Linus was correct!

   Throughout my entire youth, I knew little about Jesus.  Sadly, there were only two witnesses to me which I recall about the identity of Jesus.  One of the two came from a character I was familiar with whose name is Linus.  Watching all of the Peanuts holiday shows from our television was an annual event in my childhood household.  One year when watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, where Charlie Brown and the entire group were involved in presenting a Christmas play, the monologue by Linus contained a message that resounded in my heart.
   Thanks to the Scripture from Luke 2:8-11 which was presented in the beloved cartoon, I learned of the proclamation of the good news that a Savior has been born.  I did not know what the Savior could save me from.  And I did not know how to receive the great joy that had been proclaimed.  Yet I did learn that God had made some glorious opportunity available.
   And now I answer those questions which were unknown by me for many years.  First: Why do we need a Savior?  Because God, the giver and sustainer of life, is Holy; perfectly good and loving.  Being Holy, He maintains a loving union with those who are made holy.  For us who have done anything wrong, which always interferes with a truly loving relationship, we need forgiveness, and we need to be enabled to enter an everlasting loving friendship with Him, which means we need to be enabled to be truly loving.
   Before I received Jesus as my Savior, I normally did not consider myself a person in need of a Savior, though there were windows of time when I sensed such a need, such as when I listened to Linus, and during a rough time in high school.  I rarely got into trouble in school, and I was Captain of the Safety Patrols, even earning an award for being the second best Safety Patrol in all of Fairfax County for the 1978 to 1979 school year.  Many people often wrote in my yearbook that I was a "nice" guy, and I earned the rank of Eagle in Boy Scouts with all three Palms.  At Virginia Tech, I was a Resident Advisor, and I received many compliments for that job which was done into my sophomore year, and then throughout my junior and senior year.  In my youth, I was only in a few fights, I only stole one library book, and once I stole a dollar (which I returned years later, after I became a Christian).  I rarely lied, and I only kissed two young ladies, one of whom was a Fairfax County police officer.  (A group of counselors and officers were playing a game when I was a counselor at the superb Fairfax County Patrol camp.)
   However, I easily recognize now that I had anger and lust in my heart which was ever increasing.  As a result, I increasingly did things that hurt myself, other people, and which interfered in developing a relationship with God.  Truly loving is not about being more caring than a bunch of other people, rather it is about being like Jesus.  Anything short of His love results in spiritual death, because eternal life requires true love.
   And secondly: How can a person receive the Savior?  By believing in Jesus (see John 11:25-26).  Jesus, the Messiah, the Hebrew word for Christ, died on a cross for the forgiveness of sins of anyone.  Jesus spiritually died as the substitute for the consequence of wrong doings.  Jesus was the atoning sacrifice!  And then?  Jesus was resurrected.  If you believe in Jesus, you will have eternal life.
   Do realize that if you truly believe in Jesus, you will even be changed.  I have written in my journal many times; "The perfection process is a painful process, but the perfection process leads to goodness."  That change involves a lifetime sanctification process for a follower of Jesus.  Yet God will be there to rely on.
   I now believe with all of my heart that Linus was right: a Savior has been born.  You can believe in Him right here and now.

   Merry Christmas, and I hope this season is truly blessed for you.  Jesus loves you.
love, Hunter

Peanuts, Linus, and Charlie Brown are all trademarks under the copyright of PEANUTS Worldwide LLC.

To God be the glory, I graduated from Colorado Christian University!!

Today I graduated from Colorado Christian University!  I now have a second B.A. in Youth Ministry, and I give thanks to God!

   Boy, in this world, going for dreams requires much sacrifice, yet being obedient to God, going by His loving guidance, encouragement, and help, results in goodness.

   This accomplishment is a dream come true!
   CCU is a great university, and graduating summa cum laude is due to God enabling me to persevere during the smooth times as well as the rough times.  I have a passion for learning about God, and I went all out in my studies at CCU!  I gave it my all!  In four and a half years as a part-time student, I think I only missed 3 classes, though it may have been four.  Giving it my all, I could not go another semester, yet on the flip side, I feel totally ready to teach Bible.  I only was able to do what I did because of God.

   It has been one of the best and most unique things I have done.  Many may wonder why I would go for a second B.A. rather than go to seminary considering that my B.A. and grades at Virginia Tech could have gotten me into most seminaries in the U.S.  My answer is, "Do you want the long story or the short story?"  The short story is that CCU is where I wanted to go, thanks to my mentor Dr. David Beckman.  Then I had God's unique affirmation, the primary time being, of all places, during my lunch period at my part-time job.  The other time was when I was frustrated once during the second semester of my first year, and standing in a corner of my room praying.  If God encourages you to do something, I have learned to do it even if it seems a little crazy.  I know I had God's blessing by studying at CCU!

   CCU is academically challenging.  In the course of my studies over four and a half years, I wrote 187 pages worth of papers, not counting bibliography pages and cover pages obviously.  There were countless sacrifices.  For Thanksgiving my first year, after three days of distributing flyers in a Denver neighborhood that week to make some needed money, I spent the bulk of Thanksgiving Day working on a history paper.  (Or that may have been my second year, and the work was on a Western Civilization paper.  I was really tired when I wrote this, and I do not remember now.)  Then there was my birthday which is always near final exam time.  My first year, I spent much of my birthday working on a fifteen page paper for my Biblical Interpretation class.

   Colorado Christian University is a special school, an inter-denominational university, which is rare for an evangelical university.  In retrospect, how incredible there are students and professors from a vast variety of denominations and doctrinal convictions, all learning together at the same college.  Being inter-denominational obviously has it challenges.  Student and professor convictions were across the spectrum.  For example, one professor, who I like, who is no longer teaching undergrad at CCU, taught that the Biblical book of Jonah is fictional, (the only such book of the Bible), meant to be a biblical parable.  That is one example of some of the variety of teaching you have at CCU.  I add that I spoke up with my reason as to why Jonah is not a fictional book.

   I had some disagreements with some of the professors over the course of my time there, but the key about CCU is that almost all professors allow all students in class to give his or her opinion.  I think this is an enriching forum for good inter-denominational teaching, more so, that is an enriching forum for education.  To allow open discussion fosters learning for those who genuinely seek the truth.
   I have heard of Christian colleges and seminaries where students are not permitted to discuss disagreements in class.  I would never recommend such colleges, since there is a difference between preaching and teaching.  Teaching needs to involve discussion, and there needs to be the acceptance, even by professors, that not everyone is going to agree.  The "open" method at CCU, the fact that CCU is overall an evangelical university, and the fact that CCU has many extremely special people as a part of that family, is a reason I am a supporter of CCU!

   (I add here, after writing and posting this on a day where I was extremely tired, that I look back on my time at CCU and realize that I gained a great education.  Granted much of that was because I was engaged in the entire learning process.  Yet it was also due to some extraordinary classes.

   My favorite class was my New Testament survey class, yet there were so many other quality classes.  And the biggest surprise: I think the class of which I benefited the most from the teaching was "Research Writing" taught by Dr. Windy Petrie.  Looking back, my writing has been vastly improved by some simple basic lessons taught by Dr. Petrie at the beginning of that semester.)

   And the outstanding moral standards exemplified at CCU are not for the sake of showing off.  CCU moral standards are about living a life that is good, resulting in more and more love poured out for God and for other people.  Sin blocks love.  Living God's way results living by true love.  We people at CCU are human, yet the advocation at CCU of living by the teachings of Jesus are embraced, and the love of God is flowing at CCU.

   I love students at CCU!  I thank Jesus for enabling me to be a loving big brother-in-Christ with numerous students, the most important thing for me at CCU.

   Seriously, this was one hope of mine as I planned to be a new student, though old student, at CCU: I wanted to be a supportive big brother-in-Christ to at least one student in some special way.  I was, in unique ways, to several students.  It was God who put me in a special position to be a big brother!

   Even on the second day of classes, there was a freshman who was perplexed about something discussed in a class, maybe even disturbed.  I had the opportunity to comfort her with an explanation and encourage her.  That would be the first of many opportunities to assist my fellow students as someone who has followed Jesus for over twenty years by His mercy and grace.

   One huge blessing at CCU was my job in the CCU library for three years and four months.  I liked working in the library in a big way, because I liked helping students, and I liked seeing the oodles of cool Biblical books we have.  Granted I have my weaknesses.  On my first day on the job at the library, I was told to quiet down.  For those of you who know me, I am not a quiet person.  I honestly have trouble lowering my voice.  Fortunately I got quieter with time, since I was getting older with time.  I also socialized a bit too much, yet on the whole, I worked darn hard in that job, and I miss serving students already.  And I am thankful to the Director of the CCU Library, Gayle, who gave me a huge compliment at our Christmas party, saying I was the pinnacle of giving service to students.  Also the going away gift, a CCU blanket, is great and useful.
   Then there was my tutoring job.  The privilege of tutoring students for New Testament and Old Testament general education classes for one year was one of the most blessed activities of my life.  I only did it for one year, since I could not give my all to my course work and to the tutoring.  Yet it was an incredible CCU experience.  Supporting students in a manner which fit my passion was awesome, and I thank each student who worked with me to learn more about the Bible.

   I have worked a number of jobs in my life, and they all have one thing in common: they were short term.  I am thankful God opened the door, and helped me all along, so that I am now a graduate of Colorado Christian University.  This positions me for a career.  The difference between a job and a career is that a career is long term.  And a career needs to fit you in some unique way in order to be fulfilling.  And I am thankful that because of my calling from Jesus, my career is rooted in a calling, which is possible for all followers of Jesus.

   There were challenges being an older student at CCU that I would never have imagined.  And being 41 when I started at CCU, it was a social challenge simply being back in college.  Yet God used the unique circumstance for good, and I learned much about even my own flaws and the need to improve.  And having the dream of doing vocational ministry work, and the dream of being married one day, I have confidence that my CCU education will contribute to both of those dreams, even after such a long wait.

   And then there is a statistic I will never forget.  In four and a half years at CCU, I went on one date.  Good thing it was a nice date.  It did not go romantic between us; there was not even a second date, but she is still a dear friend.  I am thankful for a compliment she gave me at a later time, which was one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me.  She is a special woman.  I will not embarrass her by giving her name, but she can smash a volleyball.

  I have to add I think it is great so many students get engaged at CCU.  When I was in college the first time, I never knew anyone to get engaged before graduation.  To see so many students at CCU who are mature enough and godly enough to get married at what I consider such a young age was encouraging to me.

   I want to thank every single person who supported me on this challenging journey!  I give a special thanks to those who supported me all along, and I was thankful I took the opportunity to personally name them in my Christmas letter.  And I am grateful to those who came last night to the graduation banquet: my mom, sister Holly, Becky, and Dave.

   Today after my last final exam, I went out to the edge of the duck pond and cried!  Then I gave God the glory for enabling me to flourish at CCU.  Then I knelt and prayed.

   After my time beside the duck pond, I went to the classroom where I had my second class at CCU, starting on Monday morning, August 25, 2008.  (Ironically, that class my first semester, New Testament Introduction, was my favorite class of my entire time at CCU, though I had a number of other incredible classes.)  I sat in the exact chair where I sat for the whole semester.  Then going to the class where I had my first class at 8:00 am that same Monday morning, a great history class, I sat down in my same seat and said the Lord's Prayer.  It was an incredible time of acknowledging the finish.

   For my success at Colorado Christian University, I say, "To God be the glory!!!"

Hunter

[Picture from the fantastic spring CCU graduation, which I attended, after having graduated mid-year!  A happy alumnus!!]

Please note: I edited this piece on two different occasions after posting it.  I was so tired out that Thursday evening, I do not know how I even was able to write this.  It shows how excited I was.

   Back to how exhausted I was, the mid-semester graduation banquet was Wednesday the 19th.  Then Thursday the 20th, I had my last final exam.  Though drained, against all odds, I aced it.  Quite rare.

   Honestly, looking back, succeeding at CCU was against all odds for me, and I remain thankful for God's help!

I add the link to my new beloved second Alma mater.
www.ccu.edu

Why do many Hindus refrain from eating meat, yet many Christians do not?

   Below is my last paper, the last of many, done for course work here at CCU.

   Note the original paper was done using the CMS citation, but I had to do MLA for this posting because there were technical issues with the 29 footnotes.

COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SUPPORTING BELIEFS FOR VEGETARIAN OR MEAT EATING DIET PRACTICES

IN HINDUISM AND CHRISTIANITY

SUBMITTED TO DR. RYAN MURPHY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

PHL 315 - WORLDVIEWS

BY

HUNTER IRVINE

12/12/12

   Vegetarianism is common among people who engage the Hindu faith. Vegetarianism is not prevalent among Christians, yet I am a Christian, and I rarely eat meat.  Primarily a pescatarian, someone who eats only fish meat, I committed to this diet back in 2007.  A vegetarian connection between many people of the Hindu faith and myself is the reason I chose this topic. First, in order to give context for my subject, I will examine the diet ordained by Hindu conviction, past and present, and then examine the diet ordained by Christian conviction, past and present. Secondly, I will argue my thesis: the worldview of what is sacred for Hindus influences their diet conviction; likewise the worldview of what is sacred for Christians influences their diet conviction.

   What was the ordained diet practice of Hindu people back in ancient times? Arguing my thesis will involve the two different worldviews of sacredness. Sacredness is “That which is ultimate, either of a spiritual or secular nature, and which orders reality for believers” (Young 425). In leading to my argument, how appropriate to take into account the claim by both Hinduism and Christianity that they rely on what are deemed sacred texts for God’s wisdom or revelations. “The Hindu traditions have a multiplicity of sacred texts in Sanskrit and regional languages” (Coogan 42). The oldest writings which Hindus claim are scriptures, sacred writings, are the Vedas, texts put into writing around 1500 B.C. “Their origins are ambiguous and a matter of great controversy as some scholars attribute them to the Indus-Valley civilization and others to the Indo-European ‘Aryans’…” states Deepak Sarma, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Case Western Reserve University (Sarma 5). Whatever their origin, many Hindus consider them sacred, and some consider the Vedas to be “…trans-human, that is, not authored by human beings” (Coogan 42).

   There is a debate concerning the diet practices of ancient Hindus. According to Professor Constance Jones and Dr. James Ryan, most scholars claim that Hindus did not embrace vegetarianism until as late as the 6th century as a result of the influence of the Jains and the Buddha (Jones and Ryan 485). They claim the Vedas show people eating meat, including beef (Jones and Ryan 283). On the other side of the debate are scholars such as prolific Vaishnava author Steven J. Rosen {Satyaraj Das}. A Jewish man who converted to Vaishnava Hinduism in 1972, Rosen served as the “editor-in-chief of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies, an academic quarterly that is esteemed and supported internationally by scholars in the field” (Berry 92). “As a measure of the high esteem in which he is held by Indian scholars, his works have been issued by three of India’s prominent publishers…” (Berry 91). Rosen claims Hindus were vegetarians from the start, quoting from Hindu sacred texts which support animal protection. For example, Rosen quotes Yajur Veda, 12.32: “One should not use their God-given body for killing God’s creatures, whether these creatures are human, animal or whatever” (Rosen 182).

   However, one fact is admitted by scholars on both sides of the fence: the Vedas sanctioned the eating of meat which was sacrificed to the "gods." An example of this meat eating is found in a section of the Vedas which concerns sacrificing a horse to the ‘gods.’ “The Invoker, the officiating priest, the atoner, the fire-kindler, the holder of the pressing-stones, the reciter, the priest who prays – fill your bellies with this well-prepared, well-sacrificed sacrifice” (Sarma 13). This passage in the Vedas clearly sanctioned eating meat as part of a ritual sacrifice to the gods, and the passage is so elaborate, it almost seems like such activity was being encouraged.

   This grand exception for eating meat balanced with a prohibition of eating meat is reflected in a later Hindu text called Manavadharmasatra, which is commonly termed The Law Code of Manu. This dharma (duty or righteousness) text is more of an ethical text than sacred text. It reflects the dichotomy between abstaining from meat and indulging if meat is properly consecrated to the gods. However, it also reflects some contradiction, since Chapter 5, verse 55 states: “There is no fault in eating meat, in drinking liquor, or in having sex; that is the natural activity of creatures. Abstaining from such activity, however, brings great rewards” (Sarma 250). This seems to go against an earlier statement in the Manu that “killing living beings is an impediment to heaven” (Sarma 250).

   Currently, what is the stance within the Hindu community concerning a vegetarian diet? Steven Rosen argues that vegetarianism prevails in the Hindu culture, with 80 percent of Hindus in India being vegetarians or quasivegetarians. “As evidence, one need merely observe how meat-oriented restaurants in India advertise to their vegetarian clientele—with a sign in the window saying, ‘nonvegetarian.’ In the West, where meat eating is more common, it’s just the opposite” (Rosen 182). One catch here is that “quasivegetarian” could even just mean abstaining from meat on Hindu sacred days. A concise summary statement comes from Professor Jones and Dr. Ryan regarding the influence of Hindus who advocate vegetarianism: “Vegetarianism is highly valued in Indian culture” (Jones and Ryan 485). So even if some Hindus eat at McDonald’s restaurants, which have been in India for years, the Hindu faith still has such an influence as to cause that giant corporation at one time to substitute cow meat with water buffalo in certain towns (Jones and Ryan 283). And one clear fact of vegetarianism for Hindus is that Orthodox Brahmins embrace a vegetarian diet.

   The same two questions must be addressed for Christians. First, what was their diet practice in ancient times? The Bible is the single sacred authoritative text for many Christians, and to a degree diet is shown or discussed in the Scriptures. Controversy does loom since a minority, like myself, advocate that God created people as vegetarians, and that people remained vegetarians until after the Flood. This is supported by the statement to earliest humanity, “Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food’” (Genesis 1:29 NIV). There is no mention of God ordaining animal flesh to be eaten by people, and there is no record of meat being eaten by humans until after the Flood. There was an offering to God by Abel of “fat portions” from the flocks. If people were not eating meat at that time, there was some killing of animals in sacrifice to God. But many Christians interpret Genesis to allow for humans eating meat from the start.

   Second, what is the current diet practice of Christians? After Noah and his family survived the Flood, God said to Noah and his sons, “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (Genesis 9: 3 NIV). A vast majority of Christians are in agreement that at this juncture, God ordained eating meat as permissible for human beings. There may be a small minority of Christians who are not in agreement with this.

   The question, “What is sacred?” is our seventh worldview question which we have pondered all semester for various faiths. In examining this question, a point of agreement between Hindus and Christians is that both religions see a Supreme Being as sacred. Yet a point of disagreement is that Hinduism sees sacredness in all living things, since Brahman indwells all living things, whereas Christians see goodness in all created things, which were all created by God, but do not acknowledge them as sacred. Christians do recognize humans as created in the image of God, yet we were created as individual beings. With context presented, I now argue that the worldview regarding what is sacred directly influences both Hindus and Christians concerning their diet.

   Hindus say that Brahman (or another deity such as Vishnu), and the life he has created is sacred! The ancient practice of animal sacrifice diminished, possibly due the teaching of the Buddha, and the focus shifted to Brahman dwelling in all living beings. This strong view of what is sacred influences the Hindu honor for vegetarianism.

   Classified within the Vedas are the Upanishads, which were written by different authors from the seventh to third centuries B.C. (Sarma 24). I find there to be contradictions in these texts regarding the Brahman. For example, there are statements like: “This is brahman’s super-creation. It is a super creation because he created the gods, who are superior to him, and, being a mortal himself, he created the immortals” (Sarma 31). This contradicts with statements that deem Brahman as “Immortal,” and is in contradiction with passages such as Chapter 3, verse 7 of the Svetasvatara Upanisad, which states: “Who is higher than that, higher than brahman, the immense one hidden in all beings, in each according to its kind, and who alone encompasses the whole universe…” (Sarma 60). Yet overall, the texts portray Brahman as the One due reverence, and the One who is everything.

   As I stated, animal sacrifice played a prominent role in the ancient Vedas. Professor Sarma understands the Upanishads to have promoted the shift away from such acts, and he states: “The Upanisads [different spelling] were largely concerned with the internalization of the sacrifice and with laying the foundations for the theological system that was to supplant the ritual world of the Vedas” (Sarma 24). Thus we have a shift away from ancient sacred text advocating animal sacrifice, which included people getting to partake of the meat, to a new focus on spiritual teachings. And a central teaching concerns Brahman, who is overall acknowledged as “Immortal,” and “pure Spirit.” And the dwelling place of Brahman? “As fire, though one, takes new forms in all things that burn, the Spirit, though one, takes new forms in all things that live. He is within all, and is also outside” (Mascaro 64). In scholarship terms, this is termed pantheism – “The belief that all reality is infused with God” (Young 424). “…Brahman is all” (Mascaro 79).

   Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, the epic Hindu tale, which is extremely popular among Hindus. In the Eighteenth Teaching, verse 61, Lord Krishna states to Arjuna, “Arjuna, the lord resides in the heart of all creatures, making them reel magically, as if a machine moved them” (Sarma 140). Here is a sacred story that emphasizes the teaching that creatures are indwelled by deity. And we have read Huston Smith all semester, and he stated, “This infinite center of every life, this hidden self or Atman, is no less than Brahman, the Godhead” (Smith 21).

   So if Hindus believe Brahman is in you, me, animals, and even plants, I argue a natural result is a worldview which adheres to a reverence for all living creatures. I support this argument by giving examples of how two vegetarian Hindus utterly adhere to this doctrine that all creatures are a dwelling place of God. Mahatma Gandhi was a famous religious leader who is known worldwide and still revered by many of people. Gandhi was a Hindu, and he was a devout vegetarian. What was his basis for such a diet practice? Gandhi once said, “The only basis for having a vegetarian society and proclaiming a vegetarian principle is, and must be, a moral one” (Roberts XV). And Gandhi had morals from his Hindu faith, and such faith influenced him to believe and proclaim, “All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God” (Roberts 15). This is a conviction with broad ramifications, as Gandhi is saying that every form of life is God in flesh.

   Steven Rosen is an avid vegetarian, and he dedicated one of his books to the person who taught him this Hindu belief. “To His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who taught me to see God in every living creature” (Rosen xi). If you give reverence to God, and if you believe God is in every creature, then you are going to give reverence to every creature. And reverence to creatures indwelled with God involves abstaining from violence against such creatures. Non-violence against all living things is precisely what Gandhi advocated to the world, and what Steven Rosen advocates so strongly.

   One contradiction I saw immediately with this worldview on the practice of vegetarianism was the logic that if God is even in plants, then how could a person justify eating a plant any more than an animal. I add that beside thinking Brahman is in every living thing, Hindus also believe that people are reincarnated. If a person digresses in the reincarnation process, he or she can even become a plant. The Katha Upanishad states, “The soul may go to the womb of a mother and thus obtain a new body. It even may go into trees or plants, according to its previous wisdom and work” (Mascaro 64). The only suggestive answer Hinduism gives is that even though there seems to be no hierarchy within Brahman in his complete form, there is hierarchy of things assigned in this world, even a hierarchy of human beings. As part of that hierarchy, plants were meant for food, but flesh was not. Yet I add that a Hindu is even supposed to respect the plant world, and not be reckless with them. So I adamantly argue that Hinduism favors vegetarianism because they believe Brahman is sacred, and they believe Brahman is in all living beings. Thus all living things have a sense of sacredness, and abstaining from killing animals is important.

   Likewise with Christianity, beliefs regarding the sacred influence diet. God, a Supreme Being, is sacred. A term used often for God in the Christian Scriptures is that God is Holy. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8 NIV). We also find in the Hebrew Scriptures, which Christians include as part of Scriptures on the whole: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isaiah 6:3 NIV). This indicates the sacredness attributed to God. This belief by Christians has a point of agreement with Hinduism.

   Yet there is a serious point of disagreement with Christianity compared to Hinduism! Christians affirm that God’s creation is good. “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:25 NIV). Before I go any further, note the word “livestock.” I do not know Moses’ intention with this word, but before the Flood, there was livestock, and they were not necessarily being butchered by people. Livestock was imperative from the start since cows give milk, chickens give eggs, and sheep give wool.

   So God’s creation was good, yet Christians believe that God is separate from His creation, what is termed transcendent. Different to the view of Gandhi expressed in the quote I gave, Christians believe the sole incarnation of God has been when Jesus became a human being, a Person who was fully God and also fully man. Jesus is the Incarnate.

   And only human beings, and no other aspect of God’s creation in this world were or are made in the image of God. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27 NIV). God is transcendent, separate from His creation, and creation is not sacred, not even living creatures. Christians proclaim people can be united with God, who is sacred. Humans are not one with God or eternal by nature. Yet humans are loved by God, and can be united with God if they believe in Jesus, because of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross as He atoned for the wrong doings of all human beings. For a person who believes in Jesus, she or he is united with the Sacred One.

   Thus the worldview of Christians is that only the triune God is sacred, and there is potential for people to be united with that sacredness. Since neither animals nor plants are sacred, the fact that many Christians eat meat fits their worldview. And that worldview is supported by their sacred writings, which are clear concerning the fact that God has allowed people to eat meat ever since the post-Flood period.

   Being a vegetarian Christian, I would be quick to engage a Hindu on this topic of conversation, since I would have some common ground with the person. I would emphasize my admiration of the Hindu concern for living creatures, stating that Christians should share that concern since God does. And I would express my Biblical conviction is that God originally created a world where no one was permitted to eat meat. But then I would further explain that Christians have their hope in only one incarnation, and that is the Incarnation of Jesus. Then I would shift to the fact that ancient Hindus carried out animal sacrifices. Though not highlighted, near the conclusion of the passage on horse sacrifice in the Vedas, there is the statement: “Let Aditi make us free from sin” (Sarma 14). There was purpose God had for asking for animal sacrifice in the ancient world. We people have done what is wrong in the eyes of a sacred God, and the result is physical and spiritual death. In order for there to be forgiveness, the just demand was sacrifice. Yet praise be to God, animal sacrifices no longer need to be made. Jesus, who is Divine, and who became incarnate, has made the all-encompassing sacrifice, once for all! He died as a substitute for people, thus those who believe in Him and receive Him will have eternal life.

   In conclusion, Hindus believe Brahman is sacred, and the religious belief that Brahman is in all living things has delegated a sense of sacredness to all living things, which has strongly influenced the Hindu conviction that vegetarianism is an honorable practice. The Christian belief is that God is sacred, and that Jesus, God the Son, became incarnate here in this world to save people, who were made in His image, from the results of our wrongdoing. He will one day create a new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more death, even of animals. Yet God created plants and animals as separate from Himself, and not sacred, thus Christian conviction is that both plants and animals can be eaten at this time as food.

Hunter Irvine

Colorado Christian University 12/12/12

http://hunter-ntintro.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-do-many-hindus-refrain-from-eating.html  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berry, Rynn. Food for the Gods:

    Vegetarianism and the World’s Religions.

    New York: Pythagorean Publishers, 1998.

Coogan, Michael D., ed. Eastern Religions.

    Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Holy Bible: New International Version. 

    Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Jones, Constance A. and James D. Ryan.

    Encyclopedia of Hinduism.

    New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2007.

Mascaro, Juan, trans. The Upanishads. 

    New York: Penguin Books, 1965.

Roberts, Holly Harlayne.

    Gandhi the Vegetarian: Gandhi’s Message of 

    Non-violence, Non-abundance and Merciful 

    Living. 

    Little Silver, New Jersey: Anjeli Press, 2007.

Rosen, Steven J. Diet For Transcendence:

    Vegetarianism and the World Religions.

    Badger, California: Torchlight Publishing, Inc.,

    1997.

Rosen, Steven J. Essential Hinduism.

    Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers,

    2006.

Sarma, Deepak, ed. Hinduism; A Reader.

    Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing,

    2008.

Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions.

    New York: HarperOne, 1958.

Young, William. The World’s Religions: 

    Worldviews and Contemporary Issues.

    Boston: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Does God heal?

One day this past week, I was taking a super walk in one of my favorite parks on a day that was extremely warm for a December day in Colorado.  Walking along a forest path, I suddenly saw a small group of runners coming toward me.  I quickly deduced they were the cross country team from the nearby high school.  They were all students except for one adult who was probably the coach.  I only watched as they ran by, but what I had the urge to do was talk with them.  Deep down I even wanted to yell out, "How's my friend?!"  That is because in my former church where I did youth ministry work, one of the students who worships in that church has two brain tumors.  And she use to run cross country for that high school.  I continued walking and thinking about my former church until I got to a point where I was ready to turn around and start walking back to my car.  Before continuing on, I got my water bottle out of my daypack and was guzzling water.  Then I saw the runners and the coach again on a distant parallel path as they ran back the other way back towards the high school.  Yet a detail I noticed was that there was one student missing from the group, and I figured it was the same one who was tailing a bit behind when they had passed me earlier.  I waited to see if she would come along.  A little while later, I saw her in the distance.  She was running at a steady pace, but she had really slowed down.  I wondered if she felt alone, being so far behind her coach and teammates.  I prayed for her.
Then I again thought of my friend with the two brain tumors.  I realized there was only one thing I could do for her, and that was to pray.  Yet does praying really help anything?  I have known people who sincerely prayed for an individual who was extremely ill, and yet they died anyway.  First, when you pray for yourself, you are truly submitting yourself to God so that He can do spiritual work in you, and that spiritual benefit will even benefit you physically, yet that does not mean you will have some grand physical healing.  And if there is something you pray for where the answer is "no," then you can be more at peace about that knowing that you asked.  (This is easier said than done!  Sometimes it takes me quite awhile to get peace when God says "no.")  Now there have been times when I know that I got some physically healing from God.  Yet I usually still needed to go to the doctor as well!  And first and foremost, in my heart I get healing all of the time from Jesus!
Now praying for someone else is a bit different, because God is not going to force Himself on them if they are unwilling.  Yet my friend is willing to have God heal her.  Is God willing?  I would claim that God does desire to heal, yet His plan is a long term plan, and the core is Jesus.  In this world at this time, God's core action always starts with the heart.  For instance, when Jesus was physically in this world, He healed a blind man.  Yet someone may be blind now, and not receive sight.  When I was a young Christian, I had two friends at my large church who were blind.  Both were devoted to Jesus; neither had miraculous restoration of eyesight.  Yet the Bible teaches that one day they will be able to see.  In heaven, all children of God are given a new body.  There will be no blind people in heaven.  A person may have to be blind for many years in this world.  But one day their body is going to be restored.  Here and now, the first and foremost concern of God is that people have their heart made anew, because the heart is the core of a person, and all humans need our heart changed by Jesus to be truly loving, and to be united with God.
  Standing there in that beautiful place on a gorgeous day, feeling helpless to help my friend who is suffering from such a horrible thing, I realized that praying was all I needed to do.  Prayer helped me right then and there!  First, I had a realization that my friend's life is in God's hands.  I can see her running down that path soon.  Yet young people do die.  I have a friend from when I worked at the National Rehabilitation Association in Alexandria, Virginia, who died of cancer.  She was an incredible woman of faith, yet she physically died.  But that leads to a second reminder from my prayer, which is that God loves everyone.  And anyone who submits herself or himself to Jesus has life eternal in the Kingdom of Heaven, and can have a certain peace here on earth in this world that God created which is good.  When Jesus told the man who was being executed for stealing, who had put his faith in Jesus, that he would be with Him in Paradise, Jesus meant it.  Jesus was not using the term flippantly, rather it was a promise to a physically dying man (see Luke 23:43).  The Kingdom of Heaven is Paradise, because the King there is Jesus, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.  And any human being can become a citizen in the Kingdom of God!  Can you believe that?  As Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones stated, "The Christian message is that the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, came out of heaven into this world in order to save us." (1)  He goes on to say how Jesus accomplished this: "...He has borne my sins in His own body..." (2).  The consequences of sin is spiritual death.  Yet Jesus took the consequences!  Because of the forgiveness He made available, any person can be united with God, which starts by having the heart indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which is having the King in your heart!  We people are not simply material particles.  We people have a soul, something not empirically detectable by us limited humans, because God made us in His image, and God is Spirit (John 4:24).  And our souls can be bonded to God here and now, and then one day Jesus is going to come a second time into this world.  He will judge the unrighteous and deem their punishment, which is spiritual death, and He will establish His Kingdom anew in heaven and on earth.  Love will abound in the Kingdom of God!  And His citizens, who are even His adopted children, and who will have new bodies, are going to be able to be with Him in full forever!  To God be the glory!

Hunter Irvine
(1) Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Kingdom of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992), 151.
(2) Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Kingdom of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992), 151.

Darius the Mede - I claim he was King Astyages

Darius the Mede by Hunter Irvine

“That very night, Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two (Daniel 5:31-32 NIV).

   There is a big dispute as to the identity of “Darius the Mede,” since he is not found by name in other historical sources.  Incredible as this may sound, I have learned this all boils down to a name issue.  But I start by acknowledging that many people think Darius the Mede was a ruler put in place by King Cyrus immediately after he conquered Babylon.  The evidence against this theory:

   First: Though the Persians and Medes were allies, I doubt King Cyrus would have appointed a Mede be a king with the power to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, as is shown in Daniel 6:1!  I support this by noting what Herodotus said: “It will be seen that the governorship (or satrapy, as the Persians call it) of Assyria is by far the most coveted of all their provincial posts…” (Book One; 192)(1).

   Second: If Darius the Mede was simply put a ruling position in Babylon by King Cyrus around 536 B.C. (or some scholars say 539 B.C. while other scholars say 538 B.C.), then that means the incident of Darius putting Daniel in the den on lions would have taken place when Daniel was at least 85 years old, because Daniel was taken to Babylon around 605 B.C.

   So who is Darius the Mede?  The only reason I was able to detect his identity is because there was a period in the spring of 2008 when I would come home after a big day of work and read sections of The Histories by Herodotus, though I skipped over a number of sections and the end chapters since there is so much violence.  In carefully reading certain sections of that ancient history which has been studied for centuries, I was able to discern Darius the Mede was King Astyages; he fits the description.

   First, in Daniel 5:31 we learn Darius the Mede was age 62 when he took over.  And Herodotus tells us Astyages had reigned for 35 years before he was defeated by King Cyrus.  That would mean that his reign ended between 561 B.C. and 550 B.C., thus he would be older during that time period.

   Second, Astyages was portrayed by Herodotus as violent, the type of person who would throw a nice guy in a lion’s den.

   This is not my new theory or a recent theory.  I have seen one scholar propose Astyages as Darius the Mede.  That scholar was the author of a book from around the mid-1900's which I read a part of standing in a used Christian bookstore around ten years ago, the reason I got to pondering the subject myself.

   But then why do so many people dispute this?  If Asytages was Darius the Mede, and he took over Babylon in the 550's B.C., they conclude there would be no grounds for King Cyrus conquering it in 536 B.C.  Makes sense.  Yet I figured out the golden point!  King Astyages, a Mede, gained control over the resistant Babylon after “Belshazzar” was slain.  But then it would have only been a few years later, with this all happening between 561 B.C. and 550 B.C., that King Cyrus the Persian defeated King Astyages.  The golden point is that just because King Cyrus defeated King Astyages, does not mean that Cyrus immediately inherited what had been the entire Median Empire.  Many provinces, including Babylon, which was never fond of foreign rule, went back to self-rule I propose, based on information Herodotus gives.  King Cyrus had to recapture certain lost territory!

   Support of this is the fact Babylon even had a revolt later under Persian rule, and gained self rule for a short period of time!  This happened under the reign of King Darius the third Persian ruler, not the Mede.  “The revolt had been long and carefully planned; indeed, preparations for withstanding a siege had been going quietly on all through the reign of Magus and the disturbances which followed the rising of the seven against him, and somehow or other the secret never leaked out” (Book Three; 150) (2).

   Herodotus goes on tell about how King Darius (not Darius the Mede) worked to get Babylon back.  "[Babylon] could not be taken, not even when Darius, after all else failed, attempted to repeat the method which Cyrus had previously used with success.  The Babylonians were always on the watch with extraordinary vigilance, and gave the enemy no chance" (Book Three; 152) (3).

   You can read about how the Persians regained Babylon from there in a story which shows how the Persians even resorted to deranged measures in their effort to regain rule over Babylon.  So what Herodotus calls the second capture, I would agree was a second for Persia, yet previously, the Medes had captured Babylon sometime near the end of the reign of King Astyages, probably only a short time before Babylon went back to self rule after Astyages, Darius the Mede, was defeated by King Cyrus the Persian.

   Thus King Astyages, as called by Herodotus, was called by the Hebrew author of the book of Daniel "Darius the Mede."  And the Median rule of Babylon by him and the rule by King Cyrus, had a period of Babylonian self rule in between!  Wow.

Hunter Irvine

(1) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 84.

(2) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 235.

(3) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 236.

The fourth of four controversial issues: abortion

   In the last blog post I mentioned my nice (and brilliant) but boring Biology professor.  Now I tell about Dr. J.W. Tubbs, my Constitutional Law professor and Jurisprudence professor at Virginia Tech.  Dr. Tubbs was one of my great professors.  Normally students hardly mentioned professors outside of class, but he was a professor who made such an impression at Tech that people would exchange rumors about the guy.  One of the rumors was he had earned a perfect score on the LSAT, which I never could verify.  One rumor I did verify, since I got the truth from him in person, is that Dr. J.W. Tubbs had read every Supreme Court decision ever written.  He had a muscle disease, and sometimes he would lose control of his muscles.  There was an occasion when he was seriously hit by the problem, and he was in bed for an entire year.  During that time, he read every single decision!!

   Dr. Tubbs employed the Socratic method in his teaching.  He rarely even gave his own personal opinion, rather he would ask hard questions, and then debate with the person who answered the question.  He would argue both sides effectively.  In my second quarter of Constitutional Law at Virginia Tech our class studied Roe vs. Wade.  There obviously was much discussion, though surprisingly not over-heated, with students taking both sides.  We spent a ton of time on that one case.  When we were about to wrap it up after a few days of much intellectual law debate, a bold student ask Dr. Tubbs his view on abortion.  Dr. Tubbs seemed to get more personal for the first time.  He asked, "How is it determined a person is dead?"  The answer was when a person's heart has completely stopped beating.  He said then if a fetus had a beating heart, then he considered her or him to be alive.  No one had any rebuttal.

   As a follower of Jesus, I have been made aware of the sacredness there is to human life, since God has made human beings in His image.  Applying the lesson from that class, my question is: When does the heart of a soul start beating?  I do not know.  Therefore, I think that zero chances can be taken, and that no abortion is appropriate, unless if the mother's life is in danger, since she has a better chance of living.

   Being an uncomfortable topic, the best thing I can do is tell people about a friend from my church back in 1998 and 1999.  His name is Brad.  Brad's mom was in Canada back in the 1960's.  She became pregnant and made the decision to get an abortion.  The doctors worked to abort the child, and out came the fetus, and he was alive.  That child would latter be named Brad, and his birth weight was one pound, eight ounces.  Due to that failed abortion attempt, Brad has brain damage and birth defects which he still has to deal with to this day.  In knowing Brad, I could truly understand the reality that abortion is wrong.

   If you have ever had your baby aborted, know for real that forgiveness is available from Jesus.  If you talk with Jesus, and express to him that you are sorry, He will forgive you.  Abortion is an American tragedy.  Jesus loves even those who have done tragic things.  Jesus loves you.

Hunter Irvine

The third of four controversial issues: creation versus evolution

   One of my most boring classes at Virginia Tech was Biology.  For two quarters I had Dr. Patterson.  He was the nicest guy, but also a boring professor.  From those classes in 1986 and 1987, the main thing I learned is that calcium is used in a huge number of chemical functions in the body.  There you have it.  I am not a scientist of any sort.  High school Biology, Chemistry, and Physics will get me no where in the scientific world today.  Fortunately for me, and for others who are not science experts, we can still know God.  And in fact you will not discover God through science.  Why?  God is Spirit! (see John 4:24)  Being Spirit, we are only able to know God because He revealed Himself to us.  Incredibly enough, God has revealed Himself to us as the Spirit became incarnate (in flesh).  Jesus was fully God, and fully human.

What does this all have to do with evolution?  I propose you need to know God before you can truly understand what it is to be human, because of our limitations.  In knowing God, you learn that God is purposeful in what He does.  In God's creation, there is telos.  The theory of evolution is based on random activity.  Why?  Because mutations are random.  Not only that, mutations usually have a negative affect, not a positive affect.  Yet God did not haphazardly create the universe.  Genesis shows He created it with a purpose, and with distinct order.

   Within the Christian community, us folks who believe evolution is false (not to mistake evolution with adaptation, which are changes that take place which are available within the genes) are in a minority.  In fact, I think many in the Christian community look down on me because I believe evolution is false.  Yet I totally believe that Adam and Eve were real people.  I totally believe that living beings were created directly from the work of God.  I stand by my interpretation of Scripture.  And I encourage you to investigate the telos of God for yourself.

Hunter Irvine

The second of four controversial issues: sex outside of marriage

   Sex outside of marriage has become a key point of disagreement in the culture of the United States.  There has been a rapid shift from a cultural norm that favored sex within marriage to the current cultural norm where sex is widely accepted outside of marriage.

My personal theory as to why sex outside of marriage has become so common in only a few generations is that birth control in the U.S. today is extremely easy to procure.  Once I was in a store and birth control was right next to the toothpaste, and I presume any teenager could have gone to the "self-checkout" lane and purchased the items without anyone even knowing.  Such were not so easy to purchase fifty years ago.

   I turn to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19: 4-6, "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?'  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (NIV) (1).

   Jesus ordained marriage, which was His idea in the first place.  Sex was meant to be a special expression of love within marriage.  Yet how do I know it was solely meant for marriage?  When furthering the Law in what many people call the "Sermon on the Mount," Jesus said that adultery and even lust, which is the root of adultery, is utterly wrong.  Why?  Because they lead away from the God's purposes for sex.  I add that since lust is so commonly done by some folks, it may seem like a ridiculous rule Jesus is giving here.  Yet the point of the Sermon on the Mount on the whole is that God's ways can only be carried out as a person relies on God to be a better person.  There is forgiveness offered by Jesus for wrongs we have done, and there is a command to change and live a life free from sexual wrong doing, of which the Spirit of Christ will help.

  The designer of sex was God.  Indeed, He came up with it.  Thus sex is good!  Now God had multiple intentions for sex, yet first and foremost it is to be a growing expression of love between a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant relationship.  Go with God's intention for sex, and you will be blessed!

Hunter Irvine

(1) The Holy Bible; New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 1528.

The first of four controversial issues: "hell"

   I like to get things on the table, and I do so for the next four blogs.  I start with the topic of "hell."  This is a subject some Christians avoid, whereas a small minority like to harp on it.  Here I make four brief points.
   First, we know about "hell" because Jesus revealed it.  There were previews of a punishment in the Old Testament, yet Jesus is the One who gave the firm revelation.  For example, he talked about "hell" when talking about adultery.
   "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matthew 5:27-30 NIV).
   This passage is in no way promoting physical abuse.  Not at all!  On the other hand, Jesus is serious about the disaster of lust.  So what is the interpretation?  The key is to realize that when it comes to lusting, neither our eyes nor our hands are the problem!  The problem is our hearts.  The heart is the center to all decision making.  The heart is what is ultimately making the decision to lust.  The heart of a human is what needs to be changed.  Believing in Jesus will result in being united with God in a manner that God will be able to change your heart.  It is a long process, and it is a spiritual process, but it is a real process.  And believing in Jesus is a totally different path than the path to "hell" which Jesus reveals.
   Second, the other day in my Contemporary Approaches to Theology class, someone made the point of how "hell" is an uncomfortable topic and suggested maybe we Christians would be best off by avoiding the subject.  I disagree.  Prison is an uncomfortable subject, but possibly numerous people would not be there if they had been warned about the reality of consequences to wrongdoing.  Instead of ignoring the fact of how many people are in prison, we should be facing reality, and I argue the same is true for "hell."  The object is not to scare people.  The object is to warn.
   Thirdly, I learned in my Evangelical Theology class there are two main views on "hell" among evangelicals.  The first interpretation is called the "classical view."  This view is that God created people to exist forever, so those who are not saved by Jesus go to hell where they will experience everlasting suffering.
   The second interpretation is called the "annihilation view."  This view is that people who are not saved by Jesus go to hell where their souls will perish forever.  They will physically and spiritually die.
   The vast majority of evangelical Christians take the first interpretation.  In many evangelical seminaries, the professors have to sign a faith statement which includes the "classical view" of "hell."
   This is a unique situation for me since I am strongly with the minority on this doctrine.  I take the interpretation that hell is a place of spiritual death, based on verses such as John 3:16 and Romans 6:23.  I learned from my textbooks at CCU that John Stott was considered the leading theologian to support the annihilation interpretation.  Dr. Stott did pass into heaven while I was studying at CCU, in July of 2011.  I add that I agree God created people to last forever, yet in order to have that blessing, they had to be obedient to God.  By Adam and Eve eating from the tree of life, they brought about the separation between God and people, and spiritual death resulted.  God creates, and God can destroy.
   I close this subject by saying that whatever position a person takes, "hell" is the ultimate tragedy.
   Fourthly, this is such a delicate topic, I recommend reading a book on the subject by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle entitled Erasing Hell.  They give a humble and caring examination of the subject.  Though I do not think they give the spiritual death view equal examination, at least they discuss it a bit.  And I also add they miss, and so many others do, the message of I Peter 3.
   I can let you know what I like to focus on!  Heaven!  Yet when telling the Gospel, the word alone, which means Good News, lets us know there is also some bad news.  May we Christians always rely on God to tell the truth in love!
Hunter Irvine

The Atonement

   Christianity is a religion which is completely based on a relationship with Jesus.  The radical claim is that in being in a relationship with Jesus, you are in a relationship with God, because Jesus is God the Son, one Person of the Triune God.

   How is this relationship with God possible? The Atonement!

   People have been separated from God ever since the Fall involving Adam and Eve.  And people have been further straying ever since Adam and Eve.  The result of this is that all people sin, which is doing that which is counter to the perfect will of God.  The consequence of sin is the spiritual death of people.  Yet praise be to Jesus, salvation was made possible, because Jesus became what theologians term the penal substitutionary atonement.

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." (I Peter 3:18 NIV).
Also - "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 NIV).

And - "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV).

   That "him" is Jesus, and Jesus is God the Son, who had no sin in the first place.  Truly only Jesus could be the substitute for sins, because only Jesus, who is infinite, could die for all humans, who are finite.  I add that Jesus died for everyone, yet His atonement is the choice of a person.  Each individual chooses whether she or he will believe in Jesus.

by Hunter Irvine

Where did the Bible come from?

A youth group Sunday school lesson I taught this summer, I present this piece now, though it is a tad different than how it was presented and discussed in youth group. Hunter Irvine
+
Hebrews 1:1-2 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe" (NIV).
+
So what you have in history is God speaking!
+
And what you have today in the Bible is the writing that some people wrote down about what God said, and about what God did.  They were witnesses!
+
Key question: There have many people who have said that God spoke to them, that started false religions or that even did horrible things like kill people. How do we know that God truly spoke to authors of the Bible, or that the writings of authors of the Bible were inspired by God?
+
For the Old Testament, many people were witnesses of the ministry of the prophets in the Old Testament. The Jewish community recognized the individuals as prophets.
For an example in the Old Testament, the ministry of Moses involved numerous people. They were involved with the miracles God was doing with Moses as His chosen leader. They were witnesses of his relationship with God, and the result is that the Old Testament is still a foundation of the Jewish people on the whole.
Thus, many Jewish people witnessed and identified prophets as people who listened to God.
+
And in the New Testament, the Apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus, God incarnate. They were listening to God by listening to Jesus.
An example in the New Testament can be summed up by the claim of Peter the Apostle of how he was an eyewitness.
II Peter 1:16 “…we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Apostles were the people who wrote the New Testament, or who had some sort of friendship with those few who wrote a New Testament book who were not apostles.
And as the Apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus, other people witnessed the Apostles do miracles, and they witnessed men who were willing to die for their Messiah.  Thus the Apostolic writings preserved witness to Jesus, and other witnesses preserved and took those writings to be sacred.
Thus, we have human witness galore!
+
Second, the Holy Spirit is a witness!
+
II Peter 2:21 “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Those prophets and Apostles listened to God, being enabled by the Holy Spirit to write what is truly inspired by God. And we must rely on the Holy Spirit to be affirmed of the witness of Scripture, and to correctly interpret it.
+
Biblical Authorship
Remember two important points for both the Old & New Testaments:
+
Regarding the Old Testament -
First, the authors, at least the vast majority, were either prophets, priests, or kings.
Second, the authors were all Jewish!
+
Regarding the New Testament -
First, the authors were all Apostles or friends of an apostle. [An apostle was a person who spent much time with Jesus and witnessed Him do ministry work!!!]
Second, the authors were all Jewish except for one – Luke. (Luke was a friend of Paul, who was an Apostle. See I Colossians 4:11- 4:14).
+
The concept of God's work, which impacted the Bible since the authors were people who listened to God, is all so wonderfully summarized by John Stott:
“Christianity is essentially a historical religion. God’s revelation…was not given in a vacuum but in an unfolding historical situation, through a nation called Israel and a person called Jesus Christ.”
[John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 45.]

Six people I admire

   I will speak for myself and say this human being is in need of encouragement in this world.  People who have lived in an ultimately loving manner, whatever their gifts, and in spite of their mistakes, offer encouragement even when that is not their intention.  I have been encouraged in my life by many, but here I list six people I admire.

*Billy Graham, due to his faithfulness to God.  In reading his autobiography, I was encouraged by his willingness to completely commit to God.  Considering the fallibility of us humans, giving complete control over to God results in utter blessings, though we may resist such at times.  Giving himself fully to Christ is what Billy Graham did, and look what resulted.

*Abraham Lincoln, due to his moral conviction.  Once a person asked me why I think he was so great.  My answer: Lincoln, in the midst of his genius, in the midst of his mistakes, in the midst of his humanness, always maintain his conviction from youth that slavery is immoral.  No pressure ever changed his conviction, and more and more he actually dedicated himself to working to bring an end to the horrible wrong.

*John Stott, due to his focus on Christ.  Though I have some doctrinal differences with him, reading a number of books written by John Stott in my early Christian years were an incredible blessing to me.  After turning to Christ, John Stott lived a life where Christ was central to his day to day living.  In all he did in a busy life as a pastor, evangelist, and author, his heart was submitted to Jesus.

*Frank Beamer, due to his loyalty.  Through all of the challenges of being a coach for a large university, Frank Beamer has remained loyal to the people he works with as the coach.  Now being the coach with the most wins of any active NCAA Division I coach after twenty-six years at Virginia Tech, there have been times when he could have been the football coach of another university making more money, or getting more attention.  Yet Frank Beamer has been loyal at his Alma mater, caring for the people he works with.  And he has been a loving guy in university community, the city of Blacksburg, Virginia, and even the entire country and world.

*Dr. David Beckman, for his perseverance.  Dr. Beckman is the best preacher I have ever heard.  And the reason I was able to hear him preach was because he has kept persevering through tough times and good times into an age where most ministers are not in the pulpit.  In addition to his phenomenal work at Colorado Christian University, he was the preacher for an interdenominational retirement community church for a total of about twenty years.  Since retiring the second time from Windsor Gardens Community Church, he still works to personally be a light for Christ at the retirement community where he resides.  Through times of illness of his wife, through times of personal illness, through times of hardship, he has continued to trust God, and still does unusual ministry work here in his "golden years."

*Richard, my dad, for his concern for people.  After turning to Jesus in his middle age, his interest in people has risen to a genuine concern for people.

Genuine heroes are a blessing from God.  Yet sometimes heroes let us down.  Sometimes heroes make serious mistakes.  Yet you will never be hurt or disappointed by Jesus if you believe in the One who is the Savior and Lord for all people who believe in Him.  Jesus is God the Son, and Jesus is perfect.

Hunter

Alienation

   I like music.  I have seen some incredible concerts in the past 45 years.  My mom says that I liked music when I was young.  Early on in elementary school, I went to my first concert with my family, which was my mom's all time favorite artist, John Denver.  I would see him seven more times in my life.  Yet most of the concerts I have seen were "rock" groups, and I have seen many great rock performers in concert.  Two that I never got to see that I would still like to see are Paul McCartney and Boston.  As a Christian, I have seen many great Christian concerts.  I am especially a Rebecca St. James fan.  Yet I still enjoy "classic rock," though I'm careful about my song selection.  I try not listen to songs that are raunchy, confusing, or vindictive.
   I like a variety of music, yet in some ways, the music I like is a part of my personal expression.  When I was in high school, I was spiritually struggling.  And I look back and realize there were problems in my family that would eventually lead to my parents getting a divorce.  As opposed to music that I liked when I was younger which was more cheery and fun, like the Cars and Paul McCartney, I started really getting into Pink Floyd music.  In retrospect, I think my feelings of alienation, due to spiritual struggles, along with being in a family that was coming apart, resonated with the alientation that Pink Floyd expressed.  After years of listening to their music, I got the opportunity to see Pink Floyd in concert,  minus Rogers Waters, in early summer after my junior year at Virginia Tech, in June of 1988.  I was excited.  I thought David Gilmour was a great guitarist, and I was seeing one of "my" bands.
   The concert was at RFK in Washington, D.C., and as was the case for the majority of concerts I attended, I went alone.  I was sitting in the second tier, but I was over on a far side, so I was not a mile from the stage, and there were few people around me.  I really got into the show, and the performance was top notch.  Now normally when I went to D.C., I took the subway, but for that evening I had asked my mom to take her car for some reason.  I was unfamilier with that part of town, and upon leaving the parking lot of R.F.K., I was on a road which I did not recognize at all.  Yet I have a good sense for direction, and I figure I would detect where I was soon, and get on a road in the correct direction.  A local rock radio station was playing an old Pink Floyd album due to the hometown concert, and so I had that music on as I headed for home.  Driving to the instrumental music, which was kind of eeire, I ended up getting so lost that I was driving down in an area of town where I was totally turned around, and the weirdest part was that all of the stoplights were blinking yellow as the eeire Pink Floyd music whined.  I was lost.
   I use this as a metaphor for the fact that at that time, I was spiritually lost as well.  I was not living by the love of a loving God, rather I was doing what seemed sensible, but it was not bringing love.  I was not getting healing in the wake of my parent's separation after 21 years of marriage.  I was hurting deep down in my heart.  I needed love, even if I did not fully realize it.
    I will tell you, I enjoy music, and even more, I enjoy singing.  Yet sooth or excite as it does, music never brought me love.  God gives true love.  You may not go to oodles of concerts alone like I did.  You may not share hurts with the lyricists in rock bands like I did.  Yet if you are void of the love of God, my heart yearns to say that if you believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven of your wrongdoings, and the Love of God will come into your heart.  It may not be as noticeable as the rush from hearing your favorite song.  Yet your heart will begin to know it.  Jesus came to save those who are lost, and I am grateful that He saved me.
God is love.
Hunter

John 11: 17-27

Sermon by Hunter Irvine on June 17, 2012

at Wheat Ridge United Methodist Church.

JOHN 11:17-27

   There was a family of two sisters and one brother. The sisters were Martha and Mary, and their brother was Lazarus. All three had a friendship with Jesus. Yet Lazarus has died, and Martha goes to greet Jesus as He is traveling into the town of Bethany. I jump to the verse where Jesus states: “Your brother will rise again.” Martha responds, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” What is Martha talking about? Daniel 12:2 speaks of resurrection. Martha believed the prophet Daniel, and believed that resurrection would take place.

   Why then was there such a huge debate during that time regarding resurrection between the religious leaders who were Pharisees, and the religious leaders who were Sadducees? The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, yet Sadducees did not. The point of theological debate may have come from Ezekiel! In Ezekiel 37, there is the passage that is now termed “the valley of dry bones.”

   The background of Ezekiel 37 in a one phrase synopsis is that because the Israelites, the Jewish people, had disobeyed God, a disaster was underway which would result in Jerusalem being destroyed, and which would result in many of the Jewish people ending up as captives in Babylon. In my opinion, the odds were zero that the Jewish people would ever see Jerusalem again.

   The prophet Ezekiel was taken captive in the second wave of exiles in 597 B.C., only 11 years before the fall of Jerusalem. God told him how Israel was going to fall to Babylon. Yet then in Ezekiel 37, there is a vision of a valley of bones.

   The prophet Ezekiel was given a vision which started with a valley where bones were lying all over the place. God tells Ezekiel to instruct the bones to come to life. Ezekiel does so, and sure enough, these bones start rattling, then they take on flesh, and the next thing you know, there is a huge group of alive human beings.

   Then God explains the purpose of this vision! God gave Ezekiel this vision as a metaphor to tell the Israelites that as a nation, even though they are dead, that He will resurrect them and bring them home in the future to Jerusalem. This vision was a prophecy of the miracle of God bringing the Israelites home from captivity in Babylon in the year 536 B.C.

   Regarding the Pharisees, I think they recognized that this vision was a metaphor, but they added on to it, making it a double entendre, which is a bad Biblical interpretation practice, which some scholars even steadily employ today. A double entendre is different than the hermeneutics of what is called “types,” yet that is another sermon. The key here is that the Pharisees went so far as to say that a key need for resurrection was the bones of a person.

   On the flip side, the Sadducees probably reacted against the interpretation of the Pharisees, and simply started saying that there was no bodily resurrection. Thus the division.

   Going back to the Pharisees, the result of their theological belief was the development of “secondary burial.” For a period before 20 B.C., the flesh was burned off of dead bodies, and then they would store the bones. After 20 B.C., dead bodies were put in tombs which often were carved out of the limestone cliffs. A stone would be rolled over the entrance so that wild animals would not get in there. After about one year, someone would go back in the tomb, and the flesh would be rotted off of the bones. The bones would be retrieved and put into bone boxes, or caverns.

   “Bone boxes,” which are technically called ossuaries, are limestone containers which are about 2 feet by 1& ½ feet, and there are bones in them, often of several family members. Archaeologists have been digging up bone boxes for over half a century! They have thousands of these boxes.

Usually these bone boxes were only for the wealthy. For the lower classes, bones might be thrown all together into big rooms in a cavern. And for criminals, their bones were usually not given a proper burial.

   The focus in secondary burial was the bones.

   The bones were ready for resurrection.

   After all of this focus on bones, Jesus totally changes the focus! Resurrection for Him had nothing to do with bones, rather it had to do with Him. Jesus states that if a person believes in Him, then he or she will have eternal life. This is the big idea of the passage. Jesus is the One who makes resurrection possible.

   And for us, there is a personal message. That message is that you need to believe in Jesus to have resurrection, and in order to have eternal life!

Martha believed!

   Martha, the same Martha who once had been in the kitchen cooking rather than listening at the feet of Jesus like her sister, has since decided to listen to Jesus. And now Martha is able to identify Jesus as the Messiah.

   How did she know a Messiah was coming? There are numerous Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet a big one comes from Daniel, where even the exact time period that the Anointed One would come is foretold. Christ is the Greek word, whereas Messiah is the Hebrew word used. Both mean Anointed One.

   Another prophecy of the Messiah concerns what Ezekiel stated, which is that the Messiah would be a Shepherd! In Ezekiel 34, it is revealed how God Himself would be the Shepherd of Israel. And in John 10, Jesus identifies Himself as the Good Shepherd. Jesus is the Good Shepherd!

I did not grow up in a Christian family. I only went to church a handful of times in my youth. However, I was extremely active in Boy Scouts, thus on most Monday nights I was at the Annandale United Methodist Church in Annandale, Virginia. Our Boy Scout troop went camping every month, except for August and December. Early one Saturday morning, I was in the church gathering equipment for our weekend campout. For some reason, I was having an intense feeling of apprehension! Most of the other Scouts were getting equipment out from our storage closet upstairs. However, I had to go to a closet downstairs by the fellowship hall to get so utensils. As I walked through the fellowship hall, I stopped and looked at the stain glass window. The window was a picture of Jesus with a lamb in His arms. The apprehension left, and I had a complete peace.

I would learn years later that the Good Shepherd not only offers peace, yet He also offers the forgiveness of sins.

   Isaiah 53:6 states, “We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (NIV).

That “Him” is Jesus. Jesus died on a cross for the forgiveness of sins of anyone. He was the substitute for the wages of sin, which is death.

If you believe in the Good Shepherd, your sins will be forgiven, and you will have eternal life with God.

   I am not going to call anyone up to the front here, rather I am inviting anyone to an altar call right where you are sitting. If you have never believed in Jesus before, you can do so right now right where you are sitting. To know resurrection and eternal life, you need to believe in Jesus!

Holy Kiss Quotes - my research gem

  I am super grateful to God for the quotes on this blog, which are the result of serious research!
   One of my big papers at Colorado Christian University was on the subject of the "holy kiss."  One of my points was that when churches engage in a time of "greeting" or "the Peace" during worship, they are carrying out a practice of early Christians who gave the "holy kiss" during worship gatherings there in a culture where kissing on checks was the cultural norm.  I also gave the reason why it would not be appropriate to do the holy kiss now, but that having a greeting time in church is appropriate.  I acknowledge some people think a greeting distracts from the focus on God, and I respect their opinion.  (In my opinion announcements distract from worship and I have disliked them for 24 years of being a Christian.)  Following are direct quotes which support the history of the "holy kiss."  Hunter Irvine

* Justin Martyr:   "Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss." (1)

* Athenagoras:    "If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he sins];..." (2)

* Clement of Alexandria:    "The apostle calls the kiss holy." (3)

* Tertullian:    "What prayer is complete if divorced from the 'holy kiss?'" (4)

* Cyprian:    "We look with glad countenances upon confessors illustrious with the heraldry of a good name, and glorious with the praises of virtue and faith; clinging to them with holy kisses..." (5)

* Athanasius:    "Salute one another with a holy kiss.  All the brothers and sisters who are with me salute you." (6)

* Cyril of Jerusalem:    "Then the Deacon cries aloud, 'Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another.'  Think not that this kiss is of the same character with those given in public by common friends.  It is not such: but this kiss blends souls one with another, and courts entire forgiveness for them.  The kiss therefore is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and banish all rememberance of wrongs." (7)

* John Chrysostom:    "Having then knit them together by his exhortation, he naturally bids them use the holy kiss also as a means of union : for this unites, and produces one body.  This is holy, when free from deceit and hypocrisy." (8)

* John Wesley:    "The faithful afterwards spend a quarter of an hour in prayer, and conclude with the kiss of peace." (9) {He is talking about folks at Hernhut!}


(1) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 1:185.

(2) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 2:146.

(3) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 2:291.

(4) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 3:686.

(5) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 5:437.

(6) Jack Sparks, ed., The Resurrection Letters; St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria from A.D. 328-373 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 56.

(7) Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church; Second Series (1893; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), 7:153.

(8) Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church; First Series (1889; repr., Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 12:265.

(9) John Wesley, The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M. (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), 1:142.