Last week I posted an entry for the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project which covered all of Luke chapter 15. As part of his parable, Jesus used the story of the lost sheep. It was apparently a favorite story because Jesus also uses it in Matthew 18:

“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? And if it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.”

(Matt. 18:12-14, NASB)

As with his use of this analogy in Luke 15:4-7, Jesus is making use of a fortiori reasoning. Unlike Luke 15, Jesus is not responding to hostile complaints from the religious leaders. This time, he is using it teach his disciples about the value of little children.

His disciples had come to him with one thing on their minds; how to become big shots in heaven. Jesus responds by having a small child stand with them while he explains that they need to become as humble as little children to even enter heaven. He then gives two explanations of how valuable little children are to God. The second is the story of the lost sheep.

The reasoning is simple. Men of New Testament times had a highly developed understanding of how important sheep were to them. (See the article on Luke 15 for more details.) By contrasting the value of a sheep with a little child — certainly more valuable than any sheep — Jesus was able to make it clear where God’s priorities lay.

This entry has been posted to the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project.

Last Wednesday, Rand of a pattern of sound words wrote a post comparing Romanism (normally known as Roman Catholocism) to Biblical Christianity. Funky Dung of Ales Rarus was (understandably) offended by Rand’s characterization of Romanism as “a wicked false religion.” So he weighed in with his response, saying several things which demand a reply.

Mary‘s Status

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus was born of a sinless, perfect mother, who is declared the ‘Queen of Heaven’.

Biblical Christinity - Jesus was born of a kind, godly woman, but still a sinner by birth and choice (Luke 1:26-38).

Funky Dung’s response:
The best explanation I have ever heard for Mary’s sinless conception was from a Rabbi. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God on earth. It could only be safely approached and touched by ritually clean priests at certain times of the year. Mary was the ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:26-28). Her preservation from Original Sin, as well as actual sin, does not, as some suggest, imply that she did not need Christ’s saving grace, made possible by the cross. God is not bound by time. He created it. Thus, Mary received at her conception the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice.

The idea that Mary had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus is an idea I had never really considered before. So it seems to me that the question is, “Did Mary have to be sinless in order to carry Jesus?”

To be honest, after considering it, I don’t see that it was a problem that Mary was imperfect. First of all, I don’t know of any verses which say that Mary had to be sinless. More importantly, if you compare the Old Testament to the New Testament, you will see a marked difference in how God interacts with humanity.

In the Old Testament, God always acted through an intermediary. Of all the Old Testament prophets, Moses was the closest to God, and even he — though he was in God’s presence several times — never actually saw God’s face.

But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

(Ex. 33:20-23, NASB)

Interaction with God was marked by infrequent contact and separation. The Levites were designated as intermediaries, engaging in rituals to make themselves as clean as possible and presenting offerings on behalf of the general populace. Only the Head Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that was only once a year. There were strict rules about contact with “unclean” objects and people.

In contrast, the ministry of Jesus is marked by his intimate contact with people. He hung out with the dregs of the earth.

“And it came about that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax-gatherers and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Mark 2:15-17, NASB)

He spent significant amounts of time in crowds, teaching and healing the sick and “unclean.” He wasn’t afraid to touch lepers. Contact with such people did not make Jesus “unclean,” on the contrary, Jesus’ “super clean” nature made the “unclean” clean.

During Jesus’ time on earth, He was destroying the separation between God and man.

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, Show us the Father?”

(John 14:6-9, NASB)

At this point, Jesus was telling His disciples that they were face to face with God. They were intimates with God in a way that Moses never was. Yet the formal separation between God and man was still in place.

God marked the formal end of this separation in an extremely vivid manner:

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

(Mark 15:37-38, NASB)

Is it unreasonable to think that if God/Jesus was in intimate contact with “sinners” before the formal end of that separation then there would be no problem with intimate contact with Mary in spite of her own sins?

If anything, the Bible implies that it was necessary for Mary to be a sinner. Consider this passage in Galations:

But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

(Gal. 4:4-5, NASB)

The entire passage containing these verses is instructive. In Galations 3-4, Paul is explaining how all men were cursed and living under the law, leading to sin and death, and how Christ rescued us from that curse. Notice that these two verses simply state that Christ had to be born “under the Law” as a prerequisite for Him to be able to redeem us. Romans 5:12-21 also strongly contrasts “under the law” against “under grace”.

Make sure you take time to study Galations 3-4 and Romans 5:12-21. I will be returning to them in part three.

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

The central tenant of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, He was crucified on a cross and rose again on the third day. In other words, it’s an actual historical event. As Paul said:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

(1Cor. 15:14-19, NASB)

If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an actual historical event, then the entire belief system of Christianity is a sham. This key fact is primary reason why the historical accuracy of the Bible is constantly attacked by skeptics.

Among the various pieces of historical narrative in the Bible is the story of King David, kingdom Israel at its peak and their conflict with Edom. Skeptics have claimed that Edom didn’t exist until 200 years after David lived and that Kind David himself was nothing more than a tribal chieftan.

Archeologists have confirmed that the Bible is actually historically accurate on this point. “Archeologist unearths biblical controversy”

Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton’s McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East — unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible’s vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.

Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament’s narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.

This last sentence is misleading because it implies that this is the first time any of the Bible’s historical narrative has been proven true, which is far from the case. I cannot run down a list of every detail which has been proven true because, quite frankly, I don’t know them all and at the moment I’m out of time to track down references.

One detail that I remember is that one of the nations mentioned in the Bible — I’m pretty sure it was the Hittites — was widely considered to be a “myth of the Bible” because there wasn’t any evidence that they had ever existed; that is, until sometime in the early to mid 1900’s when archeologists discovered proof that they actually did exist.

The existence of one of the rulers involved in Jesus’ crucifixion — I think it was Pontius Pilate — was also considered to be a myth, until a coin with his image on it was found.

The Bible is much more than a book of mere religious platitudes and “spiritual” beliefs. It is also a book describing actual historical events, and as such, the accuracy of its claims can be verified. For more on this subject, look here, here, here, and here.

(HT to The Black Kettle for the link to the main article.)

In chapter 15, Luke records Jesus’ answer to complaints about the kind of people he was spending time with:

Now all the tax-gatherers and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” And He told them this parable, saying, “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it?”

(Luke 15:1-4, NASB)

“Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?”

(Luke 15:8, NASB)

And He said, “A certain man had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ And he divided his wealth between them. “And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.”

(Luke 15:11-13, NASB)

As this chapter opens, Jesus has been teaching a large crowd. The Pharisees notice that a bunch of unsavory characters have gotten close to Jesus so they can hear him better. It was common practice in those days for the “scum of the earth” to be shunned. No one reputable was to have anything to do with them, let alone eat with them. The Pharisees were the most “reputable” group of their day; kind of like Congressmen and Senators today.

So they begin to complain. “Look at him! He hangs out with prostitutes, IRS agents, homosexuals, child molesters, terrorist and even spammers! He even goes out to dinner with them! No reputable person would be caught dead even being seen with such reprobates, yet he encourages them! He must be scum too.” Okay, so it wasn’t those exact words or categories, but that’s the modern equivalent of their complaints. Their complaints were basically true. He did spend time with such people. Only their conclusion was wrong.

Jesus responds with a three part parable. Part 1 is the lost sheep. Part 2 is the woman with the lost coin. Part 3 is the story of the prodigal son. All three parts are an example of a fortiori reasoning.

In parts 1 and 2, Jesus begins by asking a question; an example of anthypophora reasoning. In each case, he is asking his listeners what they would do if they lost something which they considered valuable.

First he asked the men what they would do if they discovered that 1 of their 100 sheep was missing. To a shepherd of that time sheep were his livelihood. Without them, he would starve. Shepherds would also commonly watch sheep owned by other families in the region. He pointed out that any shepherd who was missing a sheep would leave the 99 who were safely penned up for the night. They would go out to the open pasture which was very dangerous at night due to wild animals, robbers and hazards such as cliffs and holes which were very difficult to see in the dark. In short, any shepherd would risk his life to find a missing sheep because only a fool would casually dismiss a missing sheep.

Then he asked the women about losing a silver coin. There were two basic reasons why losing such a coin would be disastrous to a woman.

First, a silver coin was the equivalent of one or two days’ wages. Imagine how hard you would search if you misplaced the cash equivalent of two days’ wages!

The second level of value to a woman is that in those days, a woman wasn’t given a ring when they married. Her husband would give her a string of 10 silver coins which she would wear in her hair. Losing one of those coins would be the equivalent of misplacing her wedding ring. Furthermore, it was the custom in those days for a man to temporarily take one or more of those coins from his wife if she displeased him — subject only to the husband’s discretion. (Burning a piece of toast was sufficient cause for some husbands to remove a woman’s marriage coin.) So losing a coin could subject a woman to ridicule and gossip from other women.

As in the first part, the woman in Jesus’s story also goes to a great deal of trouble and expense to find the coin. Houses of the time usually had dirt floors, making such a search very difficult. Furthermore, the oil used for lamps was very expensive, so the lamps would only be lit in an emergency.

Jesus then continues on to tell the story of the prodigal son. The father in this story has two sons. One son demands his inheritance, then wastes it all and puts his life into the toilet. After he realizes how stupid he has been, he returns to his father who promptly throws a huge party. When the faithful son complains, the father replies with:

“And he said to him, ‘My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

(Luke 15:31-32, NASB)

The clear a fortiori logic for these three parts is that if a person will make extreme efforts for a lesser item like a sheep or a coin, then lost people certainly deserve extreme efforts to rescue them — including spending extravagant amounts of time with them rather than sending them away. Meanwhile, those who are not lost do not need such efforts.

This entry has been posted to the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project.

I find the art of making movies fascinating. I’m one of those weird people who likes to watch the special features on how a movie was made; sometimes before I actually watch the movie itself! There are many different styles, skills and techniques involved. One of the most difficult types of movie to make well is hand drawn animation.

The animators of those movies spend hours and hours drawing characters one frame at a time. (One second of film requires 24 frames.)

The animators face many challenges in making the character “work” correctly. They’re drawing a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional character. Each frame must relate correctly to the previous frame to create the illusion of smooth motion. Mouth movements must match the timing of the actor’s pre-recorded voices. Facial expressions must match the character’s emotions. Body movements must appear relatively natural. Even character designs must bear some similarity to real life creatures they are supposed to represent.

When animation is done well, the viewing experience is almost magical for the audience, transporting them into the world of the story. But if done poorly, the animation can become a distraction from the story and can ruin the viewing experience.

Animators have developed a wide variety of techniques over the years to aid them in their quest for high quality animation. They look at and draw people of all shapes and sizes. If they’re drawing animals, they visit a zoo or some other place where they can actually see the animals and how they move. They video tape those animals and people. When a character is designed, the designers create a three dimensional model — called a maquette — of the character. It is common for actors to be video taped as they record their lines. When figuring out how a character’s body needs to move, animators often shoot video of themselves acting out the part.

At the animator’s desk, you will usually see the maquette sitting in a prominent location. You will also see a mirror which the animator uses to check his own expressions. As the animator is drawing you will see them flipping back and forth between the frame they’re drawing and the previous couple of frames; sometimes as often as two or three times for each frame.

All of these techniques share one thing in common. They are all references the animators look at extensively to make sure their drawings look right. They study those reference materials constantly, checking them if there is even the slightest question of how something should look. Though I don’t know for sure, when you consider the hours spent studying character designs, video tape, and test sketches it appears that animators actually spend significantly more time checking their references than actually drawing.

This was the image that came to mind after considering 2 Corinthians 3:18:

But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

(2Cor. 3:18, NASB)

The concept of the passage of scripture preceding this verse is that before we turn to the Lord, we unable to understand Him. But thanks to the sacrifice of Christ, that veil of misunderstanding is removed when we turn to Him. As Christians, we can now see and understand His character.

Just as those animators need to constantly refer back to their reference materials, we also have the opportunity and need to refer back to the ultimate in reference materials: God‘s image in the mirror of scripture. I wonder what this world would be like if those of us with “unveiled faces” spent as much time looking at the image of God as animators spend looking at their references.