Below are links to my new screencast lecture, God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament. It is based on a talk I gave in May 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. An actual video of that talk has been posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. I wasn’t reading from a script, so the versions are a bit different.
Part 1:
Part 2: Continue reading »
(click for image credit)
“And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man.”
- 1 Corinthians 15:19-21 (NLT)
Last time we carefully read through a heavenly scene in which Jesus is exalted to God’s side and worshiped alongside him.
We saw that it is indisputable that Revelation 4-5 holds forth Jesus as worthy of being worshiped.
But can this help us choose between the dueling arguments from the first post? Yes!
Given that we accept that Jesus ought to be worshiped, we must choose between Only God should be worshiped and Jesus isn’t God because we can’t consistently accept both of these, in addition to the claim that Jesus ought to be worshiped.
Based on our careful reading (Part 2, Part 3) of Revelation 4-5, let us ask which of these John would agree with?
Would John agree that only God should be worshiped?
Plainly not.
(click for image credit)
Last time, in chapter 4, our author (a “John” – 1:1) was granted a vision of God in heaven, receiving worship in his throne room.
In chapter 5, God – the one on the throne – is holding a sealed up scroll – a scroll which we later find out (ch. 6-9) contains his future plans. This is what the author was promised at the start of chapter 4 – that he’d be shown the future (4:1), again, something we know from Isaiah is the prerogative of God alone.
No one is found worthy to open it, and John is bummed. Someone tells him,
“Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Lamb. Who? We’ve met him before – it is Jesus, the one through whom Continue reading »
(click for image credit)
What does Revelation imply about God, Jesus, and worship?
In Revelation chapter 4, the author is granted a heavenly vision:
After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. (ESV, emphases throughout are added)
Awesome. Who could this be? There follows a description of the setting and the heavenly court. Featured are some wierd heavenly beings singing,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Right – this is Yahweh. All of this is very reminiscient of the vision in Isaiah chapter 6:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
“LORD” here is the proper name Yahweh. So this is who Isaiah saw. And this, the author of Revelation is telling us, who he now sees in his vision. Much in the vision is similar to the visions in Ezekiel 1 and 10. There too, the prophet sees God himself.
If the point wasn’t clear enough in Revelation 4, some worship this one on the throne, saying,
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
This recalls well-known passages later in Isaiah, were Yahweh asserts that he’s the only true God, and the only creator.
Note finally that the author here nowhere says the one on the throne is a man, although one imagines the character as humanoid – I mean, appearing to be similar to a man – he does sit enthtroned here, and in the next chapter he’s got a scroll in his right hand. Of course, he’s assumed to be a self here too. He has a will, he performs intentional actions like creating, and he can be addressed and worshiped.
He’s a glorious and powerful being here, but the author demurs from directly describing him. I think that’s why a good portrayal of this scene has a sort of non-descript person on the throne, e.g. with no articulated face, as in the picture here (which is really of Revelation 5, subject of my next post).
Pictured here is Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone (a.k.a. St. Francis of Assisi, d. 1226 ) – my photo of a 19th c. statue from southern Arizona, probably well worn from processions and general fondling. I understand that he started, or at least popularized the building of manger scenes.
I remember reading his early biographies some years ago. I never could decide what to think: whether he was extremely holy, mentally ill, or both. Once a well known Christian philosopher who works in medieval philosophy described St. Francis to me as “a stinker” – I think the meaning was a sort of drama queen or manipulator. So that’s another option. 
But I remain perplexed.
Went to a Christmas eve service tonight. At one point the pastor said that the incarnation – that God became a human being – makes no sense to us, yet at some level we – i.e. all we Christians – believe it. If I were less tired, or in a different mood, this would induce a whole series of rants/lectures from me. But, not tonight. I will just say: I am grateful that God sent us his only Son, the perfect representation of him and sure way to him.
After the jump: another pic taken at the same place as the Francis pic. This time, someone indisputably both holy and sane, also celebrated Catholic-style. Merry Christmas! Continue reading »
For those who enjoyed my previous posts (here and here) on avatars in Hinduism, here’s something I’ve done recently for a class I’m teaching – excerpts of the long (78 part!) ultra-hit Indian tv series Ramayan into movie form. (Here’s the whole series.) Yes, I watched the whole thing, over a couple of months, so you don’t have to. Grab some popcorn and check it out. My notes in the comment below will help you to bridge the plot-gaps.
This doesn’t directly have to do with Christian theology. My interest here was to illustrate the Hindu tradition for my students, specifically a popular, present-day, devotional Vaishnavite form.
Still, one can fruitfully apply philosophical analysis and comparison with Christian theology here:
One answer: the Messiah.
Another answer: here. (HT: kingdomready.)
Evidently, Fred Sanders isn’t the only theological cartoonist out there. But I do prefer his cuddly lecturing bear Dr. Doctrine.
Commenters: please link your best God, Trinity, or Jesus related cartoons. Only requirements: that they be at least mildy amusing, and not too offensive.
Re: “Herman & Nudix“. True story: in Christian college c. 1990, some yahoo buddies and I ran an imaginary person for Student Association President. Made up a hilarious trifold campaign handout, and other silly promotional materials. He got 4% of the vote. His name: Herman Ootics (full name: Herman J. Ootics III). Yeah, some theology nerds got a kick out of that name. I should post the awesome pic we used some time.
Call me late to the party. As someone who usually has his nose in a book, I didn’t run out to see The Da Vinci Code. From what I knew of the Bible and Christian history, along with reviews of the book and movie, I could tell that it was ludicrous.
Just recently, out of morbid curiosity, since it’s available free online, I watched all three hours of it.
Yes, the stupid, it BURNS! Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Hanks mumbles and lurches his way through the movie, like an unkempt Dennis Miller on downers. He was much better in… just about anything else he’s done.
The movie alternates between competent chase scenes, talky sleep-inducing scenes, and scenery chewing by evil, murderous, self-hating, conniving, comic book Catholic villains.
It’s directed by Opie, no less. And he seemed like such a nice kid!
At the end of the movie, the two main characters are reflecting on Jesus, in light of the cockamamie yarn they’ve just lived through. Saith, Hanks’s character: Continue reading »
Since I’m posting mildly entertaining nonsense lately, here’s a video from the, ahem, legendary Winterband. (Steve Winter, not Edgar & I assume, no relation), playing to a packed out basement (his own). Click if you dare.
Winterband is a power duo in reality, although Steve plays in three “persons”. (We must use this term, as we have none better.) Steve 1 plays lead and sings. Steve 2 plays rhythm. Steve 3 plays bass. And yet Continue reading »
Wasn’t expecting to find the Trinity on my late-night Walmart run!
Actually, a pair of “trinities”, with co-equal prices.
Decorating the mantle or end-table with religious statues has never been more affordable.
I know you’re intrigued by these low, low prices. If you live in Tucson, Arizona, you might be able to get the last ones.
I don’t know what the deal is with Jesus’ knee and calf. Does anybody out there get it? (click picture for close-up)
Did he take a bazooka hit, or what?
Or maybe he’s just karate-kneed Satan bloody?
Or perhaps he jumped on a live grenade, saving not only the other 2/3 of the Trinity, but the little foot-rest cherubs as well.
Jesus is MELTING!
Looking for a present for that theology geek in your life?
Wear your modalism in t-shirt form.
Is this one also modalistic? Discuss. This one surely is.
“Social” trinitarians may prefer this one.
And: for your skate-boarding needs.
Something for paradox lovers and fans of non-standard logics (explanation). Similarly, for people who also like Escher.
Fan of the multiple personality analogy? Look no further.
Here’s the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (sort of) in shirt form.
Then there’s a glaring theological non sequitur, in mug form. And another one, this time on a shirt.
Babies too. People who need help with spelling. Even anti-trinitarians can get in on the action. Happy little monkeys. And people with non-standard “trinities”.
Props to the commenter who can discern the intended message of this one. Or this one. Or this one.
And there’s wearable proof (-texts) that Jesus is God. Lastly, if Jesus just is God, and it was God who miraculously impregnated Mary, then… (Please, no complaints – I’m just the messenger.)
Wasn’t that a fun bit of time wasting? The internet and capitalism rule.
(PS – None of these sellers are affiliated in any way with trinities, nor do I or we get any cut of the $ – this post is just for our mutual amusement.)
Father, Son, Holy Spirit?
A professor friend emailed me recently:
I’ve lately been reading a book (at a student’s request) …a piece of bad Christian fiction called “The Shack” by William P. Young. … it might interest you in light of your trinitarian research. The persons of the Trinity make an appearance in the story: God the Father as a large black woman, God the Son as middle-Eastern carpenter (go figure!), and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman. I’m certain that there’s heresy lurking nearby.
Just thought I’d pass it along. It is apparently gaining some popularity among some segments of the evangelical subculture – hence, my student’s request that I read it. (link and emphases added)
I can’t speak to the book’s artistic merits, but I’ll trust my friend on that. As to theological merits, heresy or not, there’s certainly social trinitarianism lurking nearby! 
Who would’ve guessed the Divine Society was so “diverse”? At least they let Jesus remain male… And it arguably beats the gay men’s chorus.
According to this much read review, this society is also maximally egalitarian (see the Trinity section of the review).
Update: a more sympathetic review at Christianity Today.
I’ve always been interested in not only what intellectuals think about the Trinity, but also about what ordinary Christians think. Thus, this is an interesting find – five helpful wikites step in to wiki-answer the following important questions:
WikiAnswers – What is the trinity and could you be a Christian and not believe in the trinity
I’ll save you some trouble, distilling the answers down into 80-proof folk-wisdom, taking the second question first. Continue reading »
The trinity occurs at :55 and 1:13. Even sorta looks like a church. There’s other rich trinitarian imagery there as well, for those with eyes to see.
Impossibly beautiful. Literally. (image credit)
Check it out: a whole site and blog devoted to art featuring impossible objects!
I can’t help but think that the picture above had a trinitarian inspiration: according to the babelfish, it means “You must in such a way live”. (German speaking readers – feel free to correct the translation.) I read this as addressed to the Trinity.
If so, this pic would be an expression of what I call “positive mysterianism” about the Trinity – that the doctrine is, unavoidably given our current epistemic situation, apparently contradictory.
Related: a website where you can print and build your own “impossible” object. (HT: Matthew Mullins) Note to modal logic newbies: necessarily, if it is actual, then it is possible as well. Still, this shows that note everything which seems logically impossible really is.
Technorati Tags: impossible, impossible figures, mystery, mysterian, impossible Trinity
So that’s where the magic is.
People interested in ancient heresies – you have to check out this, by “Probably the world’s greatest systematic theologian cartoonist.”
Jack T. Chick has got nothing on our friend Fred! Nice work, Fred.
Background: Fred is goofing on a long-extinct sect that was famously embraced by St. Augustine (354-430 CE) prior to his conversion to Christianity. Augustine left them after discovering that their much-vaunted wise men simply didn’t have answers to his questions. If only those guys had the benefit of cartoons – “It’s all so simple!”
Technorati Tags: Fred Sanders, Christian cartoons, Manichaeism, Mani, manichean, Augustine, St. Augustine, Augustine of Hippo
Can’t make this stuff up: The Brick Testament: Holy Trinity
Natch, a Trinity of comments:
Technorati Tags: Trinity art, lego Trinity
He’s baaaaack. A smokier, bluesier, dirtier “Trinity Schminity”. Now in basement music video form! Apparently there’s been some big shakeup in the band. Their website says “we are now a Christian father and son band”. Mother and daughter, we hardly knew ye. 
Thankfully, they’re still “100% monotheist”. And they still ROCK.
Get it? Winter has made himself a phony Trinity. “Bobo” and “Hayseed” are a LIE!!! Don’t believe in them, please. Seriously. Don’t. I SAID DON’T. “You can’t just make up gods as you go along…” Neither may you make up Steve Winters.
Are they Is he singing “Sminity” or “Schminity”? Serious fans like me need to know. See the previous edition for lyrical analysis.
Below the fold: bonus material! Continue reading »
Four vivid, moving, memorable depictions of Love.
A post on some previous post commentary – no one can navel-gaze like a philosopher! Here’s a pictorial recap, and some additional thoughts on the comments here, in response to Scott and JT. The point of all this: we’re exploring why people who call themselves “social trinitarians” don’t like what they call “Latin” theories, and specifically the claim that those “Latin” theories can’t do justice to the loving relationships between the persons of the Trinity. Continue reading »