimos en nuestros estómagos nos recuerda que somos débiles. Quizá la necesidad constante de orar, “Danos hoy nuestro pan cotidiano” nos hace clamar al Gran Proveedor. Quizá el alimento básico, el pan, fue creado para levantar nuestra mirada al Pan de Vida. Quizá mi hambre es algo que Dios está usando para darnos cuenta que Lo necesitamos. Quizá.
Why is there still hunger if Jesus could solve that issue?
Friend: “If the New Testament account is correct, and Jesus could feed thousands, and essentially make hunger obsolete, why didn’t he?”
Me: “Why didn’t he give the people an unending food supply?”
Friend: “And us. If Jesus could fix the problem, why didn’t he solve it all at once?”
Me: I think that is a very good question. We know that something isn’t right in this world when there is so much hunger. Life isn’t meant to just be a struggle for survival. If it were, we wouldn’t be asking ourselves this question! From the perspective of the Bible, we have to start at the beginning.
In Genesis we see that hunger is not bad, God created our bodies to process food and hunger is what we need in order to remember to eat. So there is nothing wrong with hunger. But there is something wrong with starvation. If we reject the evolutionary account, starvation didn’t enter in until after man’s rebellion. All sin, starvation, and death came about as a direct consequence of rejecting God as king (Genesis 3).
As we read in the accounts of the life of Jesus, the Gospels, Jesus experienced hunger. He was hungry because he was fully man. He ate as much as everyone else. He even enjoyed food and the conversation around the table. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, eating, and enjoying food. Nor is there something inherently good about rejecting the goodness of the material world. But Jesus did see a problem with hunger which leads to physical distress. For example, in the feeding of the four thousand, he was worried that the people wouldn’t be able to make it home because they were so hungry (Matthew 15:32ff).
But, was physical hunger the primary concern of Jesus? No. Jesus healed diseases, cast out demons, and raised dead people. But none of those, nor all of those, were the main concern of Jesus. He had not come to merely heal people of their ailments. He had come to take upon himself our rebellion against the Creator and restore our relationship with Him through his substitutionary death. He said, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). The way that he would do that was just like what he kept reminding his followers, “I have to die” (Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31-34). If he had merely come to make our lives a little easier, he could have done so without dying.
And maybe Jesus’ ultimate purpose points us to the reason why he didn’t absolve hunger when he could have, or why he didn’t create us without hunger in the first place. Perhaps physical hunger can point us to something greater. Maybe the pains we feel in our stomach remind us that we are weak. Maybe the constant need to pray, “Give us our daily bread” is meant to point us to our great Provider. Maybe the staple of bread is supposed to raise our gaze to the Bread of Life. Maybe my hunger is something God is using to open my eyes to my need of Him. Maybe.
Lesson Learned
Determine before hand whether it is a clean basin or cattle trough before you jump in.
Walking the Camino
This past weekend a group of us walked the Camino Santiago from Thursday – Saturday. We did a total of about 50 miles. It was an excellent trip! Here were some of our objectives:
- Give our Conversational English group time to practice english
- Build relationships with our friends here in the valley
- Read through the Pilgrim’s Progress and discuss it
- Spent time with other friends from BMM here in Spain
- See the country side
- Walk ourselves into the ground
- Survive a couple nights in the albergues
We accomplished all of them! And I will post a few pictures below to prove it. If you want to see the full size photos and full album, click here.
How could you believe in a God who sends people to hell?
This is another installment of WikiTheology. For more, see here and here.
For English – see below.
¿Cómo podrías creer en un Dios que manda gente al infierno?
Amigo: Nunca podría creer en un Dios que manda gente a un lugar como el infierno.
Yo: ¿Qué significa “Infierno” para ti?
Amigo: El lugar de fuego y castigo.
Yo: ¿Y por qué no crees que un Dios no debe mandar a alguien a un lugar así?
Amigo: Porque Dios es amor, ¿no?
Yo: Creo que es una pregunta importante, y estás tocando un tema sensible de la fe del Cristianismo. La Biblia dice que Dios es amor. Entonces ¿cómo podría un Dios amante mandar a la gente a un castigo como la Biblia describe? Y tampoco el infierno no es una idea que podamos ignorar. De hecho, la persona que mas hablaba del infierno era quizás Jesús.
Podemos ver el tema desde dos puntos de vista. Primero, hay peligro en atribuir a Dios sólo un atributo dominante. Dios es amor. Verdad (Primero de Juan 4:8). Pero Dios también es justo. Y que pasaría si cambiamos tu oración a decir, “Nunca podría creer en un Dios quien ignoraba arbitrariamente los crímenes horrorosos de los asesinos y dictadores.” Podría ser Dios un Dios de amor si viera a las víctimas del holocausto y genocidio étnica y dijera, “Lo siento, pero soy amor y debo dar a tus perseguidores un pase”? Me parece que las víctimas verán el “amor” de Dios como deficiente. La mayoría de nosotros probablamente podemos afirmar que los que cometen crímenes horrorosos deben recibir algo como castigo si hay un Dios perfecto. El problema surge cuando empezamos a catalogar que pecados son horrorosos. Cada pecado es cometido contra un Dios infinito y merece un castigo máximo. Los que somos honestos en cuanto a nuestra depravación, esta idea nos da un poco de temor. La solución por los que reconocen su estado como rebeldes pecaminosos ante el Dios justo se encuentra en la expiación substituto – Jesús cargando nuestros pecados y pagando su precio infinito con su vida perfecta. Y en cambio por nuestra muerte, nos da su vida. Hay expiación por los delitos (justicia) y un substituto para quienes necesitaran una eternidad para pagar el precio de nuestros pecados (amor). Pero esta discusión es para otro día. Regresando al tema, el amor de Dios no puede negar su justicia. Su amor y su justicia son inseparables.
El segundo punto de vista es el del individuo en el infierno. Es más hipotético. ¿Cómo sabes que la persona quisiera estar en el opuesto, el cielo? Una idea común, pero equivocada, es que Dios no está en el infierno. Esta idea es falsa. Dios está omnipresente – en todos los lugares en todos los tiempos. Y, es por causa de su presencia que el infierno es tan horrible para los rebeldes. En este lugar de tormenta, los rebeldes están expuestos a la santidad ilimitada de Dios. Se siente el calor del sol, a una distancia de 5 centímetros. ¿Á donde podrían huir?
Me preguntas, “Pero, seguramente alguien en el infierno escogería el cielo si tuviera la oportunidad, ¿verdad?” Estás seguro? ¿Piensas que alguien quien se oponga completamente contra la persona y autoridad de Dios habría querido vivir en su presencia en el cielo? Sería mejor que el infierno? Lo que mantiene el cielo a ser el cielo, y lo que mantiene el infierno a ser el infierno es la misma persona – Dios. Hipotéticamente, podrían ocupar el mismo sitio, solo cambia la orientación del individuo. *(El Apocalipsis dice que el infierno es un lugar literal y está tirado al Lago de Fuego.)
Quizá has leído o visto el Señor de los Anillos. Imagínate los orcos, una creación sucia de Sauron. Fueron sacados de las piedras. Son horrorosos. Odian a todo lo que hace la Tierra Media hermosa. Ahora, imagínate Rivendel, el hogar de los Elfos. Todo es refrescante, claro, fino, real. Luz sin límites. Claridad ardiente. Pureza ilimitada.
Ahora, pon un orco en Rivendel. ¿Cómo será para él? ¿Cómo describiría su tiempo allí?
Quizá estas pensando, “Perdona. No somos como los orcos.” Estás seguro? Si tú y yo somos honestos de lo que está adentro de nosotros, ¿A quién nos parecemos más? Si tuviéramos todo el poder en el mundo, o riqueza ilimitada, o ninguna consecuencia, o cuando nadie nos está mirando, ¿Qué haríamos?
¿Estás seguro?
El punto es eso: el cielo no sería el cielo sin la presencia inmediata de Dios. El infierno no será el infierno sin la presencia inmediata de Dios. En un sentido, en el infierno Dios está dando al rebelde lo que quiere, una razón para maldecir Dios y hacer todo a su manera. El único problema es, después de maldecirle, no tiene la oportunidad de morir.
How could you believe in a God who sends people to hell?
Friend: I could never believe in a God who sends people to a place like hell.
Me: What do you mean by hell?
Friend: The place with fire and punishment.
Me: And why do you think that a God shouldn’t send someone to a place like that?
Friend: Isn’t God love?
Me: I think you have brought up an important question, and you are touching on one of the very tender nerves of the Christian faith. The Bible does say that God is love. So how could a loving God send people to a punishment like the one the Bible describes? And Hell isn’t an idea we can just ignore. In fact, the one who probably spoke about hell most often was Jesus himself.
Here are two angles from which to address this topic. First, there is a danger in only ascribing to God one dominate attribute. God is love. True (1 John 4:8). But God is also just. What if we flipped your statement to say, “I could never believe in a God who just arbitrarily ignores the horrendous crimes of mass murderers and vicious dictators.” Would God be truly loving if he looked at the victims of the holocaust and ethnic genocide and said, “Sorry about that, but I am love and have to give your abusers a pass”? It seems like the abused would view God’s love as unsatisfactory given their situation. Most would probably agree that those who commit horrendous crimes should receive some kind of punishment from a perfect God. However, the problem arises when we begin to label which sins are horrendous. All sins are committed against an infinite God and therefore deserve a maximum sentence. That makes most of us who are honest about our depravity a little nervous. The solution for those who truly recognize their plight as sinful rebels before a completely just God is found in substitutionary atonement – Jesus taking upon himself our utter sinfulness and paying the infinite price with his perfect life. Then in exchange for our death, he gives us his life. There is both atonement for the offense (justice) and a substitution for those who would need an eternity to pay it off (love). But that discussion is for another day. Returning to the topic, God’s love does not negate his justice. It is what completes it.
The second angle from which to view this issue is from the point of view of the individual in Hell. This is more hypothetical. What makes you so sure that he would want to be in the other alternative, Heaven? The commonly promoted idea that God is not in Hell is rubbish. God is omnipresent – all places at all times. It is actually his presence that makes Hell so painful. In this place of judgment, the rebels of creation are exposed to the unrestricted holiness of God. They are now feeling the heat of the sun, from a distance of three inches. But if not there,
where could they go from his presence?
Where could they hide their face?
If they ascend to heaven, he is there!
If they make their bed in Sheol, he is there!
If they take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
or say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to him;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with him.
Well, surely, anyone who was in hell would choose to be in heaven if they had the chance, right? Are you sure? Do you think someone who is absolutely and completely opposed to the person and authority of God would want to experience his presence in Heaven? And would it be any better than Hell? What makes Heaven Heaven, and what makes Hell Hell is the same person – God. Hypothetically speaking, they could occupy the exact same place, it is just the individual who changes.* (Revelation says that Hell is a literal place and it is thrown into the Lake of Fire.)
Perhaps you have read or watched the Lord of the Rings Trilogy at some point. Imagine the Orcs, the filthy creation of Sauron? They are pulled from the rocks. They are horrendous. And they hate all that makes Middle Earth beautiful.
Now imagine Rivendell. This is the home of the Elves. Everything is fresh, clear, sharp, real. Unfettered light. Burning clarity. Unrestricted purity.
Now, take an Orc and put him in Rivendell. What would that be like for him? How would he describe his time there?
Now maybe you are thinking, “Wait! But we aren’t like the Orcs.” Are we not? If you and I are honest with what is truly inside of us, who do we most resemble? What if we had all the power in the world, or unrestricted wealth, or no consequences, or just no one watching, what would we do?
Are you so sure?
The point is this. Heaven would not be heaven without God’s immediate presence. Hell would not be hell without God’s immediate presence. In one sense, in Hell God is only giving the rebel what he wants, a reason to curse God and do everything his own way. The only problem is, he doesn’t get the opportunity to do so and then die.