Halo 3 multiplayer strategy notes

My Bungie.net profile shows me some cool information. For example, it shows me a heatmap of every map in multiplayer so that I can see where I get the most kills and where I die the most. In essence, it tells me where I ought to head in the maps and where I ought to avoid so that I can be most effective.

Here are my notes that I will try to incorporate as I play and see if it works out:

Construct - left side facing sword by purple lift; stay away from
right side counterpart

Epitaph - stay away from middle beneath rockets

Foundry - no notes

Guardian - main room in front of lift; stay away from center

Highground - first and second level of the fort; stay away from gate

Isolation - stay away from center underground

Last Resort - between stairs and columns to the immediate right of
laser; stay away from right of main fort while facing beach

Narrows - light side top center in front of the blockade wall just
before ramps; stay away from blue side counterpart

Rat's Nest - middle near exit facing rockets; stay away from hammer

Sandtrap - no notes

Snowbound - center snowside; stay away from center room and laser tower

Standoff - center of map by the rocks facing the base on the cliff side; stay away from non cliff base

The Pit - left side facing sword in between high block in the pocket
and ramp; stay away from rocket alley

Valhalla - facing ocean left side by mongoose but stay away from the
nearby touret and don't go to the central hill

So, do you use the heatmaps through Bungie.net? If so, how do you incorporate it into your play?

Soundtrackgeek.com

Someone approached me on Last.fm and asked to be my friend. Although I don't usually accept friend requests from strangers, I made an exception to the rule for this particular one. Lo and behold, as I researched this person, I found out that he has a blog that has recently started at www.soundtrackgeek.com. He is an original motion picture score aficionado, even more than myself! If you like soundtrack scores, you definitely will want to check out this person's blog. I have placed a link to his blog in my sidebar. Happy New Year!

Create in me a clean heart - Psalm 51:10-12

Women in the Early Church

The following is the paper I submitted for my Early Church History research paper.




What was the role of women in the early church? How did their function in the church compare to the women in the rest of the Roman Empire? Until the church became a formal religious institution in the third century, women served the early church as leaders in a similar way to women who participated as leaders in other religions throughout the Roman Empire and in the New Testament. Studying the roles of women in the religions of the Roman Empire and New Testament will help us see that women were capable of being religious leaders.

Women in the Religions of the Roman Empire

Judaism

Historically, women did serve their communities as leaders in Judaism. Women were expected to function in the private not public realm of society; but outside of Palestine Jewish women had more opportunities to serve as leaders. There are “synagogue records, burial markers, inscriptions, and works of art” that show a noteworthy number of Jewish women who had a significant role in their congregations. During the late first century, women began seeing fewer roles in the public sphere. It was during that time that their societal and religious roles became more limited. It is quite difficult to find any Jewish texts that forbade women to teach during the first century. Around the late first century women were becoming limited to the private sphere, but it was not actually prohibited for women to teach or have authority. In fact, women were technically “qualified to function in virtually every way men functioned.” However, being qualified does not mean they were encouraged. Opinions were expressed stating that women should not be permitted to publicly read Scripture even though they were able.*1*

In several ways, women functioned in leadership roles in Judaism. Women were financial donors of local synagogues. Records demonstrate that women who supported the synagogues rose to significant status in their communities. Women could also be heads of synagogues and even elders in Judaism. It was a distinct privilege to be named the head of a synagogue, which was a high rank. However, since the responsibilities of the synagogue ruler included the upkeep of the synagogue building, the donors and the synagogue ruler were frequently connected. To be a donor was to be an authority at least alongside of the synagogue ruler. The synagogue ruler was also in charge of planning and leading the worship service. If a woman were a synagogue ruler, then she would have had the charge of directing the worship service in the synagogue. According to Luke 13:10-17, the synagogue ruler was also responsible for, it seems, “keeping the congregation faithful to the law.” Women could lead as elders. There are seven tomb inscriptions that identify women as elders. The word elder refers to a particular ruling group that had specific leadership roles, which included ruling on legal matters of the welfare for the community and functioning as the town council. The elders’ primary function was community leadership in Judaism. Women functioned as priestesses. Precisely what this means is unclear, but we do know that women could serve priestly functions without ever being given the title of priestess in the Old Testament. It is possible that women were given the title of priestess to note their liturgical contributions. If a woman came from a priestly lineage, it is possible that she would have been given the opportunity to read Scripture for the worship service in synagogues out of respect. Women functioned as mothers of the synagogue. It is unclear what the mothers and fathers of the synagogue did as leaders, but the father of the synagogue did have a higher rank than officials of the local ruling council. Other than that, we know very little about how the father or mother of the synagogue leadership role functioned. Although it was not to the same degree as men, Jewish women were capable of functioning as leaders. Historically speaking we do find that women served as leaders in Judaism.*2*

Greek and Roman Religions

In Greek and Roman society women were expected to be actively involved in the local and religious communities. The distinction between the public and privates spheres was not as well-defined in Greek and Roman society; therefore, through the persuasion of wealthy women, women gained a growing popularity on par with men in religion. Women held religious leadership roles and had power in the Roman Empire.*3*

Leadership roles were open to women in the religions of the Roman Empire. Women served as priestesses in the cults throughout the Roman Empire. Alongside priests, they were responsible for the sanctuary rituals and ceremonies, its maintenance, and its protection. Liturgically, priestesses were also responsible for ritual sacrifices, pronouncing the prayers, and presiding at the festivals of the deity. Women were identified as high priestesses in some cases, which is particularly important since the leadership role of high priest was only given to one male leader in a single city. Resorting to modern categories, we can say that women served as administrators, benefactors, and ministers throughout the pagan cults of the Roman Empire. Wealth and office were tied together for women.*4*

Positions of power were obtainable for women in the Roman Empire. It was expected for the top priestly offices to have the financial resources to cover civic and religious events. Women served in the social, political, and financial services of the Roman Empire alongside their male counterparts. Therefore, women were in a position to be in power in the Roman Empire. Women were perceived as equals with men in the cult of Isis. We must realize that women were not as religiously limited as we sometimes think during the first century. In other words, religions in the Roman Empire presented the model for male and female equality.*5*

When we consider women from the first century, we typically think they were severely limited in their religious involvement as leaders. However, women functioned as leaders of varying kinds in Jewish, Greek, and Roman religions, even though the ideal was for women to remain in the private sphere.*6*

Women in the New Testament

What roles, if any, did women have in the New Testament? We have seen that women in Judaism could be synagogue rulers, elders, financial supporters, mothers of the synagogues, and perhaps even priestesses. We have also seen that women could be priestesses, administrators, donors, and ministers in Greek and Roman religions. In the New Testament women were patrons, apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, deacons, worship leaders and widows.

The New Testament reveals that women served leadership roles in the church. Women functioned as patrons or financial supporters of house churches. It is likely that in their role as patrons they provided their home as a meeting place for the church. This practice was common for patrons of the Roman Empire. There are six accounts of patrons in the New Testament, and five of them involve women, which are Acts 12:12; 16:14-15; Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; and Philem. 2. When patrons opened their homes for the group to assemble, they were charged with the leadership of that group, including their legal liability. Note the first two verses in Philemon: “Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our dear friend and fellow-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow-soldier and to the church that meets in your home” (Philem. 1-2). Apphia is listed as one of the recipients of this letter, which means that she was a leader of the church at Colossae. Paul addressed the “church in your home.” Your is plural, indicating that the three recipients mentioned are the leaders of that church. Women were also apostles, at least in the sense of possessors of the gift of apostleship and church planters. Women were prophets as well. As women prophets, they would have served to convict sin, instruct, exhort, encourage, and guide in the decision-making process. Prophets were perceived as leaders in the church, since they were tied to messages of revelation. It is significant that Paul placed the prophetic role of women on par with the prophetic role of men so that women functioned as leaders. Women were also teachers. Teaching in the New Testament was not an authoritative role and it was not referenced in terms of public and private spheres. In fact, the entire congregation of the church in Colossae was exhorted to teach each other (Col. 3:16). The author of Hebrews expected that his recipients should have all been teachers in the faith (Heb. 5:12). However, teaching for women was limited by culture. Female teachers were rare. Yet no female or male is specifically given the title of teacher in the New Testament. Furthermore, teaching was associated with the prophets, but women were prophets in the same way that men were except for their attire. Additionally, women were evangelists or missionaries. The role of evangelists was at least a leadership role in Philippi where Euodia and Syntyche are identified as the leaders of the church and are called evangelists. Women also served as deacons. To be a deacon was to possess the gift of service or serving, and women such as Phoebe, functioned as deacons for the church. Women were also worship leaders as people of prayer in cooperation with the community of which they were a part. They were also ministering widows that functioned to support various needs in the church. Women were sometimes multi-gifted and were able to fill multiple leadership roles in the church, such as Priscilla who was a teacher, patron, evangelist, and perhaps also an overseer.*7*

Women served leadership functions in the times of the New Testament. We can say that women had a significant religious leadership role in the church during the first century. Likewise, women had a significant religious role throughout the Roman Empire during the first century. It was possible for women to serve as religious leaders in the first century.

Women in the Early Church

After the New Testament, women continued to be a part of the leadership of the church. However, around the third century, women were strongly opposed and were no longer allowed to lead in the church. The leadership roles that they did have were few and restricted, but these were stripped away when the church became a formal religious institution.

Women Functions and Prohibitions

In the early church, women functioned in several ways, either positively or negatively, as teachers, prophets, deaconesses and widows. Public teaching by women was not permitted in the early church, and women who attempted to take such positions were labeled as heretics.*8* During the second century Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies that Marcellina was a woman teacher who “caused the downfall of many.”*9* Marcellina apparently taught a form of Christianity that upheld equality among men and women along with some other ideas that went against conventional standards.*10* It appears that Irenaeus looked down upon Marcellina because of her negative effect and not simply because she was a woman. Although women were not permitted to teach publicly in the early church, they did establish and teach monastic communities for women.*11* Melania the Younger and her husband Pinian built monasteries on the Mount of Olives, and she was a noted teacher around the time of the fifth century.*12* In the fourth century, Macrina founded a monastery for women and was noted for her teaching.*13* Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, called Macrina (his sister), his teacher.*14* Women also functioned as prophets in two movements during the second century.*15* With the disciples of Marcus, a man who was identified and condemned as “gnostic” by his opponents, women prophesied, or at least they thought they were prophesying.*16* With the Montanists, several oracles of the women prophets were recorded by their opponents Eusebius and Epiphanius. Eusebius recorded an oracle given by a woman, named Maximilla.*17* Epiphanius records oracles from Maximilla and Priscilla or Quintilla.*18* Hippolytus indicated that the Montanists perceived Priscilla and Maximilla to be prophetesses.*19* Furthermore, women held the office of deaconess by the third century.*20* Women were appointed as deaconesses, the honorary office of female helpers for the bishop, to serve other women.*21* They had a specific function to teach and instruct the newly baptized women.*22* Women also held the office of widows.*23* By the time the third century came, this office had specific qualifications and particular duties.*24* Widows were to fast frequently and pray.*25* Some of their other functions and qualifications included, but was not limited to, the following: they were to be of a particular age; they were to assist the younger women; they were to be meek, quiet, and gentle; they were not to teach or gossip; and they were to be disciplined.*26*

There were several explicit prohibitions for women in the early church. Women were not permitted to perform many of the ecclesiastical duties.*27* It was argued that they could not baptize, since Jesus was not baptized by a woman.*28* Epiphanius said that women could not even offer the gospel throughout the world because this task was given to the apostles and bishops who were all males, and no woman could ever take the episcopate or presbyterate offices since no woman was ever appointed as one in the New Testament.*29* They were not permitted to teach in public, although they did teach in monasteries in the early church, mostly because of the negative view the church fathers had regarding women.

The Perception of the Church Fathers

The earliest church fathers had a favorable view of women. Perhaps this favorable side was related to the role of women in the New Testament. Clement of Rome thought that women were capable of running a household, which was a leadership role.*30* In addition to Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius had favorable views of women.*31* Their admiration for women came out with the most force when speaking of those women who were martyred. Martyrdom was not merely dying, but it was also testifying.*32* Irenaeus' Against Heresies contrasts Eve with Mary in the late second century.*33* It is important to note that during the late second century there was not a virulent disposition against women in leadership. It was not until later in early church history that a negative position appeared. Irenaeus showed no contempt or disregard for women in general in this passage. In fact, he concludes that what Eve brought upon humanity Mary has loosed.*34* Although a woman has entered all of humanity into sin, Irenaeus argues that it was another woman who reversed its effects. Even though Irenaeus looked down upon Marcellina, he still had a positive view of women in general.

The majority of the church fathers had negative views of women in terms of leadership roles. In their view it was the woman who was tempted by Satan and was the first to sin, so she had no place talking about theology.*35* Unlike Irenaeus, the church fathers, such as Augustine,*36* Chrysostom,*37* and Ambrose,*38* only see as far as Eve’s failure and utilize it to teach the submission of women in the church. John Chrysostom, who taught around the late fourth and early fifth centuries, wrote in his discourse on Genesis that Eve wrongfully used her authority and was punished to a state of subordination.*39* He looked to Paul's words in 1 Tim. 2:11 (“Let the woman learn in silence, in all subjection”), asking, “Do you see how he, too, submits the woman to the man?”*40* He said that Paul instructed women not to teach a man because Eve taught Adam poorly once and for all.*41* Therefore, he thought that Paul taught women should be “in silence” because of their inability to properly teach as was evident in Genesis 3.*42* The Didascalia apostolorum, a third century document, speaks against women as teachers, ending the argument with these words: “For if it were required that women should teach, our Master himself would have commanded these to give instruction with us.”*43* In the third century, Origen quoted 1 Cor. 14:35 (“It is shameful for a woman to speak in church”), saying that anything and everything she might say is shameful, even if what she says is good, “because it comes from the mouth of a woman.”*44* For the church fathers, women were generally looked down upon as teachers because they were perceived to be the ones who were deceived and the initial ones to commit sin. It was also because Jesus never commanded for women to teach. The trend against women is linked with the heresies from the time of the early church. Heresies had large involvements of women influence. It was under women leaders that many believers were led astray.*45* Since women were known for leading Christians astray, the church fathers oppressed women leadership in general.

These documents indicate that women did take leadership roles during the time of the early church, but when they did they were usually involved as heretics, or they were looked down upon. The early church fathers’ general view was for women to be silent, and if they were to serve, they were only to serve other women.

Moving the Church into the Public Sphere

For the first two hundred years of the church, Christianity belonged to the private sphere.*46* Christians did not assemble in large congregations, but rather in house churches. It is important to understand that “Christianity was essentially a religion of the private sphere, practiced in the private space of the household rather than the public space of a temple. Its concerns were the domestic life of its community rather than the political life of the city.”*47* Since it belonged to the private sphere, it makes sense that women would have had a prominent role as leaders throughout the church up to the middle of the third century, which was when the church took the form of a public religion.*48* Church leadership was modeled after household management, which “required experience in the management of people as well as of goods.”*49* Since church leadership was modeled after the familiar role of the household manager, there was no problem for women to be church leaders, which would have been perceived as natural.*50* Women’s skills and experiences as household managers enabled them to carry out “the duties of teaching, disciplining, nurturing, and administrating material resources.”*51*

But as the church began entering the public sphere, women leaders were forced into “the same subjugation of women in the churches as prevailed in Greco-Roman society at large.”*52* As the church became more of a public arena, the models for leadership were drawn from public life, which caused women’s leadership to become controversial.*53* Because the public sphere limited women’s involvement, the leaders of the church became uncomfortable with women leadership.*54*
Tertullian was uncomfortable with the women he knew of who taught, baptized, exorcised, and healed. Tertullian was the first to argue Christianity in judicial or political terms when he articulated his understanding of Christianity through the language, metaphors, and paradigms from the public sphere of the Roman Empire. His rejection of women's leadership in the church was a reflection of Roman society's values that women belong to the private sphere.*55*

It was during Tertullian’s time that the church became a legal entity that was unified by a common law and a common discipline.*56* In other words, the church became a formal religious institution in the Roman Empire during the time of Tertullian, which was caused by his own influence. It was Tertullian who modeled clergy after the ruling senatorial class, so that the clergy represented the honor and authority of the church, which in turn made it imperative for the clergy to exemplify the moral discipline of the church.*57* The clergy and laity held particular rights according to Tertullian, such as the right to baptize, teach, offer the Eucharist, and restore to fellowship after penance.*58* Therefore, since Tertullian said that women could not baptize, we know he forbade women to be in church leadership.*59* Tertullian's On the Veiling of Virgins reveals that the church had shifted into the public sphere. Tertullian argued that since women veiled themselves while out on the streets, they should also veil themselves while in the church.*60* He argued further that the church was now no different from the marketplace as part of the public sphere, and the time of the church in the private sphere was over.*61* Tertullian’s influential words demonstrate that the church had shifted from the private to the public sphere during the third century.

Women were no longer allowed to function as leaders in the church when it shifted into the public sphere during the third century. The negative comments, arguments, and opinions regarding women leadership come from the third century and following, such as from Augustine, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Origen. The link between the entrance of the church into the public sphere and the dominant view of the church fathers from the third century onward is striking and unavoidable.

Conclusion

Women functioned as religious leaders throughout the Roman Empire. In Greek and Roman religions women were in a position to participate as leaders, as well as in Judaism. Similarly, women served as leaders in the New Testament. The first two hundred years of the early church had a positive view of women. The social norm was for women to participate in the private sphere. In the religions of the Roman Empire, we do see exceptions to this ideal. However, the church was a religion that functioned in the private sphere. Christians did not assemble in public, but in houses, which were the domain of the private sphere. Therefore, it was acceptable for women to be leaders in the church. However, due to the involvement of women in the leadership of various heresies and also due to the influence of Tertullian to shift the church from the private to the public sphere, women were kept from religious leadership from the third century onward. After this shift, the general view regarding women became very negative, and it was no longer acceptable for women to participate in the leadership roles that they had in the New Testament.

--------------------------------------------

Bibliography
Belleville, Linda. Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Clark, Elizabeth. Women in the Early Church. Message of the Fathers of the Church. Vol. 13. Thomas Halton, ed. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1983.

Liefeld, Walter and Ruth Tucker. Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.

Miller, Patricia, ed. Women in Early Christianity: Translations from Greek Texts. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000.

Torjesen, Karen. When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity. Paperback. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1993.

Tucker, Ruth. “The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry.” In Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis and Gordon Fee, eds. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005. 23-38.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*1* Linda Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 20-22.
*2* Ibid., 23-9.
*3* Ibid., 31
*4* Ibid., 33-4.
*5* Ibid., 34-8.
*6* Ibid., 47.
*7* Ibid., 50-68.
*8* Patricia Miller, ed.,Women in Early Christianity: Translations from Greek Texts (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 17.
*9* 1.25.6, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 17.
*10* Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 17.
*11* Ibid., 19.
*12* Ibid.
*13* Ibid., 22-3.
*14* Cf. On the Soul and the Resurrection, "Dialogue about grief and death," in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 23, for example.
*15* Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 31.
*16* Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.13.1-3, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 32-3.
*17* Ecclesiastical History, 5.16.17, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 34.
*18* Panarion, 48.2.4; 48.12.4; 48.13.1; 49.1, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 34-5.
*19* Refutation of All Heresies, 8.19, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 35.
*20* Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 62.
*21* Didascalia apostolorum, 2.26; 3.12, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 62.
*22* Ibid.
*23* Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 49.
*24* Ibid., 50-1.
*25* Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 11; 25; 27, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 51.
*26* Didascalia apostolorum, 3.1-11; 4.5-8, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 51-61.
*27* Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 65.
*28* Didascalia apostolorum, 3.9, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 65.
*29* Panarion, 79.2,3-4,1, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 67.
*30* Walter Liefeld and Ruth Tucker, Daughter’s of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 92.
*31* Ibid., 92-3.
*32* Ibid., 93.
*33* III, 22, 4, in Elizabeth Clark, Women in the Early Church, Message of the Fathers of the Church, vol. 13, Thomas Halton, ed. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1983), 38.
*34* Ibid.
*35* Ruth Tucker, “The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry: The Early Church Through the 18th Century,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis and Gordon Fee, eds., 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005), 26.
*36* Literal Commentary on Genesis, XI, 42, in Clark, Women in the Early Church, 40-1.
*37* Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians, 2, in Clark, Women in the Early Church, 42.
*38* On Paradise, IV, 24, in Clark, Women in the Early Church, 29-30.
*39* Discourse 4 on Genesis, in Clark, Women in the Early Church, 30.
*40* Ibid.
*41* Ibid.
*42* Ibid.
*43* 3.6, in Clark, Women in the Early Church, 30.
*44* Commentary on 1 Corinthians, fragment 74, in Miller, Women in Early Christianity, 38.
*45* Clark, Women in the Early Church, 160.
*46* Karen Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity, paperback (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1995), 37.
*47* Ibid.
*48* Ibid.
*49* Ibid., 76-7.
*50* Ibid., 32.
*51* Ibid.
*52* Ibid., 38.
*53* Ibid., 157.
*54* Ibid.
*55* Ibid., 158-60.
*56* Ibid., 162-3.
*57* Ibid., 163.
*58* Ibid.
*59* Ibid., 164.
*60* On the Veiling of Virgins, 13, in Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, 29.
*61* Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, 166.

God didn't do this to us, we did

I am Legend is a very suspenseful movie. It has a sort of premise of Outbreak, only the airborne virus spreads globally. To be honest, I am a little nauseous from the movie. The mere thought of being stranded all alone gives me the shivers, but on top of that to have to protect oneself from the dangers of the night--the result of a virus that you were somewhat responsible for--makes for a terrifying combo.

I find it interesting that in the movie Will Smith prays with his family. His wife prays for him and the family before they part. Will Smith later comments, "God didn't do this to us, we did." This comment could mean a couple of things. It could mean that he is acknowledging faith in the existence of God and the failure of humanity to bring the situation upon themselves. But he could have meant there is no God and we have no one to blame for the situation except ourselves. In the end, however, he seems to concede to the existence of God.

What do we make of this movie? To find out, you will have to watch the movie. But it does point to a few things. It definitely points implicitly towards the value of companionship. It also points towards the care of humanity, which includes the care of the environment. It points towards self-sacrifice. But most importantly, it points towards the fallen state of humanity. We are imperfect, and we are otherwise incapable of fixing this demise.

If you don't mind zombie-like beings, you should be able to sit through this movie. I am Legend is scary in a graphical and psychological sense, so if that is your cup of tea this movie should be right up your alley.

Sympathy: Time for Mourning

New Life Church saw four shooting victims when a gunman opened fire in front of the church. About 70 miles away, prior to this event, another gunman opened fire on a missionary dormitory in Denver, killing two people.

Over at Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight has encouraged us to pray for Colorodo. Colorodo has seen some rough events since I was in middle school. Events that I am aware of are Columbine, the missionary dorm, and New Life. Indeed, let's join Scot and pray for Colorodo, friends of family of the victims, and for the wounded. Furthermore, let's pray also for the gunmen.

Halo 3 Skill Move

Okay, I am not the greatest gamer out there and I most certainly am nothing to speak of when it comes to Halo 3. However, I had one magnificent moment of Halo glory last night. Here is my story.

I was playing shotty snipes on Last Resort. I took some high ground on the far side of the map adjacent to the base. I was nearly killed when an opponent from the red team started shooting me from beneath Invisibility. I strafed out of his path and shot him in the process, which forced him to fall back and take cover. Meanwhile, two other red team players flanked me at the same time, which killed me. I spawned in the center of Last Resort where the Spartan Laser is. I knew where the two opponents were at from when they killed me, so I immediately turned my attention towards that direction. When I did, I found a red opponent beneath them on the ground. I scoped in once and as I dropped down from center island I maneuvered my cross hairs and timed the shot just right to hit him square in the head.

The pictures reveal the mid-air shot with relatively far distance, the ledge from which I was dropping from, the location of the head shot on my opponent, and a on-looker view of the shot at the end.

If you have Halo 3, go to my file share to download it onto your Xbox 360 and watch me fall and shoot my opponent in the head.

My Score Favorites, an iMix

I created this iMix over the last couple of days. I have a strong passion for orchestra music, especially when it comes to original motion picture scores. If you like the orchestra music and you like movies, this iMix might be just for you. It has my one favorite song from each of the 40 + scores that I have, such as Gladiator, Braveheart, Batman Begins, Star Wars, and more.

Check it out!

The Teaching of Jesus in the Gospels

The kingdom of God is the most popular topic in the teaching of Jesus. The kingdom of God texts combined with the Son of Man texts make up about 90% of all Jesus said. However, these two topics are the most convoluted teachings of Jesus. The debate revolves around history to understand the topics. In regards to the kingdom of God, there are hundreds of different approaches.

The kingdom of God
Jesus used the phrase “The kingdom of God is like . . .”; he liked to compare the kingdom of God with other things. The majority of the parables deal with the kingdom of God. He also liked to say, “The kingdom of God has come upon you,” or “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (kingdom of heaven is a circumlocutory device to refer to the kingdom of God, so that God’s sacred name would not be uttered). The way to understand the kingdom of God teaching is to ask four questions of the text. First, what does or what could it mean? Second, is it what we think? Third, is it who we think? Last, when is it?

Four Questions
What does kingdom of God mean? G. B. Caird said that Jesus did not mean what everybody else meant when they said the phrase because he spent so much time explaining what he meant. The idea is that popularity does not guarantee accuracy. Scholars can have a massively influential argument but still be wrong. Since Jesus meant something else, we need to figure out what he meant, and we can do this by looking at the semantic range of terms and descriptions that he attributed to the kingdom of God. Kingdom is often understood as territory or a recognizable people group. However, for Jesus kingdom is God in his exercise of authority. The kingdom of God is the exercise of royal power. It is God acting as king. The Old Testament shows God acted as king over a certain people, the Hebrews, the nation of Israel, but also over a certain land. This demonstration of kingdom aligns with our understanding of a territory or a recognizable people group, but it is different since it adds in God’s reign as king, which is something we do not often consider as part of the kingdom. In Nehemiah 9, the Hebrews had split the understanding of kingdom so that they could no longer follow God as their ruler but still function as the kingdom. They had removed God as their king, but they still functioned as a kingdom--a territory and a recognizable people group. Therefore, when Jesus uses the word kingdom he is not merely referring to a territory or a recognizable people group, but also to the kingly reign of God.

Is the kingdom of God what we think? Or better yet, is it what we think the original hearers thought it was? No, it was not. John 6 tells us that after Jesus fed 5 thousand people and impressed the crowd, they identified him as the prophet of Deuteronomy 18, and they tried to force him to be the kind of king they wanted him to be. As a result, Jesus withdrew because their notion of being a king was not his notion. In Acts 1, the disciples still wanted to have the kingdom. The kingdom of God was not what the disciples thought it would be even after the resurrection.

Is the kingdom of God who we think? Isaiah 19 reveals that the Egyptians will be saved by God and they will worship God alongside the Assyrians and Israelites. Isaiah 2 discloses that all of the nations will come to worship God at his holy mountain. Micah 4 declares God is the judge over all the nations. Isaiah 49 states God is going to use the Israelites as a light to all the nations so that his salvation will reach the ends of the earth. These texts clearly claim the kingdom of God includes more than the Hebrews, for it will include all the nations of the world. However, Jesus says the Jews would be thrown out of the kingdom. Luke 13:28-30 tells us that some would be welcomed who were not Jews, but the Jews would be thrown out. True kingdom is representing the intent of the king. A true agent becomes like the one who sends them. The people of the kingdom were supposed to represent God by becoming like Him. The Jews failed to represent God well. Luke 20 demonstrates that the Jews are in the kingdom, but they need to stay in the kingdom, because staying in the kingdom is a matter of producing appropriate fruit. Jesus tells the Jews that they are not in the kingdom just yet as some change is necessary to enter (Matthew 18; John 3, 5). The kingdom will include both Jews and Gentiles, and although the Jews are the chosen nation of God, even they are not guaranteed to be in the kingdom.

When is the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God is near and is breaking through. In the New Testament, it seems like it is here but that is just recently arrived. On the one hand, it looked immanent, but, on the other hand, it had recently come. It is likely that Jesus thought that the kingdom of God began with the ministry of Jesus (the first teaching of the kingdom of God does not come until after his ministry starts in Luke 4). When is the kingdom of God coming? It began with the inauguration of the ministry of Jesus, but it is going to take a long time to come to full fruition. With Jesus the kingdom of God begins to break into this world, but it is a long, slow process. The coming of the kingdom of God presupposes a final day of judgment in which will be the culmination of all things. Therefore, the kingdom of God has a five-fold process of coming. The inauguration of Jesus’ ministry begins the coming of the kingdom. Casting out demons and having table fellowship represents the presence of the kingdom now. The coming of the Spirit represents a more fully present kingdom as it is taking over. The kingdom is still in the process of taking over. And the kingdom will not fully come until the last day.

Two Categories of Thought
There are two typical options in the modern debate concerning the kingdom of God. A. Schweitzer championed the first view, which believes that the kingdom of God is a supernatural realm of death that is coming but is not yet here. This realm is heaven. Schweitzer believed that Jesus did not think that he was the Son of Man. He thought that Jesus thought the Son of Man was somebody else, the end of the world was on the brink, and the world was going to end right now. Since the Son of Man never showed up during Jesus’ time, he thought that Jesus decided to take on the role of the Son of Man and got himself crucified thinking that he could force God’s hand. Schweitzer thought that Jesus realized he was wrong when he was on the cross and says, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus was not the Messiah and Jesus did not think of himself as the Messiah according to Schweitzer. He thought that Jesus was nothing more than a failed eschatological prophet, but because of his self-sacrifice on the cross, he devoted himself to the Christian cause.

The second view is championed by C. H. Dodd. He believed the kingdom of God was somehow wrapped up in the person of Jesus. He thought Schweitzer was brilliant but wrong since he ignored the evidence that did not fit into his hypothesis. Dodd argued that there is an awful lot that suggests Jesus did seem to think the end of the world was near, but there is also much to be said for realized eschatology. Dodd thought that in Jesus’ coming the kingdom of God was fully realized. Although the kingdom has yet to be fully established, it has been realized in the person of Jesus.

Kingdom of God through Parables
Jesus taught the kingdom of God through five categories of parables. The first category demonstrates what the kingdom of God is like. In Matthew 13, it is like a sower who takes a gamble to sow indiscriminately, suggesting that the kingdom of God is open to anybody. It is also like a mustard seed. It is not valued by anybody, being a seed of a weed, but it takes over everything even though nobody notices it, which suggests that the growth of the kingdom of God is not obvious. In Luke 14, the kingdom of God is like a party or a banquet where people are invited but they do not all come. The second category demonstrates the value of the kingdom. Matthew 13 shows the kingdom to be very valuable, being worth everything you own and more, no matter what you own. The kingdom of God is worth everything. The next category of parables demonstrates entrance into the kingdom of God. Luke 21 tells us of two sons, one who says he will obey and does not, and the other who says he will not obey but he does. The point of this parable is to be obedient and bear the fruit of the kingdom through determination. To enter the kingdom of God requires a denial of our basic inclination. It is also like the lost sheep. We must stop running away because someone is looking for us. The fourth category demonstrates who the kingdom of God is for. In Matthew 24, we see that the kingdom of God is for the marginalized and oppressed, such as the tax collectors and prostitutes. The final category demonstrates what are the priorities of the kingdom of God. The priorities are discipleship, Jesus’ teaching on the weightier matters (what Jesus emphasizes), which are faith, trust in God, and a willingness to see God.

The Son of Man
The Son of Man title is Jesus’ favorite self-designation. It is used over 80 times in the Gospels. Outside of the Gospels, this title is nearly non-existent in the New Testament. In Hebrew it is ben adam and in Aramaic it is bar nasha. Both the Hebrew and the Aramaic are translated as a son of man, meaning, that the initial noun is qualified by the latter (a son who is like a man). The phrase identifies the son is human. Jesus uses this phrase as a self-designation. Sometimes he changes titles directly to the Son of Man, avoiding other titles and navigating to this one instead. In Mark 8, Jesus points people to this title and takes their attention off of other titles. This phrase only occurs on the lips of Jesus, except for John 12:34 and others, which are not indicative of a titular understanding because Jesus calls himself this title and people do not know what he means by it. Outside of the Gospels it occurs in a couple of places. It occurs in Acts 7, when Stephen gives his speech. It also occurs in Hebrews where it is a quote from Psalm 2. Finally, it occurs in Revelation 1-3, when the Son of Man is seen walking among the lampstands.

Son of Man Categories
The Son of Man teachings can be categorized into three sections. First, there are the present sayings. There are two sub-categories within the present sayings. One, those present sayings where Jesus uses it instead of “I” or “me.” In Matthew 8:20 and 11:19, Jesus uses the title in place of the first person personal pronoun. There are times where Jesus uses this title instead of using “I” or “me.” Two, those present sayings where Jesus uses the title for authority. In Mark 2:10, 28, Jesus makes an authoritative statement with this title and it bears theological potency. Second, there are the betrayal, suffering, and death sayings. Each chapter of Mark 8-10 contain a phrase of this category. Third, there are the apocalyptic sayings. Mark 8:38, which is also a betrayal saying, speaks of the forthcoming judgment of those who deny the Son of Man. Mark 13:26 speaks of the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds at the end of time.

Three Questions
In order to understand the phrase Son of Man and how Jesus used it, we must ask ourselves three questions. Why did Jesus not call himself Messiah? Why did he choose Son of Man? What did he mean by it? There was a clearly defined expectation associated with the word Messiah. Jesus does not refrain from using it because he does not think he is the Messiah. It is because he knows that he will be trapped in the people’s expectations of the Messiah if he used that title for himself. If he called himself Messiah, he would be laboring under those expectations, but he needed to be free of them. Jesus chose the title Son of Man because it has a rich Old Testament background. The Son of Man was known to be part of the Old Testament, but it was not part of the Jews’ theological architecture. They had heard it before, but they were not precisely sure what it meant.

In order to understand what Jesus meant by Son of Man, we have to look at a telescoping series of passages. The first passage is Genesis 1:26ff. In this passage, God creates man, rather humankind. Both male and female together are adam (humankind). God trusts humanity with glory and honor and the ability to supervise on earth. This understanding partially informs the Son of Man phrase. The second passage is Psalm 8, which is the first commentary on Genesis 1:26ff. In Psalm 8, Son of Man is used to identify the original intention of humanity in Genesis 1:26ff. These two passages combine to inform us that Jesus, as the Son of Man, lives the ideal human life that was God’s intent for all of us. Jesus is adam as he should have been. Although we often think that there are two categories of beings, divine and human, there are in fact three, divine, human, and sub-human. God is the divine, Jesus is the human, and we are the sub-human. We live in a sub-human nature; only Jesus has ever lived as humans ought to have been--as God intended. The third passage is Daniel 7. In this chapter, God takes the authority away from the beasts and gives that authority to one like the Son of Man. This Son of Man is apparently a heavenly being who is sent to earth and all people and all languages and all nations will serve the Son of Man, and he establishes God’s kingdom on earth. Note that, with but one exception, Jesus always refers to himself as the Son of Man, which is to make the claim that he is the Son of Man who is mentioned in Daniel 7. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man shares the authority with the saints of the Most High after he establishes God’s kingdom on earth. There is a point of contrast between Mark 10 and Daniel 7 that needs to be mentioned. Daniel 7 says the Son of Man will be served. However, Mark 10 says the Son of Man will serve. How can this be? There is a fourth passage that must be considered, and it must have been in Jesus’ mind when he said that the Son of Man will serve and not be served. It is Isaiah 53 where it talks of the suffering servant of the Lord. For Jesus, the Son of Man is a mix of Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53. These two texts are not proof-texts, but they are interlaced, meaning they interpret each other. Jesus is claiming to be the suffering servant Son of Man, which is to say that he is the one who has been sent to establish God’s kingdom on earth, to be as humans ought to have been, and to serve the Lord through suffering.

Conclusion
The kingdom of God and Son of Man teachings are what Jesus thought to be the most important, since they were emphasized and talked about most often. Together they function to reveal why Jesus came and what he was doing. He came to bring salvation by being the human God intended for us from the begining and through becoming a suffering servant, and to establish God’s kingdom on earth.