I'm starting the gospel of John in my daily Bible reading plan. I thought it would be a good idea to share my readings to help those who are not familiar with Christian faith understand more of what it is about. The gospel of John consists of 21 chapters. Each chapter is broken down into verses. So when you see John 1:1-4 that means the Book of John, chapter 1 verse 1 through verse 4. The book of John is written by the apostle John, one of the 3 closest people to Jesus while on earth. It is also called the gospel of John because it is a narrative of the life and sayings of Jesus. The three other narratives of Christ's life, Matthew, Mark and Luke are also referred to as gospels. They are called gospels because the coming of Jesus is said to be good news!
John 1:1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The apostle John starts out his book talking about the "Word". The Word has always been with God, distinct from God, but also is God. We know that John is talking about Jesus because later in the chapter he tells us so. This eternal Word "became flesh" (verse 14) and is revealed to be Jesus Christ (verse 17), the only-begotten Son of God (verse 18).
The Christian Church has always taught that God is trinity. The word trinity is not in the Bible, but the concept behind the word is. This is what is being taught here. God (the Father) is distinguished from the Word (Jesus the Son of God) but both are called God. Other places in the Bible refer to the Holy Spirit as separate from the Father and Son but also called God.
Christianity holds as its most basic tenet that Jesus is in truth more than a man, the eternal Word and Son of God who was with God the Father from all eternity and who with the Father created all things and who became man in time.
The apostle John spent 3 years with Jesus. He saw his miracles. He saw him heal the blind, make the lame walk, raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine. He heard his words and his teaching which were unlike any other. He was with him on the mountain when He appeared with Moses and Elijah in glory and God descended in a cloud and with a loud voice said, "This is my beloved Son". He saw him crucified and rise from the dead on the third day. He saw him ascend into heaven. And later in life, he was caught up to heaven and saw Jesus glorified as Lord Almighty. No wonder he said in another writing:
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
We who are Christians believe this testimony and find joy given to our hearts!
John
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Thursday, May 3, 2007
The Queen
A well done drama documenting the tension between the monarchy and the British subjects over the death of Princess Diana. The Queen is the archetype of the unchanging, ancient institution of the crown that has endured through many centuries. On the other side, the newly elected prime minister, Tony Blair, the progressive young idealist seeks to modernize the country. It was engrossing to watch the developing relationship between the two. Mr. Blair is portrayed in a positive light as one who sympathizes with the people yet has a profound respect for the Queen, who by the way, has outlasted many a prime minister.
The Queen who wants to downplay the death of Diana and keep it as a private matter is confronted with realization that her former daughter in law was the "people's princess" who brought the private, sacred institution of the crown to the commoners. The days of unquestioned reverence of the royal family are appearing to fade into the days gone by and the Queen is pressured to compromise tradition and protocol for the sake of her "popularity." Tony Blair also had his own struggles as disrepect for the monarchy seemed to surround him. His struggle was to maintain the dignity of the Queen while sympathizing with the people.
The actress and actor who played Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair respectively were superb and in my opinion deserving of Oscars. They seemed to have mastered their characters and portrayed not only their appearance, but personality, facial expressions and mannerisms accurately. I was struck how certain characters seemed to be cast in either a good light or bad light. Especially surprising was how positive Prince Charles was portrayed. He almost appeared saintly while Prince Philip, the Queen's husband, was insensitive and brash toward the memory of Diana and the grief of the people.
I am fascinated with the monarchy. There is almost a mystical nobility and dignity associated with it that brings about a sentiment of reverence. There is something inside us that seeks to honor that which is sacred.
In some sense, the movie is a reflection of spiritual things. The kingdom of God is everlasting. He is unchanging and uncompromising in His holiness and standard of righteousness. Yet cultures and societies want change. They no longer revere the sacred but seek the profane in the name of being progressive. The holy is seen as outdated. They want God to change into their own image.
This movied is definitely worth seeing. We must instill in our children a sense of respect and honor and humility which is pleasing to God.
The Queen who wants to downplay the death of Diana and keep it as a private matter is confronted with realization that her former daughter in law was the "people's princess" who brought the private, sacred institution of the crown to the commoners. The days of unquestioned reverence of the royal family are appearing to fade into the days gone by and the Queen is pressured to compromise tradition and protocol for the sake of her "popularity." Tony Blair also had his own struggles as disrepect for the monarchy seemed to surround him. His struggle was to maintain the dignity of the Queen while sympathizing with the people.
The actress and actor who played Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair respectively were superb and in my opinion deserving of Oscars. They seemed to have mastered their characters and portrayed not only their appearance, but personality, facial expressions and mannerisms accurately. I was struck how certain characters seemed to be cast in either a good light or bad light. Especially surprising was how positive Prince Charles was portrayed. He almost appeared saintly while Prince Philip, the Queen's husband, was insensitive and brash toward the memory of Diana and the grief of the people.
I am fascinated with the monarchy. There is almost a mystical nobility and dignity associated with it that brings about a sentiment of reverence. There is something inside us that seeks to honor that which is sacred.
In some sense, the movie is a reflection of spiritual things. The kingdom of God is everlasting. He is unchanging and uncompromising in His holiness and standard of righteousness. Yet cultures and societies want change. They no longer revere the sacred but seek the profane in the name of being progressive. The holy is seen as outdated. They want God to change into their own image.
This movied is definitely worth seeing. We must instill in our children a sense of respect and honor and humility which is pleasing to God.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Everyone's Hero
An animated family movie about a young boy with a heart of gold. The movie sort of reminded me of a Frosty the Snowman goes to the world series. I loved the baseball character. He was my favorite. I had a hard time with Whoopi Goldberg as the bat, though. It just did not work for me. It did not fit. The boy, Yanky Irving, a die-hard Yankee fan, was loveable. The movie portrayed a strong father/son relationship between the boy and his father. The boy gave his all on behalf of his father to help him out. While the movie had a "dream come true" ending, I thought it went a bit too far and was on the corny side. It was not believable. Some movies do a good job making the unbelievable believable. This movie did not. It was too pie in the sky.
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines
Along with the first DVD, this series was produced by TNT movies for TV. The movies use digital technology to produce computer generated special effects. The effects were pretty good for a TV movie.
This series definitely models itself after Indiana Jones. The similarities are too many to ignore. Because of this, in some sense it lacks originality. But since I so loved Indiana Jones, I didn't mind. It wasn't George Lucas, but it was nevertheless entertaining. Not quite the same level of "edge of you seat" action as Raiders of the Lost Ark, but enough to make it interesting. Like Indiana Jones, the movie takes you away to far away lands with beautiful scenery and deep into the earth with deep lava filled caverns. There is the tag-along lady who stumbles into Flynn's adventure and the ensuing romance (there is one questionable scene inferring love-making). There are the bad guys after the artifacts in hope of controlling the world. The adventure starts at Casa Blanca and ends with some similarities to the classic film, even using one of the same lines from the movie.
Noah Wyle who plays Flynn Carson, is no Harrison Ford, but he has a charm all his own. His humorous naivety and partial nerdiness is balanced by his heady knowldege acquired from his 23 college degrees.
Like Indiana Jones, the movies all center around mythical artifacts with supernatural power. In Raiders of the Lost Ark it was the Ark of the Covenant. In this movie it is Solomon's mines. I don't care for the way the movie mixes biblical themes with the occult. The book of Solomon from the mine has occultic power to conjur up demons and bring back ancient king's ghosts and impart sinister supernatural powers to the one who utters its incantations. However the incantations sound like readings from Psalms. It is disturbing in the way that it made it sound like the villian was calling on God to endow him with evil power. Almost bordering on blasphemy. This is a spoiler for me. I also don't care for the way they make Flynn's boss, Judson, played by Bob Newhart almost omniscient and omnipresent.
The true biblical power is not found in occultic power of relics or incantations, but in the fact that the words of the Bible are inspired by God and have power by the Spirit of God to change the heart of man from evil to righteousness.
If you are looking a serious, action-packed, adrenaline rush, this movie isn't for you. But if you a movie that is not too serious, a little corny with some good adventure, you won't mind it.
This series definitely models itself after Indiana Jones. The similarities are too many to ignore. Because of this, in some sense it lacks originality. But since I so loved Indiana Jones, I didn't mind. It wasn't George Lucas, but it was nevertheless entertaining. Not quite the same level of "edge of you seat" action as Raiders of the Lost Ark, but enough to make it interesting. Like Indiana Jones, the movie takes you away to far away lands with beautiful scenery and deep into the earth with deep lava filled caverns. There is the tag-along lady who stumbles into Flynn's adventure and the ensuing romance (there is one questionable scene inferring love-making). There are the bad guys after the artifacts in hope of controlling the world. The adventure starts at Casa Blanca and ends with some similarities to the classic film, even using one of the same lines from the movie.
Noah Wyle who plays Flynn Carson, is no Harrison Ford, but he has a charm all his own. His humorous naivety and partial nerdiness is balanced by his heady knowldege acquired from his 23 college degrees.
Like Indiana Jones, the movies all center around mythical artifacts with supernatural power. In Raiders of the Lost Ark it was the Ark of the Covenant. In this movie it is Solomon's mines. I don't care for the way the movie mixes biblical themes with the occult. The book of Solomon from the mine has occultic power to conjur up demons and bring back ancient king's ghosts and impart sinister supernatural powers to the one who utters its incantations. However the incantations sound like readings from Psalms. It is disturbing in the way that it made it sound like the villian was calling on God to endow him with evil power. Almost bordering on blasphemy. This is a spoiler for me. I also don't care for the way they make Flynn's boss, Judson, played by Bob Newhart almost omniscient and omnipresent.
The true biblical power is not found in occultic power of relics or incantations, but in the fact that the words of the Bible are inspired by God and have power by the Spirit of God to change the heart of man from evil to righteousness.
If you are looking a serious, action-packed, adrenaline rush, this movie isn't for you. But if you a movie that is not too serious, a little corny with some good adventure, you won't mind it.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Librarian: Quest for the Spear
This movie was in the spirit of Indiana Jones and National Treasure. Since I loved these movies I was very interested in watching this one as well. While the movie was a little less intense than these two, it was nevertheless filled with action. I was a little skeptical when I found that Bob Newhart played a central role in the movie. I don't normally associate him with this genre. He was not the perfect fit, but I thought he did ok. I found the main character charming and enjoyed seeing the romance develop between him and his female body guard. This was not the 5 star movies of Indiana Jones and National Treasure, however, I give 4 stars.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Eragon
I really enjoyed this movie. It has elements of both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. It got two thumbs up from my daughters (ages 11 and 13). It really extols virtues such as sacrifice and loyalty. They did a good job making the villian sorcerer look really evil. Nothing real objectionable that I recall. The one minus was that the movie was too short for the plot. It believe is was around 90 minutes where as it could have been easily over 2 hours. We look forward to the sequel (which they will obviously have by the way the movie ended).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)