Theology 1.0: Who is Karl Barth?

 

Karl Barth was a Swiss Reformed theologian widely regarded as one of the most influential Protestant thinkers of the 20th century. His work was a seen as a rejection to the liberal Protestantism of the 19th century (which blended faith with modern culture, philosophy, and human experience) and a return to the centrality of divine revelation in Jesus Christ.

Opposition to World War 1 and 2

During World War 1, Barth was horrified when many of his liberal professors signed a manifesto supporting Germany's war efforts, exposing what he saw as theology's dangerous captivity to culture and nationalism. In response, he wrote his explosive Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1919) where he insisted that true knowledge of God comes only through God's self-revelation, not human reason or experience. This rebuked attempts to subordinate theology to culture and politics.

He further expounded his thoughts in his book Church Dogmatics (1932). 

Just before World War 2, he became the primary author of the Barmen Declaration (1934), a foundational confession for the anti-Nazi Confessing Church. It rejected any “German Christian” movement that subordinated the gospel to Hitler, the state, or race, declaring: “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God.” This document reminded the church that its first loyalty is always to Christ, not to any earthly power, ideology, or “spirit of the age.”

Differences with Reformation

Although Barth was off the Reform tradition, he was definitely not a classical Protestant. (He is often called a neo-orthodox thinker.)

For instance, he did not accept the inerrancy of Scripture. The Reformers (Luther and Calvin) viewed the Bible itself as the inspired, authoritative Word of God—generally inerrant in its original sense.

Barth distinguished sharply: Jesus Christ is the one true Word of God; the Bible is a human witness that becomes the Word of God when God sovereignly speaks through it. This makes Scripture dynamic and event-based rather than statically infallible.

In another instance, Barth was absolutist about nature. He rejected any “point of contact” in fallen human nature or creation for knowing God—insisting on revelation alone can lead us to the knowledge of God. This is in contrast to the Reformers who felt that natural theology can lead us to some (albeit distorted) knowledge of God.

Legacy

Today, Barth is remembered for centering Christianity. Barth revitalized 20th-century theology by making it more biblically serious and Christ-centered at a time when liberalism had diluted the faith.

Theology 1.0: Who else wrote about Jesus?

 

The Gospels of the New Testament are often regarded as a trustworthy account of Jesus's life. Yet there are many doubters who rejected that this reliability of the Gospels as they see it as Christians attempting to claim political power. The most sincere of them want non-Christian testimony that corroborates with Jesus's life.

Such testimonies do exists.

Such sources collectively confirm Jesus’ existence, his crucifixion under Pilate, and the early spread of his followers. They align with the broad outline of Christian accounts but offer little detail on his teachings or miracles (as Jesus was seen as a marginal figure in the hugeness of the Roman Empire).

Let us examine a few.

Josephus Flavius (Antiquities of the Jews, c. 93–94 CE)

Josephus, a contemporary of Jesus, describes Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It mentions his followers and suggests he was believed to be the Messiah by some. 

Josephus was a well-regarded Jewish historian, so many scholars regard his descriptions as authentic and factual.

Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 CE) 

Roman historian Tacitus describes Emperor Nero blaming Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. He mentions "Christus," executed under Pontius Pilate, as the origin of the Christian movement. 

Tacitus is a reliable Roman source, and this passage confirms Jesus’ execution and the spread of Christianity shortly after. He had no apparent agenda to promote Christianity.

Pliny the Younger (Letters, c. 112 CE)  

Pliny, a Roman governor, describes Christians worshiping Christ "as a god" and their practices, based on interrogations in Bithynia. 

This showed that the divinity of Jesus was held by Christians from the start.

Conclusion

Non-Christian sources are not the bedrock of Christian faith, which rests on scripture and tradition, but they provide historical grounding that strengthens the case for Jesus as a real figure who lived, taught, and died in 1st-century Judea. For believers, this external validation complements the spiritual and theological truths of Christianity, showing that Jesus’ impact was recognized beyond his immediate followers. For skeptics or scholars, these sources offer a bridge between faith-based accounts and secular history.

For more information:

Be Thinking

With Due Respect: Was Jesus cruicified in the Sinai Bible?

 

Recently, I came across popular historian and author Billy Carson. Billy Carson has continually claimed that a Bible discovered in Sinai in 1844 does not state that Jesus was crucified. He also claimed that this "Sinai Bible" was more accurate than the King James Bible.

The event of Jesus's death is central to Christianity. 

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  - 1 Cor 1:23-24

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  - 1 Cor 15:12-14

Thus it is important to examine whether Carson's claim is true.

What is the Sinai Bible?

The Sinai Bible is a misnomer - among scholarly circles it is known as Codex Sinaiticus. As Carson claims, it was dated to 4th century AD, nearly 1200 years before the King James Bible was compiled.

The Codex Sinaiticus consists of the Greek Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and the Epistles of Barnabus and the Shephard of Hermas. It is considered to be a landmark document, along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, as it is one of the most complete manuscripts of the Bible.

A translation of Codex Sinaiticus is here, and clearly states that Jesus was crucified.

And they struck his head with a reed, and spit upon him, and bowing the knees they worshipped him. And when they had derided him, they took of from him the purple, and put on him his own clothes. And they led him out to crucify him, - Mark 15:19-20 [Codex Sinaiticus]

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that Billy Carson continues to pursue this claim, and he eventually was called out by Christian theologian, Wesly Huff as since in the reference video below.

For reference

With Due Respect: They killed Jesus!

Accusing groups of people of killing Jesus diminishes what Jesus intended to accomplish at the cross

One of the most disheartening things I read on social media, especially Facebook is the rising antisemitism posts that has been spurred on by recent global events, chiefly the Israel-Hamas war. 

Banking on this, some political leftists see the Jews as an oppressor in the oppression-oppressed Marxist narrative. Weirdly these leftists find themselves aligned with some members of the political right who hold racists views that the Jews are the source of the problems.

Thus one of the common accusations I hear is that the "Jews killed Jesus" in an attempt to stir up hatred among the Christian community. 

So who killed Jesus then?
While one can point out the Jewish leaders of the time plotted to kill Jesus and the Roman authorities carried out the execution, it clearly states in Isaiah 53 that Jesus died for our sins ("he was pierced for our transgression").

Surely he took up our pain
   and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all. -- Isaiah 53: 4-6

This is further corroborated by the New Testament authors.

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:8

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. - 1 Peter 2:24

In other words, we (humans) in our sinful nature, killed Jesus. To single out a single group and blame them for the death of Jesus is to defeat the message that Christ died for all humanity.

So how should Christians respond?

Instead, Christians should acknowledge that Jesus's death was good news - good because his death has provided us a way to reconcile with God, and news because this is true.

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

With Due Respect: Did the 2024 Olympic Opening Ceremony mock Christianity?

 

Comparing a scene from the opening ceremony and The Last Supper

Every four years, I enjoy watching snippets from my second favourite sporting event -- the Olympics. [My favourite is the FIFA World Cup.] 

While I overall did enjoy the games (I enjoy watching fencing and wrestling) and many moments were meme-able and memorable, the 2024 Paris Olympics kicked off with controversy. In one particular performance, the actors seemed to parody the painting The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci painted that during the Renaissance as a tribute to the last meal Jesus had with his disciples before his execution.

This caused uproar from the Christian community including the Vatican and Orthodox bishops, and secular entities like the Italian government and C Spire (a technology company).

Almost immediately, Thomas Jolly, the artistic director of the opening ceremony quickly claimed that his critics were mistaken and that his ceremony was a tribute to the painting The Feast of the Gods by Dutch artist Jan van Bijlert. (Note that both paintings are the property of France.)

The Feast of The Gods portrays the Greek Gods having a party. Since the Olympics were originally conceived to be a tribute to the Greek gods, thus Jolly saw fit to have it in the opening ceremony. According to him, Christians were overreacting to his artistic direction.

Comparing a scene from the opening ceremony and The Feast of the gods 

How should Christians respond?

Christians should expect mockery

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." -- John 15: 18-19

Firstly, Christians should not be surprise when non-believers mocked them. After all, Jesus predicted that (as stated in the quote above). In fact Christianity has been researched to be the most persecuted religion in the world.

Christians should not be naive

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." - Matthew 10: 16-20

Secondly, Christians should not be so trusting. The actors were obviously portraying the Last Supper and not the Feast of the Gods. Look at the positioning of the actors and the popular image it invokes. The Last Supper is way more popular in the human psyche than the Feast of the Gods. 

Even the actors themselves thought they were portraying the Last Supper. To pretend that it was something is else is simply asinine. In addition, the organisiers have apologised for the portrayal, fully that there is validity to the claim of the similarity to the Last Supper.

In the words of Judge Judy, "don't pee on My leg and tell me it's raining". Such an action would be equivalent to wear a Buddhist swastika to a Holocaust museum and laugh at the offended people who were uneducated on the difference between a Buddhist and Nazi symbol.

Christians should not resort to violence

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." - Luke 6: 27-31

Nevertheless, Christians should not be violence over this. In fact, Jesus Himself said to bless those who cursed you. When Jesus was a arrested, he instructed Peter to sheath his sword (John 18:11) when Peter tried to defend him.

Conclusion

Christians should be aware that Jesus call us to live a life foreign to the world, and not to be shocked when the world persecutes us, either directly or indirectly. 

For more information
The issue covered by Salt and Light

Alternative Culture: Made in Italy Theological Review

 

Robert and his son Jack agree to renovate their old Italian house for sale

I rarely watch contemporary drama films as I have an inherent liking for action-based, fantasy or sci-fi films. Nevertheless, I decided to watch Made in Italy on Netflix for a few reasons. One, it starred one of my favourite actors, Liam Neeson, and two, it showcased one of my favourite countries, Italy.

Synopsis
Jack Foster (Micheal Richardson) is released from his job as an art gallery manager in England. The owner is Ruth, Jack's estranged wife. To continue his lifestyle, Jack offers to buy the gallery, by selling an Italian mansion he and his father, Robert (Liam Neeson) inherited.

The problem is that he and his artist father are not on good terms and he needs his father's consent to sell it. To make things worse, the mansion is in poor condition after years of neglect. After some father-son confrontations and advice from a property agent Kate (Lindsay Duncan) and a neighbour (Valeria Bilello), the duo decide to work together to restore the mansion.

Christian themes explored

The reality of suffering
One thing I did like about the film was the exploration of the reality of suffering. Jack's mother's death and the absence of his father during Jack's childhood were traumatic to him.

Similarly, Robert's abandonment of his son and loss of artistic talent was due to the immense guilt that he may have caused his wife's death. In his sharing with Kate (who is pained by her cheating husband),  they could never go back to how things were.

Except, you never really can start again. -- Robert to Kate

However in Christianity there is hope. Jesus is divine, and yet is able to empathise with us.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. - Hebrews 4: 15.

Jack and Robert look proudly at their renovation

Restoration of relationships
Being a simple film, the focus is on the restoration of relationship between Jack and Robert. It only happens after massive arguments, petty disagreements and quality time together. Yet though great desire, they realise that their restored relationship was worth more the monetary value of the mansion.

Similarly, God desires the restoration of relationship with us. The journey towards that restoration may be painful, but it will be worth it.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. -- Romans 8: 19-21

Conclusion
Despite being a simple film, I was suprirsed by how much I enjoyed it. Adding to the emotion impact was that Liam Neeson and Micheal Richardson are real-life father and son, and this film was seen as a passion project (as Nessons's wife Natasha Richardson died in 2009).

With due respect: Later Christians invented a divine Jesus!

One of the common accusations is that Jesus was just a person who became a legend and eventually God. In other words, Jesus was retconned as God by later Christians.

1 Corinthians 15

However, a reading of Paul's writings will disprove that notion. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul recites the earliest Christian creed (1 Cor 5: 3–8). 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. -- 1 Corinthians 5: 3–8

Paul states that more than 500 hundred people saw Jesus die and came back to life (in fulfillment of the Scriptures; which showed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, i.e. God.).

Note that 1 Corinthians is estimated to be written around 54 AD, about 20 years after Jesus’s execution. Thus Paul’s claim could have been easily challenged by other Christians. As his record of events is backed by eyewitnesses and other apostles, it showed that Christians had regarded Jesus as God from the start.

Pliny the Younger
In 112 AD, Pliny the Younger (a Roman governer) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor on the policy towards Christians (i.e. how to persecute Christians). In it, he described the religious practices of the Christians. He mentioned that Christians worshiped Jesus and even practised the a ritual of communal eating (i.e. the Holy Communion).

Other sources of early Christian worship are recorded by historians Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Conclusion

Early Christians did worship Jesus as God.

Theology 1.0: What is Nestorianism?

 

Nestorian Mongolian tribe, as portrayed in the game Crusader Kings 2

In recent years, there has been interest about Christianity in Asia during Antiquity and Medieval times. This is because evidence of strong Christian presence (during that time) has been discovered recently in the tribes of Mongolia, Western China, India and in Iran.

These Christians were often referred as Nestorian Christians. So who were the Nestorians?

A tale of two terms
The term "Nestorians" often refer to two group of Christians. They may refer to (A) the people who follow the teachings of Nestorius, or (B) the Church of the East (aka the Persian Church)

A) Followers of Nestorius

Nestorius was a Christian theologian and the Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius was removed from his office in 431 AD due to his heretical teaching. Nestorius taught that Jesus was both human and divine, but not at the same time. In other words, Jesus could adopt a human or divine stance, but not both at the same time. Thus Nestorius believed that Mary (mother of Jesus) could not be given the title of Theotokos (God-bearer)

This belief, called Nestorianism, ran contrary to traditional Christian teaching. Traditional belief was that Jesus was always fully human and full divine.

Nestorius was then sent into exile.

The Church of the East (aka the Persian church), however, felt that his removal from office was more political than theological. Thus they did not condemned him.

Ancient Nestorian Christian writings in West China

B) The Church of the East

While The Church of the East did not officially condemned the teachings of Nestorius, they did not officially accept them either. Nevertheless, the Church of the East included some of the rites of Nestorius, and thus earned the name "Nestorians".

After the Muslim conquest of Asian, the Church of the East expanded eastwards to India, Central Asia and China.

Today

The Church of the East still exists today in three forms: the Ancient Church of the East, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church. The name Nestorian is no longer used to refer to the churches as they do affirm the role of Mary as the God-bearer.

My confession: my Covid-19 reflections

As Singapore experiences it's "circuit-breaker" measures in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19 (aka Wuhan virus/ Coronavirus), I find myself unable to attend church services.

Better blogs have written good reflections on this pandemic, so I will attempt to log in my reflections.

God is in charge of everything

The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him! - Matthew 8:27

The lot is cast into the lap,
    but its every decision is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:33

Regardless of how powerful the disease seems to be, I remember that ultimately God is in control of everything. The disease may have shut down shops and limited travel, but I am thankful to still have a job.

Material items are temporary

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. - Matthew 6:19

It is important to note that every achievement we accumulated on earth is not meant to last forever. With this black swan event, economies crash, events are cancelled and even weddings postponed. Visitations are limited and gatherings are discouraged. Even relationships are mot immune to this virus.

God of the good times and God of the pain

At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
    and naked I will depart.
The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away;
    may the name of the Lord be praised.”  - Job 1:20-21

If we trust God in the peaks of our life, we should continue to trust God in lows.

Alternative Culture: Battle Royale Review

A band of school girls discuss how to survive the slaughter

One of the greatest things about being adult is that I can watch all the films that were previously restricted to me when I was a child. I wanted to watch many films as a youth such as Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of Christ and Battle Royale.

Thus when given a chance to watch the 2000 film Battle Royale recently, I jumped at it.

Premise
In alternate future of fascist Japan, delinquency rates skyrocketed. In response the government picked a class of high school students each year to dump them on an island. The students have to kill each other, and the last remaining student will be allowed to return to society. If they fail to do that within three days, their collars would detonate and kill them all. Yes, the Hunger Games took inspiration from this film.

The reaction of the students differ. How do you respond to such a horrible situation?

Response 1: Play the game

Mitsuko, one of the female students decided to play the game. Using her assets like her good looks and acquired weapons, she sees no wrong in attempting to win the game by killing as many as possible. After all if she refuses to win, there was nothing to stop others from killing her.

Response 2: Avoid reality

Another female student, Megumi refuses to engage the game and seeks refuge into her own little world. In doing no harm, she hopes in vain. She forgets that there are people out there who are willing to kill her to ensure their well-being.

Response 3: Find another way

Some of the students like Yukie is determined to find a way to defeat their captors non-violently. They attempt find a flaw within the captivity system and save as many as they can.

How do we respond to the world?

I am not sure what the intent of creator of Battle Royale was. Yet I find similarities between my observations of real people and the students in the film.

There are many who resort to response 1 in which they seek to gain as much from the world in terms of power, wealth or any other gain. These are the high achievers we admire in our mundane lives.

Yet there are others who seek response 2 because they reject real truth for the fantasy of comfort. These are the hedonist aka the pleasure seekers.

But both response 1 and 2 cannot save us.

Yet Jesus offers us a way out of the struggle of everyday life.

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

-- Romans 3:22-24

So why not choose response 3 and explore Christianity?

With Due Respect: Jesus was not born on Christmas Day, so therefore Jesus did not exist

As Christmas passes, I find myself dealing with yet another objection to Christianity. After all to throw doubt into the existence of Jesus would diminish Christian belief.

One of my atheist friends love to point out every Christmas that Jesus was not born on December 25th. This proves strong doubt that Jesus existed since his birth date is unknown. Furthermore, the Christian Romans set aside the date to coincide with the winter festival. Therefore 25th December was chosen for cultural and political purposes, and therefore not an accurate dating.

A red herring

Let's relook his line of logic:

1. Jesus's birthday was made to coincide with the Winter Festival and was not the actual date that Jesus was born on.
2. Since Jesus's birthday is unknown, we cannot be sure that Jesus was born
3. Therefore if we cannot be sure whether he was born, we cannot be sure Jesus exist.

Immediately, you should spot the error. Whether 25th December was the actual date is irrelevant to the truth of Jesus's birth.

To give an analogy, let's say I am unsure when my grandmother was born. This does not change the fact that my grandmother was born.

This fallacy (false logic) is also known as a red herring. In other words, the objection is irrelevant to the point made.

So when was Jesus born exactly?

No one really knows. According to Wikipedia, it could be September or October.

Conclusion

Whenever Jesus's exact birthday was, we can know that he was born.

With Due Respect: Jesus's death was misdiagnosed!

One area that non-Christians highlight is on the reality of the death of Jesus. After all, if Jesus did not really die and come back to life, it would mean that he was not divine and thus could not take the sin of mankind. This would invalidate the core of Christianity.

One common argument I hear that when Jesus was crucified, he was misdiagnosed as dead. Even today, there had been such errors. Could the ancient people be mistaken about the death of Jesus?

Blood and water
The first thing to note is that in that it was recorded in John 19: 33-34

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’s side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 

This is consistent with the unusual build up of fluid in the pericardium. Such build up is due to hypovolemic shock (low blood volume) or asphyxiation (suffocation). Regardless of this cause of the "sudden flow of blood and water", this is diagnostic of death.

Buried for days
Even if Jesus was not dead then, he was sealed in a tomb for days. With heavy injuries sustained and lack of food and medical treatment, it would be impossible for anyone to survive.

Intention to kill
With most cases of misdiagnosis, there was no one seeking to execute them. Jesus however was sentenced to death. The Romans were professional executioners and would have checked thoroughly if Jesus was dead.

Conclusion
Asserting that Jesus did not die would be going against a mountain of evidence.

For more information

Theology 1.0: What is the Lewis trilemma?

The Lewis trilemma is the apologetic defence of the divinity of Jesus, popularised by CS Lewis (the writer of Chronicles of Narnia and the Screwtape Letters) in his 1952 book Mere Christianity. 

Based on Jesus's description of himself in the New Testament, Lewis argues the following:

1) Jesus is God
This is because this is who Jesus claims he is.

2) Jesus is evil
This is because he claims to be God and gathers followers .

OR

3) Jesus is mad.
This is because he was mistaken to be God.

What Lewis was criticising was the view that Jesus was a simple moral teacher. In his words,

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

What are the rebuttals?

Christian New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright (1999) felt that Lewis oversimplified how first century Jews might have understood Jesus's words. For instance in offering the forgiveness of sins, Jesus was telling the Jews that they did not need to pay for such a service at a temple, rather than showing he was God.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig (1994) also points out that it is possible to be deluded and yet give great moral teaching. In other words, Lewis trilemma fails to take in other possibilities.

Conclusion

While the Lewis trilemma is not perfect, it is a great primer to kick off a discussion on why we see Jesus as more than a moral teacher.

References

Craig, W.L.C. (1994). Reasonable Faith

Wright, N.T. (1999). The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is.

Theology 1.0: What is the earliest Christian creed?

St. John Cathedral, Hong Kong in 2016

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
-- 1 Corinthians 15: 3 - 8

A creed is a statement of belief. The first Christian creed is found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8, stating that Jesus died and rose again. Paul is estimated to have written this creed 2 - 24 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

The significance of this creed was that it was written so close to the actual events of Jesus's life that it would have been easy for the early Christians to correct Paul had he been inaccurate.

This creed lends credibility to the historical reliability to the New Testament.

For further details
Article from CARM

Article from Wikipedia

Alternative Culture: Erasing Hell review

[This is yet another of my reviews on Lent.]

Introduction
Earlier this week, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore passed away. This made me think deeply about mortality and final judgement.

Thus I decided to re-read a book I bought a few years ago, called Erasing Hell (2011). Written as a response to Pastor Rob Bell's book Love Wins (2011), Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle set out to closely examine what the Bible's say about hell.

The main issue
In 2011, Bell argued (in Love Wins) that everybody will eventually recognise Jesus as Lord and saviour and be with in heaven, even if they did not believe in Jesus in their lifetime. (In Christian theology this is called universalism. To be fair to Rob Bell, he does not use this term in his book.)

In Erasing Hell, Chan and Sprinkle argues that the person who talks most about hell in the Bible is Jesus Christ. While admitting the temptation to water down the concept of hell is high, the duo managed to present hell and judgement as realities described in the Bible.

For instance, Jesus uses the word gehenna (from the Greek New Testament, one of the earliest copies we have) to refer to hell. Chan and Sprinkle explain that this gehenna is a place of punishment, and Jesus used imagery of fire to described the place, in contrast to Bell who described it as a garbage dump (to be fair to Bell, he got the idea from a commentary of a Middle Ages rabbi David Kimhi).

Theological review
Again, I appreciate the duo's attempt at exegesis. Erasing Hell forces me to think closely about my own theology. Do I believe things about hell because I am comfortable with it? Or do I believe in the real hell that Jesus spoke about?

For further information

Alternative Culture: The Encounter Review

Professional wrestler Sting playing the businessman Nick in the Encounter

[As part of my Lent series, I decided to review some Christian books and films that I have watched recently. Here is my review of The Encounter.]

Synopsis
Five people get stranded in a mysterious, remote diner due to poor weather conditions. The dinner is manned by a stranger named Jesus (Bruce Marchiano) and he reveals that each person has an important decision they have to make concerning the ultimate destiny of their lives.

Each of the stranded has their own set of problems and grievances. Businessman Nick (Steve "Sting" Borden) is prideful. Runaway teenager Kayla (Madison Gibney) is suicidal. Couple Hank (Jamie Nieto) and Catherine (Dannah Davis) have marriage issues. Melissa (Jaci Velasquez) has relationship problems.

Theological Review
Jesus's ability
One of thing the film plays up is the omniscience of Bruce's Jesus. He's revealed to know all events in the past, present and future. This causes the stranded strangers to accept that he is really Jesus, and not an impostor or charlatan.

The film also emphasised that everyone falls short of the perfectness of God, although Catherine and Nick trust to justify themselves via their morality and achievements respectively.

The reasons for disbelief
Another potent thing the film brings up is objections to Christianity. Nick objected to the apparent cruelty of God in the Old Testament, and calling his Kayla's attraction to Jesus an emotional "exploitation". Kayla objects to apathy of God in the face of evil.

Nevertheless, I found it weird that this film's Jesus seem to hesitate to answer when Nick grills him. Another thing I felt should be in the film should be that most people should reject God's message of love and salvation. In fact real Jesus said in Matthew 7: 13-14,

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Conclusion
Despite having a generally unknown cast, the movie is decent. I give it a 65/100.

Theology 1.0: Did Jesus have a wife?

Oh no, were the Gnostics right?
Earlier thie year, a Bible scholar, Professor Karen King of Harvard University discovered an ancient manuscript that claimed that Jesus had a wife. This echos the view of the Gnostics (early Christian heretics) who also claimed the same thing.

But wait..
We have to give Professor King her due-- at no point did she say that the text proves that Jesus was married, or that the text was even geniune.

Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind the following.

1) The text could be a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic gospel.  Gnostic gospels are not considered to be accurate historical accounts of Jesus as (amongst other reasons) they were written about two hundred years after the events in the cannonical Gospels.

2) If the text is an original, dated to be about 4th century (since Coptic, the language on the manuscript emerged as a written language in the 3rd century). This means that this script is written many years from events of Jesus's lifetime. Of this writing, the mauscript has yet to be subjected to carbon dating.

3) This authenticity of the manuscript has been doubted.

Nevertheless..

We should give credit to Professor King for discovering and working on an accurate translation of the manuscript. However, the question on the reliablity of the document is still in question.

Additional references

Bethinking

Textual criticism

Alternative Culture: The Third Jesus Review

One of the most intriguing things about Jesus is that he attracts so many people to him. One of the latest views about him was highlighted in this book, The Third Jesus.

The premise
Deepak Chopra, as the title states presents us with his view of Jesus, the third Jesus. The first, historical Jesus is apparently unknowable and lost to history.

The second Jesus is the one the church presents. Deepak Chopra asserts that this Jesus had been hijacked by the church who wanted an "abstract, theological creation".

Here Deepak Chopra presents the third Jesus-- a Jesus who suits his worldview. This includes a Jesus who accepts the reality of karma, encourages a joining to the world-consciousness and attained enlightenment.

My gripes
Let me be fair to the author-- this book is not an apologetic. Deepak does not defend any of his views, and just states how his view of Jesus was useful to his life.

However, as a Christian who has a commitment to truth, I am not merely interested in what is useful; I am more interested in what is true. There are many issues I take issue with, but I real highlight a few.

1) We cannot know who the real, historical Jesus
I cringed as I read his assertion that we cannot know Jesus. There is an overwhelming evidence that attests to Jesus of the Bible. Even if he were to disregard the gospels, he has to consider extra-biblical sources such as Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

2) Pot calling kettle black
Even if Deepak Chopra is correct in claiming that the church manipulated Jesus to fit their views, the author fails to realise he is doing the exact the same thing. The author portrays Jesus to fit his own karmic and universal-consciousness worldview.

For instance, he claims that Jesus usage of the world "light" (based on John 14:6) refer to enlightenment-- if we are thinking about going to movie, this was a thought that "came from the light". Even a cursory read of John 14:6 reveals that Jesus was saying that he was the way to God, not some inner light.

Conclusion
It is a real pity-- Deepak Chopra is a fluent writer, and I enjoyed his writing style. However his nonchalant approach to something as important as the divinity of Christ was utterly disappointing. I wished he was more academic in his book.

References
Chopra, D. (2009). The Third Jesus

Theology 1.0: What is faith?

Napoleon's tomb, Paris 2011

A misused word?

Due to the huge misunderstandings concerning the word faith, I generally avoid using the term to describe my Christian journey. Some of my friends portray faith as belief without evidence, or even belief in spite of the evidence (Dawkins, 2006).

In this post I will attempt to examine the term "faith" in slightly greater detail.

I have faith in ....

Let's use a more down-to-earth example. Let's say a 19th Century French soldier says he has faith in the French Emperor Napoleon. What is he actually saying? Is he stating 

A) I propose a metaphysical entity named "Napoleon", whose property consist of being "French" and "Emperor"

B) I place my trust in Emperor Napoleon to get me through this age and crisis.

Naturally (I hope), we would incline to accept definition B.

Who do Christians place their hope in?

So let's extend this example. When Christians say they place their faith in Christ, what do they actually mean? In what do they trust Jesus for?

One of my favourite way to think about is the way the Gospel of John introduces Jesus.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." -- John 1: 1-5 (NIV)

What does this "Word" mean? Written in Greek for the non-Christians Greeks, the way the Greeks would have understood it is "logos". A brief search at wikipedia would reveal how the Greeks treated the use of the word "Word". To the Greek Stoics, the logos was the reason for existence and the universe. To followers of Aristotle, logos was what separated humans from nature. To ordinary Greeks it mean the divine objective root from which everything flows.

Immediately, the Gospel of John throws a challenge to the Greeks, and they would have understood. The claim is this: Jesus is the ultimate reason for humanity. He can be trusted to for our existence, and to be counted on for true joy and to get us through the hardest of times.

With a claim this big, it must be examined carefully. So my readers, if you have not experienced the joy of knowing Jesus, why not come and see?

"He is so happy! I can almost believe that he has found God.” -- Atheist novelist Franz Kafka, after reading a book written by the Christian poet GK Chesterton.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, don't be so quick to dismiss faith as anti-intellectual or dangerous. Who people of faith place their trust in? As a Christian, I invite you to come and see.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

For futher reading

What is this Word?

Alternative Culture: Singapore's train problems and the limits of man

 

City Airport Train, Vienna, Austria 2011

Triple train trouble!
In December 2011, Singapore (my country) suffered three major train (a.k.a. MRT [Mass Rapid Transit]) disruptions. As these incidents were consider the worst malfunctions in the 24-year history of the MRT, many have called the CEO to step down.

Having studied in London for the past 4 years, I was initially quite surprised by such demands. If the CEO had to step down everytime there was a line malfunction, then the CEO of the London Underground (London's train services) must have stepped down many times. However one of my friends pointed out that the MRT have often touted itself as being the best, so such incidents was considered a slap to the face to its reputation. Furthermore as many as 125,000 people were affected by one of the disruptions, making it a major accident.

So should the CEO stepped down?

If you're looking for a political analysis of the situation, you're viewing the wrong blog. I'm just humbly here to give a theological view of the event, and that will be the purpose of this post.

I'm here not to criticise the MRT management or the engineers. In fact Singaporean engineers are one of the best in the world. During my time at Imperial College, the students who topped every engineering course I could think of (Electrical, Mechanical, Material, Chemical and Aeronautical) were Singaporeans. In additional to that, I would go on record to say that travelling on the Singapore train/subway/metropolitan is very reliable.

The limits of man
But it's a strange situation isn't it? Despite possessing some of the best engineers in the world, the MRT was shown to be prone to breakdowns. But this isn't the first time man's pride was shamed, isn't it? We were once told somethings were unsinkable, and others would last for a thousand years. And this (series of MRT malfunctions) is in the field of engineering, one of the most highly disciplined fields in academia.

And it's not just in the issue of engineering that man struggles with. We struggle with health, self-worth, justice, poverty, morality, artistic expression and so many other things. And often we tend to elate man's ability to solve everything. If we even struggle to solve for these issues, then what about the issue of salvation, our eternal destinies?

[I am not saying we shouldn't work on these fields, but I'm merely highlighting man's limitation in these areas.]

The ultimate struggle
And here's the ultimate struggle for Christians--we either tend to be religious, or irreligious (Keller, 2007). To be religious, is to look within ourselves-- our acts, achievements, behaviours and morality for justification before God. Then the religious would look to the others and condemned the others for not following the traditions they do.

To be irreligious is also another great temptation-- it is to deny there is a problem with the world and us, and therefore do not see a need for accounting before God.

Both the religious and irreligious can be dangerous forms of self-centredness. Chesterton (1908) used the analogy of images of Buddhist saints to illustrate this well-- that we close our eyes to the world and look within ourselves for satisfaction.

What about Jesus?
Just as a Roman centurion looked to Jesus for his servant's healing and a father looked to Jesus for his son's exorcism, we must look to Jesus (and not ourselves) as our source of justification. As the Reformer Luther (1520) wrote that it was by "impiety and incredulity of heart" that mankind became deserving of "condemnation". In being religious or irreligious, a man makes himself "as an idol in his own heart".

So how do we save ourselves?
You can't!-- that's the point! That's why we can be grateful for Christmas. If we could do everything on our own, God didn't have to come down. So take heart, my Christian friends. There's grace! The salvation issue is not about what we can do for God (being religious), or how we redefine God (being irreligious). It's not about how much faith we have in Jesus either. It's about whether we trust Him in the first place.

And we can. That's why I can joyfully and truthfully declare "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Reference

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy

Keller, T.J. (2007) The Reason For God

Luther, M. (1520) Freedom of a Christian