Discrepancies in Jesus' Life? Talk fit for hell? Be Perfect?

Religion

How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?

How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?

What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?

No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?

Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?

How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?

Is Jesus the one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of traditions?

Am I a real disciple of Jesus? What do I do when I am tempted? Why should Christians suffer? Why are other Christians a problem?

Creationism? Evolution? Other populations than Adam's? Who was Cain's Wife? Does God feel threatened? Was he harsh on Pharoah?

No images? No art? Show no mercy?

24. Matthew and Luke - Jesus' genealogy.  Is it difficult to understand the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke, in their listings of Jesus' ancestral line?

This question addresses a common issue that non-believers have with the bible - the contradictions concerning the life of Christ.

Bewes begins by explaining the key differences between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  He argues that Matthew works forwards with a greater emphasis on the lineage of Joseph, whereas Luke works backwards with a stronger focus on Mary's 6.line.  Luke goes as far back as Adam, whereas Matthew stops at Abraham.  Bewes lists a few reasons for this.

Firstly, he argues that Jesus was a real human man - and not a Greek mythological figure.  Secondly, Jesus is the Messiah - the King of the Jews, hence why Matthew references David.  Thirdly, Luke goes as far back as Adam, because Jesus is the world saviour of the human race.  Lastly, Luke's line ends in God himself, as Jesus is publicly introduced as the Son of God.

I don't have much to say about this except, that I agree with it.  The answer is simple and logical enough and I think that Bewes explains it all.  Having researched the scripture myself, Bewes' argument checks out.

26. Irreconcilable infancy stories? It seems impossible to make Matthew's and Luke's stories of Jesus' birth and infancy fit with one another, especially at Luke 2:39.

And yet another issue with the contradictions of Jesus' life.  But as Bewes argues that "patient study reveals an integrated picture."

Bewes argues that confusion emerges at 2:39, where "it reads as though the holy returned immediately to Nazareth and not to Bethlehem, where - Matthew tells us - there took place the visit of the Magi, followed by the flight to Egypt and eventual return."

Bewes argues that this isn't the problem, as the advantage of having four Gospel writers is that they fill in the gaps for each other.  "The problem is that chronologically, Luke appears to assume an immediate return to Nazareth."

Bewes solves this problem by clarifying that Luke was writing religiously and not chronologically.  In his Gospel, he strives to demonstrate Jesus' life in how it takes place in relation to the law of God.

Richard Bewes' clarification is helpful, as I think that unwitting readers, like me, would not initially make this distinction.  They would just assume that the Gospels are writing chronologically.  But having once again researched the scripture, Bewes' argument holds water.  Matthew 2:19-22 reads

"After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said 'Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead.'

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel."

Luke 2:39 reads:

"when Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

Now that I know about this distinction, Bewes' argument makes sense.  Furthermore, my Christian friend Naomi argues that the Gospels don't contradict each other.  They just emphasise different aspects of Christ's life.

28.  Matthew 5:21,22 - Talk fit for hell? I don't understand Christ's words that someone who says 'You Fool' will be in danger of the fire of hell.  Isn't that very extreme?

The scripture that Bewes is addressing discusses "three escalating grades of offence, and the liabilities they incur.  He's contrasting the rigid external observance of God's law with the spirit of the law and its inner meaning.  So adultery in the heart is still adultery."

Bewes continues to explain that while the old teaches that "murder is wrong," Jesus takes it deeper.  Obviously, you wouldn't be dragged before the courts if you called someone a fool or if you were angry with your brother, these are just illustrations of what could be happening internally in a person.  This is what worries God.

If we call somebody a fool in jest or without any hateful attentions, then this isn't a problem.  The problem arises if you curse them while you have hate in your heart.  To quote Bewes, you would be wrong in "pronouncing someone else a cursed fool, in the sense of wanting to see them dead." Bewes argues that Jesus was establishing a principle.  Simply having murderous intentions is morally incorrect.  "Murder in the heart is murder in the sight of God."

Again, I would agree with this.  Naomi has told me that simply having immoral feelings is akin to breaking a commandment or law, although she used "lust," as an example, rather than murder.  However, I would argue that it is obviously easier to punish and police physical murder, rather than thoughts and feelings.

29. Matthew 5:48 'Be Perfect?' I feel very far indeed from being 'perfect,' as Jesus commands us to be.  It seems impossible.  What did he mean?

Bewes argues that Jesus means exactly this.  He wants us to strive for perfection, even if that aim is unrealistic.  Bewes acknowledges that despite how Christians make perfection their aim, they know that they will never achieve it.  What I think is most important is the aim for perfection.  Although good intentions aren't the be all and end all, I think it is important to have some type of goal, which would inspire you to be a good person.  I think this is what aiming for perfection can provide.  It can offer a moral framework to follow.

But as always, I could be wrong.  So criticise me in the comments below, join the conversation.  Start a debate.  Just keep it mature.  Keep it respectful.  Keep it intelligent.

Wild Strawberries Review

Number 115 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Swedish drama, Wild Strawberries.

Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom) is a 78 year old scientist who has become distant, cold and withdrawn.  He has grown apart from his family and has few if any personal relationships.  However, when he goes on a car journey to receive an honorary degree, he begins reminiscing about his past life and soon rediscovers himself.

Much of Wild Strawberries is told in flashbacks and dream sequences, making it expressionistic and abstract.  I liked a lot of this imagery, as it helped to develop a lot of Borg's character.  One particular sequence saw a clock with no hands, a strange man without a face and Borg seeing himself in a coffin.  It wasn't too difficult to infer that despite his hard exterior, he is a deeply troubled and lonely man, and the expressionistic imagery did well to convey these ideas.

Having said this, I found the film quite difficult to follow.  Although I did like the abstract imagery and the underlying themes, I think that the film jumped too often between the dreams and the on-screen action.  This resulted in everything seeming a bit vague and under-developed to me.

 I didn't like the characters that much either, as they seemed like caricatures of themselves, especially Sara, Viktor and Anders.  The three hitch-hikers were overly-stereotypical and not entirely realistic.  Sara claimed to be a virgin, but also made a number of sexually suggestive comments.  This didn't match up for me.

 Furthermore, the vast majority of the characters were little more than plot devices to drive on Sjostrom's narrative.  They weren't fully-formed characters in themselves.  For example, the hitch-hiker Sara has the same name, as Borg's unrequited love.  Another scene sees a couple squabble intensely, which I feel is supposed to be a metaphor for Borg's own failed relationships.

Ultimately, this film I wasn't too keen on.  I found it similar to Ikiru, but I think that it had a lot of unrealised potential.  The underlying themes and imagery were strong, but the narrative and characters were not.

No images? No art? Show no mercy?

Religion

How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?

How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?

What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?

No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?

Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?

How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?

Is Jesus the one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of traditions?

Am I a real disciple of Jesus? What do I do when I am tempted? Why should Christians suffer? Why are other Christians a problem?

Creationism? Evolution? Other populations than Adam's? Who was Cain's Wife? Does God feel threatened? Was he harsh on Pharoah?

On a more streamlined edition of my analysis of Richard Bewes' book, the Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, I will be tackling two very different passages.

12: Exodus 20:4 - No Images, no art? I have been told by devotees of other religions that if paintings or carvings of human beings or any other creatures are made, then we Christians are disobeying our own commandments.  Is this true?

The first of these passages focusses on the Second Commandment of the bible:

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." Exodus 20:4

The question asks whether Christians are disobeying their own commandments if they worship paintings or carvings of human beings.  And this question has greatly intrigued me.  The Protestant Reformation was partially borne out of how Martin Luther didn't agree with the numerous sacraments present in Catholic worship, amongst other reasons.  All of these statues were barriers between man's relationship with God.

What Richard Bewes, and my Christian friend Naomi, stressed was how it is fine to create these idols, but not to "bow down to them or serve them." If these statues and figures were created for the purposes of adornment or teaching, then there is nothing wrong with this.  We run into trouble if we begin worshipping these idols, or we respect them more than we do with God.  This is a logical argument and one I agree with.  While I can understand the Protestant concern of idolatry, I think we'll run into trouble if we stigmatise the appreciations of Christian-inspired art.  As we've discussed in previous articles, Christianity has had a massive effect on popular culture.  The vivid imagery in Revelation inspired the art work of William Blake, while John Milton took strong inspiration from Genesis for his magnus opus, Paradise Lost.  If it is wrong to appreciate this artwork, then the great cultural tradition that existed around Christianity just wouldn't exist.  We can appreciate it without worshipping it.

18. Deuteronomy 7: 1-3 Show no mercy? God's commands to Israel, to obliterate the nations in Canaan, sounds like a nationalistic programme of ethnic genocide.  How can we escape coming to this conclusion?

This is a very interesting questions, as it addresses one of the major concerns I had while reading the bible.  How could an omni-loving God endorse the slaughter of the Canaanites? How could this type of genocide be acceptable? How is it okay for the Israelites to kill the Canaan men and rape their women? Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "thou shalt not kill?"

Firstly, the commandment is actually "Thou shalt not murder." Murder is not the same as killing people.  This distinction is very important.  Soldiers have to kill in war and they're not murderers.

The crux of Richard Bewes', as well as Naomi's response, is that the Canaanites committed terrible acts.  They regularly practised idolatry, sexual promiscuity and child sacrifice.  Their destruction was just desserts for their crimes.  The Canaanites and Ammonites were given chance after chance to repent for their sins, but instead they continued to forsake and reject God.  Their continued disobedience incurred God's wrath.  This would then serve as a warning for the rest of us.

Richard Bewes also argued that we have to consider the bigger picture.  The 'Promised Land' was much more than a strip of land.  It served as the right to the Israelite's inheritance of the new heaven and new earth that would be brought about by Christ's return.

Do the actions of the few or even the many justify the destruction of the "all?" Is it better to wipe out a group of people and start again than punish the minority? Bewes is arguing that this ethnic genocide was justifiable through how the Canaanites had so turned from God.  They had rejected his love and had turned to sexual depravity and child sacrifice.  This would then serve as a warning to anyone else willing to break the rules.  I don't think this is right.  Initially reading about these ethnic genocides is what led me to have such a distaste for the Christian God.  I couldn't understand how an all-loving God could condone this.  In war, there are rules about killing civillians.  Yet God disregards these rules completely.  He is a force onto himself.  How am I supposed to respect and worship a God who condones the death of the innocent? I think it was an ethnic genocide.

As always, my opinions are just that.  Opinions.  They might be wrong so be sure to correct and challenge me.  Just keep it mature.  Keep it intelligent.  Keep it respectful.

Barfi! Review

Number 114 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time is the Indian comedy-drama Barfi!

Barfi! is set in the 70's and tells the story of its titular character Barfi (Ranbir Kapoor) who is a deaf and mute prankster.  The film depicts his relationship with two different women: his first love, Shruti (Ilena D'Cruz) and his true love, the autistic Jhimil (Priyanka Chopra.) Meanwhile, Barfi is relentlessly pursued by policeman Subhansu Duttu (Saurabh Shukla.)

Barfi! is the fifth Indian film that I have seen after 3 Idiots, Rang De Basanti, Like Stars on Earth and Laagaan: Once upon a Time in India and Indian cinema still continues to impress me.  This is also the first Indian film that I've watched, which hasn't starred Aamir Khan.

When Anurag Basu was directing Barfi!, he paid homage to the silent movie stars Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, and I definitely recognised this.  A lot of the film's comedy was physical and slapstick.  There were great chase sequences set to music and involving a good number of props.  These scenes wouldn't have been out of place in a silent film and they were a great homage to films like City Lights and Modern Times.  On a couple of occasions, I also spotted posters displaying The Tramp.

Another reason why the film worked so well was of the brilliant performances of the three lead actors.  Ranbir Kapoor made Barfi a likeable, charming character, especially considering that he doesn't speak at all.  Instead, he uses his body to great effect, just like Chaplin and Keaton.  Kapoor was a brilliant comic actor, as he didn't use any standard sign language, but his own behavioural patterns.

While Kapoor was great in his role, Chopra was fantastic.  She really researched her role to ensure that it was as authentic as possible.  And this definitely showed.  She received universal acclaim, which was deserved.  Chopra could have taken the easy way out and could have portrayed Jhimil in a a stereotypically offensive way.  But she didn't.  Her portrayal of Jhimil was sensitive and sympathetic.

In 1970's India, autism was treated as little more of a disease.  Jhimil's parents treat her as an embarrassment and her peers laugh at her.  There was a beautifully poignant scene, where Jhimil is singing, but other children are laughing at her.  She screams to them to stop, which was saddening.  I think the best part about Jhimil was that I didn't pity her.  I felt sorry for her, but I definitely didn't pity her.  She was strong and single-minded, even if her autism stopped her from effectively communicating herself.

Another reason why Jhimil worked so well was her relationship with Barfi.  She loves him unconditionally and the scenes portraying their fledgling romance were some of the most touching in the film.  The two characters complimented one another with their respective conditions.  Jhimil becomes deeply attached to Barfi, becoming distressed whenever the two are separated, while Barfi helps Jhimil to better understand herself.

Finally, we come to the character of Shruti.  Originally, Shruti was in love with Barfi, but her parents convinced her to marry someone of higher status and wealth.  This resulted in her moving away from Barfi.  Six years later, she returns and reconnects to Barfi, much to the chagrin of Jhimil who runs away.  Despite how Shruti can finally be with Barfi, she knows how much he loves Jhimil and so helps him find her.  I think it would have been all too easy to portray Shruti as a bitter, resentful villain, but instead she was sympathetic and likeable.

One final mention should be given to Saurabh Shukla who portrayed the hapless police officer Dutta.  He added a lot of comedy to the film, especially within his pursuit of Barfi.  But just like Shruti, it would have been too easy to portray him as the villain, which he wasn't.

Overall, this was a great film, which perfectly balanced its comedic and emotional themes.  The characters were well-developed and the performances were brilliant.  Definitely one to watch.