Hey Forklifters!!
We're on for this coming Monday at the Chatsworth abode. Come on out to get started at 7:15.
For us guys, we didn't really get any Bible discussion in at our last meeting. Too many people missing, too much other stuff to talk about, and too many good NCAA finals basketball games on TV. Scott S., Andrew E., Jamie L., and Bill S. were there, and we prayed for each other to close our time.
So, this week, we're back into John, and we'll cover the section of John 4 that Scott had planned for last time. Scott won't be there, as he's traveling in Europe right now, so I'll facilitate the discussion. To prep, just review the questions Scott asked in his last blog, and read over the chapter again. Remember, the discussion really works best if you're all familiar with the passage and have taken time to think through the questions. It's only 1 chapter of the word, and it's an important one!
If ya'll could pitch in to bring snacks, that would be great, since I'll be hosting and prepping the study. Thanks! See you Monday, if not before. You're all invited to come to CityWalk Saturday night. We're meeting at church at 5:30, then dinner at Buca di Beppo and a fun scavenger hunt. Bring $20 for din.
Peace!
Sperks
Friday, April 13, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Last week wrap up and much, much more
So apparently it has already been two weeks since our last meeting? I can't believe it!
Let's recap though and talk about our next meeting as well.
Last week Andrew opened with a prayer that focused on the deaths in the news that day, or more systemically, about the loss of life and our grasp upon the numbers of men and women who die. He chose a number, 200, and we prayed for a period of time in silence counting up to that number to try to appreciate their lives and their families loss.
We then all read chapter 3 in unison. Andrew's topic of discussion centered around vs. 17-21 and about how the the world sees Christ as a condemner, and not a savior, and what role we play in that opinion. We also talked about the meaning of someone who is in the light, versus someone who is not in the light.
For Monday, we will focus on three sections of chapter four.
4:10 "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to 'give me a drink,' you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water"
-Where does this term living water come from? How is Christ the living water, literally and figuratively.
-What is it that people ask God for and what is God looking to truly give.
-Briefly speaking about The rock that is struck twice and how that relates to us today.
4:20b "They say that in Jerusalem is the place where one OUGHT to worship"
-Where ought we worship and how does Spirit and Truth play a part in our worship?
-St Augustine said"God is closer to us, than we are to ourselves." How does that reality reveal how we should worship?
-Why were the Samaratins despised, and why did they worship at Gerizim?
4:35b-4:36a"Behold I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest. And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life..."
-Are only white people able to be saved?
-What is the economy of grace in relation to the concept of compensation?
-What might our fruit look like in our understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven, and how does that concept play a part in our lives today.
I look forward to seeing you all as I always do. You guys help push me through the week.
Let's recap though and talk about our next meeting as well.
Last week Andrew opened with a prayer that focused on the deaths in the news that day, or more systemically, about the loss of life and our grasp upon the numbers of men and women who die. He chose a number, 200, and we prayed for a period of time in silence counting up to that number to try to appreciate their lives and their families loss.
We then all read chapter 3 in unison. Andrew's topic of discussion centered around vs. 17-21 and about how the the world sees Christ as a condemner, and not a savior, and what role we play in that opinion. We also talked about the meaning of someone who is in the light, versus someone who is not in the light.
For Monday, we will focus on three sections of chapter four.
4:10 "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to 'give me a drink,' you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water"
-Where does this term living water come from? How is Christ the living water, literally and figuratively.
-What is it that people ask God for and what is God looking to truly give.
-Briefly speaking about The rock that is struck twice and how that relates to us today.
4:20b "They say that in Jerusalem is the place where one OUGHT to worship"
-Where ought we worship and how does Spirit and Truth play a part in our worship?
-St Augustine said"God is closer to us, than we are to ourselves." How does that reality reveal how we should worship?
-Why were the Samaratins despised, and why did they worship at Gerizim?
4:35b-4:36a"Behold I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest. And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life..."
-Are only white people able to be saved?
-What is the economy of grace in relation to the concept of compensation?
-What might our fruit look like in our understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven, and how does that concept play a part in our lives today.
I look forward to seeing you all as I always do. You guys help push me through the week.
Monday, March 19, 2007
meeting #3
Hi guys, sorry I didn't get a chance to put up some notes about our last meeting.
I'll see if I can find a few spare minuets today to maybe get some up.
But for tonight's meeting we're in chapter 3 and we'll be focusing mainly on the 2nd half of the chapter, verses 22-36.
I'll see if I can find a few spare minuets today to maybe get some up.
But for tonight's meeting we're in chapter 3 and we'll be focusing mainly on the 2nd half of the chapter, verses 22-36.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Proof versus Faith
Recently (although not really since this was first announced in the 70s) the Discovery Channel aired an "expose" which claimed to abnegate the claims of the biblical account of the resurrection of Christ, or if nothing else, his ascension through the clouds into Heaven. I think, with reasonable assurance that these claims are completely fallacious, and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and perhaps obviously so.
But this has gotten me to think about a few items that I thought I would share with you all for your contemplation:
If it were found to be true, would your faith be altered?
Secondly, I have observed that when scientific items come into question that throw doubt at common held Christian tenets , vis-a-ve the flood narrative, we dismiss their findings as stupidity--just another attempt by a leftist media and society to debunk the bible. Although these same principles of science we use to justify our views of the bible(as with the current Discovery Channel program)?
Can these two processes co-exist then? Science used to satisfy our world view, science ignored for items which do not?
Lastly, just for fun, check out this link:
edit
click here
seely fixed scott's link all you have to do it click on it
This video, so it is said, is scientific proof of a fallen angel.
But this has gotten me to think about a few items that I thought I would share with you all for your contemplation:
If it were found to be true, would your faith be altered?
Secondly, I have observed that when scientific items come into question that throw doubt at common held Christian tenets , vis-a-ve the flood narrative, we dismiss their findings as stupidity--just another attempt by a leftist media and society to debunk the bible. Although these same principles of science we use to justify our views of the bible(as with the current Discovery Channel program)?
Can these two processes co-exist then? Science used to satisfy our world view, science ignored for items which do not?
Lastly, just for fun, check out this link:
edit
click here
seely fixed scott's link all you have to do it click on it
This video, so it is said, is scientific proof of a fallen angel.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
New location for tomorrow's meeting
Hey friends,
I'm finally checking my voice mails for the first time
since last Thursday afternoon, and I'm getting a
fairly recent message from Andrew E about our meeting
tomorrow night. Andrew's suggestion is that we
relocate to the Lofgrens', as the Enns abode is not
quite ready to receive guests.
There have also been a few nudges toward moving the
meetings here to Chatsworth regularly so that the
Souzas can join us, the Jackan/Widneys don't have to
drive as far from Pasadena, and Lori doesn't have to
drive all the way from Santa Monica to Saugus or
Valencia. I'm generally open to the consensus but
suggest that we meet at Lofgrens' for tomorrow night,
provided that's OK with Jamie and Karen.
I'll post this message on the Forklifters blog, too,
just in case.
Hope to see you all Monday night by 7:15 at the
Lofgrens'.
Blessings~
Bill
I'm finally checking my voice mails for the first time
since last Thursday afternoon, and I'm getting a
fairly recent message from Andrew E about our meeting
tomorrow night. Andrew's suggestion is that we
relocate to the Lofgrens', as the Enns abode is not
quite ready to receive guests.
There have also been a few nudges toward moving the
meetings here to Chatsworth regularly so that the
Souzas can join us, the Jackan/Widneys don't have to
drive as far from Pasadena, and Lori doesn't have to
drive all the way from Santa Monica to Saugus or
Valencia. I'm generally open to the consensus but
suggest that we meet at Lofgrens' for tomorrow night,
provided that's OK with Jamie and Karen.
I'll post this message on the Forklifters blog, too,
just in case.
Hope to see you all Monday night by 7:15 at the
Lofgrens'.
Blessings~
Bill
Thursday, March 1, 2007
An additional note on 'carpenter' vs. 'rabbi'
Check out Mark 6, especially v.3. Jesus returns here to Nazareth, his hometown, and is rejected by those who have known him since his youth. In amazement, they say of him, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon..." Granted, their words are chiding and derogatory, in the sense that a man would normally be known as the son of his father rather than the son of his mother. (The mystery of his birth left some believing Jesus was a bastard.) But, that, too, has layered meaning in the text, especially considering that God was actually Jesus' father. Also, there is question about whether or not Joseph was still alive at this point in the narrative. Anyway, the point is that Jesus was known by these hometown neighbors as a carpenter. Not totally conclusive, but do with it as you will.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Minutes from our first study
Hey gents~ It was GREAT meeting with you guys last Monday night. I was close to tears at the beginning of our time together. It's a joyful experience to see us all in a circle enjoying fellowship time and reading the word together. Great stuff.
Here's just a brief recap of our discussion from John 1. After reading through the text together, Jamie began by asking about God's reason for including John the Baptist in the divine story. It wasn't something many of us had thought of, and it sparked a discussion about Jesus' vocation, the implications of disciples (the Greek word mathaitais), and the state of God's people during the intertestimental period (roughly 400 years between the last accounts in the OT and the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. For a fairly brief and good summary, check out http://www.gotquestions.org/intertestamental-period.html).
We also looked at verses 10-13 and talked about the meaning of those verses, discussing both ideas of predestination and John's interest in relating his presentation of Jesus to the response of the Jews (God's 'own people', v.11) and the openness of the gospel to Gentiles.
Justin suggested the importance of applying the text to our lives so that we seek after Jesus as the first disciples earnestly sought after him. Once we come to Christ in that way and recognize him as God by means of divine grace and faith, we should bring others to see him and know him as well. (Just as Philip did in 1:46. "Come and see.")
We talked about the wide range of titles John applies to Jesus, including Word (the Greek word logos), Christ, Son of God, King of Israel, Son of Man, Rabbi, and perhaps most uniquely, Lamb of God (more on that one this week!).
Paul mentioned the absence of the word 'belief' as a noun in the narrative and suggested we recognize the verbal aspect of believing as we go through the text.
Finally, we paid respects to John the Baptist for his willingness to humbly point to Jesus, even when he had the opportunity to claim glory for himself. Jesus was his own cousin, and John never got bogged down with jealousy and was never confused about his calling and his role.
To follow up on a few hanging questions and comments:
I looked up the reference to "the Prophet" that was stumping many of us. The best thing I've found is a reference in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 that would have led the Jews to believe that a prophet was coming from God who would speak the truth and provide God's word. The Jews in John 1 erred by separating the expected messiah from this "Prophet". Jesus fulfills both rolls.
Also, we talked back and forth a bit about 1:10 and whether or not the world knew or recognized Jesus. I said at one point that some DID in fact recognize him, so that this text should not be read literally. I've thought more about that, and I'm not sure I agree with myself. In reality, did anyone truly know or recognize Jesus' full identity while he was with them pre-crucifixion? Or, did it take the resurrection for people to truly and fully understand? It's a question worth discussion, and I think I'd actually err on the side of agreeing with John that noone truly knew him while he was in the world. Thought?
Thanks for reading this far. This is probably WAY more than you bargained for. If so, let me know, and I'll keep it shorter next time.
Agape~
Bill
Here's just a brief recap of our discussion from John 1. After reading through the text together, Jamie began by asking about God's reason for including John the Baptist in the divine story. It wasn't something many of us had thought of, and it sparked a discussion about Jesus' vocation, the implications of disciples (the Greek word mathaitais), and the state of God's people during the intertestimental period (roughly 400 years between the last accounts in the OT and the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. For a fairly brief and good summary, check out http://www.gotquestions.org/intertestamental-period.html).
We also looked at verses 10-13 and talked about the meaning of those verses, discussing both ideas of predestination and John's interest in relating his presentation of Jesus to the response of the Jews (God's 'own people', v.11) and the openness of the gospel to Gentiles.
Justin suggested the importance of applying the text to our lives so that we seek after Jesus as the first disciples earnestly sought after him. Once we come to Christ in that way and recognize him as God by means of divine grace and faith, we should bring others to see him and know him as well. (Just as Philip did in 1:46. "Come and see.")
We talked about the wide range of titles John applies to Jesus, including Word (the Greek word logos), Christ, Son of God, King of Israel, Son of Man, Rabbi, and perhaps most uniquely, Lamb of God (more on that one this week!).
Paul mentioned the absence of the word 'belief' as a noun in the narrative and suggested we recognize the verbal aspect of believing as we go through the text.
Finally, we paid respects to John the Baptist for his willingness to humbly point to Jesus, even when he had the opportunity to claim glory for himself. Jesus was his own cousin, and John never got bogged down with jealousy and was never confused about his calling and his role.
To follow up on a few hanging questions and comments:
I looked up the reference to "the Prophet" that was stumping many of us. The best thing I've found is a reference in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 that would have led the Jews to believe that a prophet was coming from God who would speak the truth and provide God's word. The Jews in John 1 erred by separating the expected messiah from this "Prophet". Jesus fulfills both rolls.
Also, we talked back and forth a bit about 1:10 and whether or not the world knew or recognized Jesus. I said at one point that some DID in fact recognize him, so that this text should not be read literally. I've thought more about that, and I'm not sure I agree with myself. In reality, did anyone truly know or recognize Jesus' full identity while he was with them pre-crucifixion? Or, did it take the resurrection for people to truly and fully understand? It's a question worth discussion, and I think I'd actually err on the side of agreeing with John that noone truly knew him while he was in the world. Thought?
Thanks for reading this far. This is probably WAY more than you bargained for. If so, let me know, and I'll keep it shorter next time.
Agape~
Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)