Im Zentrum der Botschaft vom Erlöser der Welt ist ein einzelnes, glorreiches, wunderbares, unversuchtes Konzept. In einfachsten Worten ist diese Botschaft, dass wir versuchen sollten den Egoismus, mit dem wir alle geboren zu sein scheinen, zu ueberkommen, dass wir den natuerlichen Menschen ueberkommen sollten und an andere vor uns selbst denken sollten. Wir sollten an Gott denken und ihm dienen und an andere denken und ihnen dienen.-James E. Faust (translated by Jens Beyrich)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Weihnachten Botschaft >> Christus
Atonement and Divinity: A Brief Analysis
It has been said that Paul's epistle to the Philippians was his most empathetic letter to his people. These Philippians were some of Paul’s first converts in Europe. Thus, he held a strong affinity to their spiritual growth and welfare. The stark rebuking contained in many of Paul’s other epistles is not so prevalent in this New Testament book. Perhaps, his closeness to the Philippians allowed Paul to delve into more profound and lasting doctrine, such as the atonement, rather than dwelling upon temporary, technical aspects of the church.
Paul begins Philippians 2 with a call to be unified. It is very apparent that the principle of unity was one of Paul’s most repeated admonitions. One example comes from Corinthians when Paul taught that the church has many ‘members’ that work together: “For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor. 12:14). In this epistle, Paul will shortly expound upon Christ’s atonement. We must assume that he was emphasizing the unity of doctrine among members of the church. For how could these members learn of salvation if they were not unified in their understanding and beliefs?
After his call to unity, Paul makes a seemingly confusing statement, almost in passing. He said that Jesus Christ “…being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). Does this entail that Christ was, at one point, not equal with God? And yet he rose to equal glory with God, while yet not ‘robbing’ God of his glory. Paul makes it clear that Christ is divine—that he was and is no ordinary man.
A 19th century scholar, Jean Daillé, provided his interpretation of this verse: “As then the apostle protest that the being of the Lord Jesus was equal with God, it must necessarily be acknowledged that there was in him some other thing than the flesh, which he took for us; that is to say, that eternal Word, which at the beginning was God, and was God.” (Daillé and Sherman, An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, ch. 2). Daillé may have understood this “being equal” as that Christ was full of equal glory during his earthly existence. We must read further from Paul’s letter to expound more heavily on this principle.
“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7). Scholars report that the phrase “made himself of no reputation” comes from the Greek word ‘kenosis’ which translates “to make empty” (Ostler, Apostle Paul, His Life and His Testimony: The 1994 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament, ch. 9). Christ, being born into the world, wasn’t previously, ‘of no reputation,’ because the phrase uses the verb ‘made’ as he was previously full of something, but then ‘made’ himself empty.
Craig Ostler takes the phrase further and asks what it was that Jesus Christ emptied himself. He then refers to Doctrine and Covenants. “And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:12-14 emphasis added).
According to this scripture, Jesus Christ held not a fullness of glory preemptively in his life. This idea may be in opposition to Daillé’s thoughts about Christ’s earthly ministry. “Therefore, it was the fulness of glory that Christ had enjoyed in his premortal state of which he emptied himself in being born into mortality” (Ostler, Apostle Paul, His Life and His Testimony: The 1994 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament, ch. 9).
Why has Paul taken the time to mention this statement to the Philippians? He was expounding on the atonement and the measures that were involved to complete such a supernal gift. We gather from here, that Christ was not only divine before he entered mortal life, but he was equal with God. Paul is telling us that an atonement for mankind must be performed by someone like God—someone greater than a mere man, who was the ability to take upon himself the punishment for sin. Paul, earlier, had said, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Death comes from the mortal man, Adam, while life comes from the exalted being, Jesus Christ.
And yet, while in life, Ostler says, Christ was divested of his glory. He was made to become as mortal man, with all the same afflictions of sufferings that humans suffer. “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). Paul specifically used the keywords “humbled” and “obedient” to show the importance of these characteristics. It also contrasts heavily with his earlier statement that Christ was equal with God. Idiomatically speaking, Jesus Christ stood at the top of the totem pole of the human family, but subsequently lowered himself to the bottom of the totem pole, in order to bring salvation to mankind.
Daillé, Jean & Sherman, James, An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (H. G. Bohn, 1843).
Ostler, Craig J., What is a Mortal Messiah?: Apostle Paul, His Life and His Testimony: The 1994 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament (Deseret Book, 1994).
Paul begins Philippians 2 with a call to be unified. It is very apparent that the principle of unity was one of Paul’s most repeated admonitions. One example comes from Corinthians when Paul taught that the church has many ‘members’ that work together: “For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor. 12:14). In this epistle, Paul will shortly expound upon Christ’s atonement. We must assume that he was emphasizing the unity of doctrine among members of the church. For how could these members learn of salvation if they were not unified in their understanding and beliefs?
After his call to unity, Paul makes a seemingly confusing statement, almost in passing. He said that Jesus Christ “…being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). Does this entail that Christ was, at one point, not equal with God? And yet he rose to equal glory with God, while yet not ‘robbing’ God of his glory. Paul makes it clear that Christ is divine—that he was and is no ordinary man.
A 19th century scholar, Jean Daillé, provided his interpretation of this verse: “As then the apostle protest that the being of the Lord Jesus was equal with God, it must necessarily be acknowledged that there was in him some other thing than the flesh, which he took for us; that is to say, that eternal Word, which at the beginning was God, and was God.” (Daillé and Sherman, An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, ch. 2). Daillé may have understood this “being equal” as that Christ was full of equal glory during his earthly existence. We must read further from Paul’s letter to expound more heavily on this principle.
“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7). Scholars report that the phrase “made himself of no reputation” comes from the Greek word ‘kenosis’ which translates “to make empty” (Ostler, Apostle Paul, His Life and His Testimony: The 1994 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament, ch. 9). Christ, being born into the world, wasn’t previously, ‘of no reputation,’ because the phrase uses the verb ‘made’ as he was previously full of something, but then ‘made’ himself empty.
Craig Ostler takes the phrase further and asks what it was that Jesus Christ emptied himself. He then refers to Doctrine and Covenants. “And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:12-14 emphasis added).
According to this scripture, Jesus Christ held not a fullness of glory preemptively in his life. This idea may be in opposition to Daillé’s thoughts about Christ’s earthly ministry. “Therefore, it was the fulness of glory that Christ had enjoyed in his premortal state of which he emptied himself in being born into mortality” (Ostler, Apostle Paul, His Life and His Testimony: The 1994 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament, ch. 9).
Why has Paul taken the time to mention this statement to the Philippians? He was expounding on the atonement and the measures that were involved to complete such a supernal gift. We gather from here, that Christ was not only divine before he entered mortal life, but he was equal with God. Paul is telling us that an atonement for mankind must be performed by someone like God—someone greater than a mere man, who was the ability to take upon himself the punishment for sin. Paul, earlier, had said, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Death comes from the mortal man, Adam, while life comes from the exalted being, Jesus Christ.
And yet, while in life, Ostler says, Christ was divested of his glory. He was made to become as mortal man, with all the same afflictions of sufferings that humans suffer. “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). Paul specifically used the keywords “humbled” and “obedient” to show the importance of these characteristics. It also contrasts heavily with his earlier statement that Christ was equal with God. Idiomatically speaking, Jesus Christ stood at the top of the totem pole of the human family, but subsequently lowered himself to the bottom of the totem pole, in order to bring salvation to mankind.
Daillé, Jean & Sherman, James, An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (H. G. Bohn, 1843).
Ostler, Craig J., What is a Mortal Messiah?: Apostle Paul, His Life and His Testimony: The 1994 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament (Deseret Book, 1994).
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Who are you not to be?
A good friend gave me this quote:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
-Nelson Mandela
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
-Nelson Mandela
Gomenasai
Gomenasai = Sorry (Russian)
Mistakes and misdeeds are bound to happen. We often fail in living up to those around us. That's ok. All we need to do is learn how to say sorry.
Mistakes and misdeeds are bound to happen. We often fail in living up to those around us. That's ok. All we need to do is learn how to say sorry.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Trennung vs. Verbindung (Separation vs. Connection)
Trennung ist ein verwirrender Begriff benutzt um Objecte, Leute, Platze und Ideen zu beshreiben. Wim Wenders war so mutig die wahre Bedeutung von Trennung zum beschreiben—mit Bespielen ihre Existenz Gründe und Effekte. Die Existenz von Trennung in der Gesellschaft ist nicht so offen sichlich wir Leute denken, saft Wenders durch seinen Film. Auf der anderen seite, beshreibt und definiert Wenders auch den Begriff Verbindung. Beide diese Begriffe, Trennung und Verbindung sin dim Titel des Filmes, Der Himmel Über Berlin und In Weiter Ferne, So Nah.
In welcher Weise existiert Trennung in Filmen? Sie ist sehr offensichlich in Der Himmel Über Berlin, wenn die Kamera am Anfang des Filmes die zerbrochenen Leben vieler Leute in vershiedenen Apartments filmt. Mann sieht eine Mutter auf den Fahrrad die denkt, “Endlich verrückt.” Man sieht einen jungen Mann der laute Rockmusik hört während seine Gross Eltern in dem anderen Zimmer genervt sind. Man sieht ein Man in die Wohnung seiner toten Mutter gehen, der denkt dass sie nie seine Mutter war. Eine andere szene zeigt eine Frau, die ihren Mann anschreit während sie auf der Autobahn fahren. All diese kurzen Szenen zeigen Trennung.
Von diesem Anfang versteht Man dass Trennung Leute umgibt als wenn ihre Leben von Wänden umgeben warden. Man versteht auch dass Trennung oft negativ gesehen wird. Trennung existiert zwischen Deprimierten und Streitenden. Man sieht sie auch zwischen der alteren und der juneren Generation zwischen Männern und Frauen.
Diese Idee von Trennung ist sehr offensichlich in der Hauptgeschichte des Filmes in der Geshichte der Trennung der Engel von der Erde.
In both films, an angel, first Damiel then Cassiel become humans and face the hard reality of mortal existence. The angels are separated from humans, being immortal and invisible. Both of the main characters Damiel and Cassiel become hopeful in connecting with their human subjects. They seemed more connected to their subjects as angels by reading their thoughts. However, because they could not directly affect the lives of humans, they felt more disconnected and separated from mortal people than after they had become humans themselves and could act in a way that would change their new living world.
Damiel's experience evolves from an infatuation for a beautiful circus acrobat, Marion. He begins to follow her as an angel, taken notice of her thoughts and dreams. However, because he is not mortal, he cannot make contact with her. This propels him to make a decision that had already been welling up in him. Just before he became mortal, he said “Ich werde sie in den Arm nehmen. Sie wird mich in den Arm nehmen.”
Damiel encounters mortal life naively. He sets off to search for Marion, while passing through awkward moments. Finally, near the end of the first film, Marion and Damiel find each other and they immediately connect, as if they had already known each other. Because Damiel has now experienced mortal life, he has a greater capacity to connect with the people around him. He writes his last words, “Ich … weiss … jetzt, was … kein … Engel … weiss.”
Wenders defines one of the main causes of separation between people is misunderstanding. He spends an enormous amount of reel time, especially in the second film, discussing the Nazi’s effect on the German people. A driver ponders the borders around the German people caused by the 3rd Reich. “Jibt es noch Grenzen? Mehr den je… Das deutsche Volk ist in so viele Kleinstaaten zerfallen,” he says.
Wenders presents irony in the second Film, In Weiter Ferne, so Nah. During the Nazi reign, there existed such a unity among the German people as they had come together as one powerful nation. In essence, they were strongly connected. However, this “connection” rested on immoral principles. We learn about Nazi propaganda films and the Nazi degenerate art museums. Conversely, Wenders delves deeper into the meaning of connection and reveals that an important value are involved to create true connections among people. We here an angel’s voice at the end of the second film: “Wir sind nicht die Botschaft, wir sind die Boten. Die Botschaft ist die Liebe.”
Despite the reality that the angels couldn’t necessarily experience mortality as the humans, Wenders tells us that one of their main goals was to foster these connections. They knew that it was only through these connections that humans could relinquish themselves of pain and suffering. A depressed man sitting on the U-Bahn thinks of his wasted life. Damiel, sitting next to him, puts his hands on his shoulders granting a kind of spiritual comfort. The man’s thoughts change toward motivational thoughts and he sits up in his chair.
Separation also breeds doubt. Suppose you had a beautiful painting hanging on a wall in your home and one day it was stolen leaving the wall blank. You would most likely exhaust yourself to retrieve the painting. However, after months of looking for the thief, you begin to assume it is lost for good. Years later you have forgotten about the painting—it only flashes through your memory in passing. As you grow old, your mind becomes weary, and soon you have forgotten that you ever had a painting on the wall. You wouldn’t believe you had a painting unless someone showed it to you. What you cannot see, you do not believe—what you cannot touch is not real. Thus it is with the realm of angels and humans.
Cassiel deals with this problem as he becomes disconnected from the angels. Holding a liquor bottle, he cries out to the angel, Raphaela: “Wo bist du? … Gib mir ein Zeichen! Das ist doch kein Leben! … Nur was wir sehen können zählt, nur daran glauben wir, das Unsichtbare kommt nicht mehr an, nur was wir anfassen können, gibt es für uns auch wirklich.”
This form of separation deals not horizontally between humans, but vertically between the earthly and the heavenly. Ultimately, Wenders declares that man is lost and vain without his connection to the divine.
In welcher Weise existiert Trennung in Filmen? Sie ist sehr offensichlich in Der Himmel Über Berlin, wenn die Kamera am Anfang des Filmes die zerbrochenen Leben vieler Leute in vershiedenen Apartments filmt. Mann sieht eine Mutter auf den Fahrrad die denkt, “Endlich verrückt.” Man sieht einen jungen Mann der laute Rockmusik hört während seine Gross Eltern in dem anderen Zimmer genervt sind. Man sieht ein Man in die Wohnung seiner toten Mutter gehen, der denkt dass sie nie seine Mutter war. Eine andere szene zeigt eine Frau, die ihren Mann anschreit während sie auf der Autobahn fahren. All diese kurzen Szenen zeigen Trennung.
Von diesem Anfang versteht Man dass Trennung Leute umgibt als wenn ihre Leben von Wänden umgeben warden. Man versteht auch dass Trennung oft negativ gesehen wird. Trennung existiert zwischen Deprimierten und Streitenden. Man sieht sie auch zwischen der alteren und der juneren Generation zwischen Männern und Frauen.
Diese Idee von Trennung ist sehr offensichlich in der Hauptgeschichte des Filmes in der Geshichte der Trennung der Engel von der Erde.
In both films, an angel, first Damiel then Cassiel become humans and face the hard reality of mortal existence. The angels are separated from humans, being immortal and invisible. Both of the main characters Damiel and Cassiel become hopeful in connecting with their human subjects. They seemed more connected to their subjects as angels by reading their thoughts. However, because they could not directly affect the lives of humans, they felt more disconnected and separated from mortal people than after they had become humans themselves and could act in a way that would change their new living world.
Damiel's experience evolves from an infatuation for a beautiful circus acrobat, Marion. He begins to follow her as an angel, taken notice of her thoughts and dreams. However, because he is not mortal, he cannot make contact with her. This propels him to make a decision that had already been welling up in him. Just before he became mortal, he said “Ich werde sie in den Arm nehmen. Sie wird mich in den Arm nehmen.”
Damiel encounters mortal life naively. He sets off to search for Marion, while passing through awkward moments. Finally, near the end of the first film, Marion and Damiel find each other and they immediately connect, as if they had already known each other. Because Damiel has now experienced mortal life, he has a greater capacity to connect with the people around him. He writes his last words, “Ich … weiss … jetzt, was … kein … Engel … weiss.”
Wenders defines one of the main causes of separation between people is misunderstanding. He spends an enormous amount of reel time, especially in the second film, discussing the Nazi’s effect on the German people. A driver ponders the borders around the German people caused by the 3rd Reich. “Jibt es noch Grenzen? Mehr den je… Das deutsche Volk ist in so viele Kleinstaaten zerfallen,” he says.
Wenders presents irony in the second Film, In Weiter Ferne, so Nah. During the Nazi reign, there existed such a unity among the German people as they had come together as one powerful nation. In essence, they were strongly connected. However, this “connection” rested on immoral principles. We learn about Nazi propaganda films and the Nazi degenerate art museums. Conversely, Wenders delves deeper into the meaning of connection and reveals that an important value are involved to create true connections among people. We here an angel’s voice at the end of the second film: “Wir sind nicht die Botschaft, wir sind die Boten. Die Botschaft ist die Liebe.”
Despite the reality that the angels couldn’t necessarily experience mortality as the humans, Wenders tells us that one of their main goals was to foster these connections. They knew that it was only through these connections that humans could relinquish themselves of pain and suffering. A depressed man sitting on the U-Bahn thinks of his wasted life. Damiel, sitting next to him, puts his hands on his shoulders granting a kind of spiritual comfort. The man’s thoughts change toward motivational thoughts and he sits up in his chair.
Separation also breeds doubt. Suppose you had a beautiful painting hanging on a wall in your home and one day it was stolen leaving the wall blank. You would most likely exhaust yourself to retrieve the painting. However, after months of looking for the thief, you begin to assume it is lost for good. Years later you have forgotten about the painting—it only flashes through your memory in passing. As you grow old, your mind becomes weary, and soon you have forgotten that you ever had a painting on the wall. You wouldn’t believe you had a painting unless someone showed it to you. What you cannot see, you do not believe—what you cannot touch is not real. Thus it is with the realm of angels and humans.
Cassiel deals with this problem as he becomes disconnected from the angels. Holding a liquor bottle, he cries out to the angel, Raphaela: “Wo bist du? … Gib mir ein Zeichen! Das ist doch kein Leben! … Nur was wir sehen können zählt, nur daran glauben wir, das Unsichtbare kommt nicht mehr an, nur was wir anfassen können, gibt es für uns auch wirklich.”
This form of separation deals not horizontally between humans, but vertically between the earthly and the heavenly. Ultimately, Wenders declares that man is lost and vain without his connection to the divine.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Secularism--intolerance
"Those who espouse secularism – who would like everyone to see the world through “unbiased” eyes - will stop at nothing until everyone accepts their view. That is the definition of intolerance."
--Andrew Heim
--Andrew Heim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
