Wednesday, April 6, 2016

The unfalsifiable nature of religious belief - Mother Teresa's Loss of Faith




THE UNFALSIFIABLE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF



Mother Teresa's Loss of Faith


Stes de Necker



Few people are aware of the decades-long crisis of faith in the life of Agnes Bojaxhiu, better known as Mother Teresa.

A biography, Come Be My Light, consists of numerous letters Teresa exchanged with her church superiors. These letters reveal that for the last fifty years of her life, she felt as if God had withdrawn his presence from her and would not respond to her prayers.

Unable to feel any hint of God’s existence – “neither in her heart or in the Eucharist”, according to Brian Kolodiejchuk, the book’s editor – she lived in a permanent state of silent misery and despair. 

Some excerpts from Teresa’s letters reveal just how tormented she was:

“I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone … Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.”

“So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”

This crisis of faith began in 1946, the same year that she began her evangelistic work among the poor in Kolkata, and continued unabated, except for a few weeks in 1958, until her death in 1997.

The church assigned a long series of priests and bishops to act as her confessors, trying to help her recover her faith, but all of them ultimately met with failure.

Despite her intense inner turmoil, Teresa always kept up a facade of cheerful piety in public, professing religious sentiments which she did not truly feel. Her letters reveal that this was a fully conscious act of deception. She called her smile “a mask”, and wrote privately to a confidant about one public appearance: “I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love… If you were [there], you would have said, ‘What hypocrisy.'”

The inability to feel God’s presence is a common element of deconversion stories, but as Teresa’s letters show, it happens in people who remain believers as well.

Of course, atheists should not be at all surprised by this, since we are well aware that there is no god there to feel. In the initial ecstasy of conversion, a new believer may convince themselves that they have felt God’s presence, but after the exhilaration fades, the sense of presence often goes with it. If this can happen to a believer as famed as Mother Teresa, it undoubtedly happens to others as well.

It’s an open question just how many other theists may be going through similar emotional agony, struggling in vain to convince themselves that they feel the presence of God. Almost certainly, these struggles are severely underreported, because believers are loath to admit them – each one concealing their own torment because they are convinced they are the only one experiencing it, and thus contributing to the same misconception among all the others who are feeling the same thing.

Although her letters show she considered atheism on more than one occasion, Teresa never publicly admitted the truth about how she felt. (She asked the church to destroy her letters, but that request was not granted.)

It seems that, like many believers, she became so locked into her religion that she never even considered leaving it to be a live option. Sadly, she is not the first and will not be the last person to put themselves through this unnecessary suffering by vainly clinging to false dogma.

This is yet another of the ways in which unfounded faith ends up causing real pain and suffering to real people.

Teresa’s inner suffering was not helped by the Catholic Church. If anything, its masochistic, pain-glorifying teachings only exacerbated her problem, by encouraging her to stay and suffer rather than seek a different path where she might have found happiness.

Some of Teresa’s confessors told her that her darkness was “reparative” – in other words, a blessing granted by God that let her experience some of what Jesus felt while being crucified. As one advisor put it, “It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus’ passion.”

Not only did these teachings prolong Teresa’s suffering, they further demonstrate the unfalsifiable nature of religious belief.

When God’s presence is felt, that is evidence of God’s existence; when God’s presence is not felt, that is also considered evidence of God’s existence.

“The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love. There are many in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty -- it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There's a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God.” (Mother Teresa)

These beliefs are formulated to be perfectly circular, immune to logic.

"People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.  
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.  
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.  
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. 
Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. 
Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. 
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten. 
Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. 
Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. 

It was never between you and them anyway."





Sunday, April 3, 2016

EASTER AND THE CRUCIFICTION AND RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST - WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CRUCIFIED




EASTER AND THE CRUCIFICTION AND RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST


WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CRUCIFIED



                                                                                                             Stes de Necker




According to the Bible, Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred around the time of the Jewish Passover, which was celebrated on the first full moon following the vernal equinox.

Prior to 325 A.D., Easter was celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., the Western Church decided to establish a more standardized system for determining the date of Easter.

Today in Western Christianity, Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal Full Moon date of the year.

This year we commemorate Easter on 16 April 2017 and on Friday 14 April 2017 the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus.

But do we realize what it means to die on a cross ?

Dr . Coen Slabber, former DG of the Department of Health, explains:

" It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him ( Mark 15:25 ) . Jesus died that same day - about three pm. John tells us that the two criminals crucified with Jesus were still alive so the soldiers had their legs broken. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:33 ).

We must accept Jesus' physical condition, before his arrest, was good - He covered great distances barefoot. Between his arrival at Gethsemane and the start of His crucifixion, Jesus suffered severe emotional stress. We read of Jesus ' struggle in Gethsemane, the repeated trials, his friends ( the disciples ) that let Him in the lurch , flogging by the Jews , etc. . He probably did not sleep that Thursday night. He had between 2.5 and 3 km to walk from one trial to another. This has made ​​Him vulnerable to the scourge of the Roman soldiers.

There are three aspects of Jesus ' death which are controversial to physicians:

( 1 ) What was the cause of his death ?
( 2 ) Why did Jesus died so soon? According to Mark, the total duration of Jesus on the cross were six hours . It is very short for a young man. Why?
( 3 ) What was the nature of the wound in Jesus' side?

We begin with an overview of Jesus ' crucifixion.

What do we know of Jesus ' crucifixion?

There are few details of the crucifixion of Jesus in the gospels. It was probably because crucifixion and scourging were so common that the evangelists did not deem it necessary to say much about this. I will not say anything about the psychological and spiritual suffering that Jesus suffered. I will only deal with the anatomical aspects of his suffering and death.

For purposes of this article I want to emphasize certain aspects.

1 . Medieval and Renaissance painters have always pictured Jesus where he hanged on the whole cross. The upright of the cross was usually implanted in the ground. Convicted had to carry their own cross from the prison to the place of execution. It is estimated that a cross weighed approximately 35 and 50 kg. 

2 . Most paintings show that the nails were inserted in Jesus' hands.  Nails in the palms would, however tore out because of the full body weight hanging on them.  The nails were usually inserted between the bones of the wrist or just above the wrist. Where does this misconception come from?
Anatomists - especially in ancient times - considered the wrist part of the hand.

Let us now try to determine chronologically what happened to Jesus during his last 24 hours.

( a) The physical suffering of Jesus did not started at Calvary, but already in Gethsemane . It is interesting that Luke, the doctor, is the only one who describes Jesus’ sweating: His sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground ( Luke 22:44 ) . Prior Luke tells us that Jesus was in anguish, and that he prayed more earnestly. Can you sweat blood? 

Matidrose (sweat) is a very rare phenomenon and is usually the result of severe emotional stress. Small blood vessels in the sweat glands bursts so that the blood and sweat mix.

( b ) That night Jesus appeared before Annas , Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin . Already here begins his physical trauma: One of the guards slapped him because he did not like Jesus' answered the high priest 's question. The men watching Jesus, mocked him and beated Him. They blindfolded him and said that he was a prophet so He should be able to say who it was that hit him.

( c ) The morning Jesus came to the Jewish Council. By this time he was all bruised and probably dehydrated. He had not slept much. He was taken early on the morning to Pontius Pilate, who, as a result of the calls from the crowd, handed Jesus over to be flogged and crucified.

( d ) During flogging Jesus' hands were tied to a pole above his head. Jewish law has a limit on the number of strokes placed - forty. It is doubtful whether the Roman soldiers adhere to these restrictions or even seem to care. Jesus was flogged with a flagrum.  It was a short whip with several heavy leather thongs. Nearby the points of these thongs were tiny lead balls or pieces of woven bone. 

The lead balls in the whip causing severe bruising . The thongs tearing the skin. Later even the underlying muscles hurt and torn. The skin on the back hanging in long strips. Pain and blood loss was severe. The amount of pain and blood loss determines how long such a person would survive on the cross would. If the soldier thought that the victim was near death, the beating stopped.

( e ) The soldiers covered Jesus in a purple robe , put a crown of thorns on his head and gave him a stick in his right hand . The soldiers spit on Jesus and struck him with the stick over his head. This may have driven the thorns deeper into His scalp. We all know that the scalp is very rich in blood and can bleed badly.

( f ) At this stage, the mantle would have stuck to Jesus' backs because of the clotted blood . In order to pull the robe off Him must have been very painful and caused profuse bleeding.
   
( g ) Then Jesus had to carry His cross to Golgotha. The cross was usually tied to the victim's shoulders with ropes.

Now the procession along the Via Dolorosa. When Jesus could not carry the cross any more, Simon of Cyrene was commandeered to help. We have to accept that wearing the cross Jesus ' wounds reopened and caused further bleeding. 

( h ) At Calvary the soldiers gave Jesus a mixture of wine and myrrh ( gall ). This blend has a mild anesthetic effect.  Jesus refuses to drink it. The normal procedure is that the hands / wrists were nailed first. Then the transom was attached to the vertical pole and lifted. Then the feet were nailed to the vertical pole.

( i ) Gradually the weight of the victim lower the victim down . More weight was placed on the nails in the wrist. Terrible pain shooting down the hand and into the arm, because there is pressure placed on major nerves that run through the wrist. To prevent this, the victim tries lifting himself but now he puts his full weight on the nails in his feet.

( j ) As the arms are tired , severe cramps develop in the muscles . The muscles between the ribs cannot  function anymore. Air can be inhaled but not exhaled. Jesus had to raise him to breathe out. Every time he does His raw back scrapes against the bark of the cross. This causes severe pain and bleeding. It is during this time that the seven short cross words were uttered.

( k ) There is now a further pain - a pain pressing as the pericardium slowly filled with fluid and gradually places pressure on the heart. It makes you think of Psalm 22:15 I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax, it is melted within me.

( l ) We are nearing the end . The loss of blood and fluid now reaches critical levels; the heart struggles to pump; the lungs can hardly breathe air. Again it reminds us of Psalm 22 : I was so little like a potsherd , my tongue cleave to my palate, you leave me like I'm dead ( Psalm 22:16) . It was then that Jesus said: I am thirsty. The soldiers made a sponge with sour wine, put it on a hisop stick and gave it to Jesus .

( m ) He realizes that death is imminent: It is finished . With a great effort Jesus uttered His last words: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. His mission was complete. He died.

( n ) To make sure that Jesus was dead, one of the soldiers stuck a spear in his ribs - and immediately blood and water came out.” 


Let us never forget how great the price was what He paid for our sins. 







Thursday, January 28, 2016

JOB - The Hardest Lesson we can learn - Why do bad things happen to good people




THE BOOK OF JOB


The Hardest Lesson we can learn

Why do bad things happen to good people


Stes de Necker





For me, the gripping and challenging book of Job is perhaps the most profound book in the Bible.

The books from Genesis to Esther are all narrative books, and are vitally meaningful to us as living parables, as types worked out in actual history by which we can see what is going on in our own lives.

Job begins another section, the poetical books of the Bible, which also includes Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the little book of Lamentations, tucked in behind Jeremiah.

Some biblical scholars have said that the book of Job is perhaps the greatest poem in all literature. Nothing that Shakespeare has written exceeds this book in beauty of expression. It is admired everywhere as one of the most beautiful writings that man has ever known. But it is more than an expressive, dramatic writing; it has a very great message for all of us. 

It is a drama, an epic drama much like The Iliad and The Odyssey, the poems by Homer from the Greek world.

But the book of Job is also history. Job was an actual, living person and these events actually took place, but God recounts them for us in this beautiful style so that we might have an answer to the age-old, haunting question:

"Why does apparently senseless tragedy strike men?"

Any time you get into difficulties it is well to turn to the book of Job. Here is a man who experienced an agony of human despair and desolation of spirit which accompanied the apparently meaningless, senseless tragedies that came into his life.

Now, the ultimate answer to that question is given right at the beginning of the book. Right in the beginning we are handed certain program notes that explain to us something about the drama, something which even the actors themselves are not permitted to know.

The answer given is that senseless suffering arises out of Satan's continual challenge to the government of God.

So, as the book opens, we find God meeting with the angelic congregation. Among them is Satan, who strides in sneering and swaggering, convinced that self-interest is the only real motive for human behaviour.

We must remember that Satan was once a heavenly angel before he was cast out of Heaven. 

(See my article at http://stesdeneckerblog.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/satan-judas-of-heaven.html)

Satan's philosophy is that the question "What's in it for me?" is the only accurate explanation for why people do anything.

And here, in the presence of God, he asserts that anyone who claims that human beings act from any other motive is simply a religious phony; furthermore, he claims he can prove it.
God says, rather patiently, "All right, we'll test your theory." Then he selects the man Job to be the proving ground.

In World War II at the opening of the war between Japan and the United States, it looked as though this conflict would be staged in the Pacific Ocean -- very likely the islands of Hawaii, for the battle began at Pearl Harbor. But very early in the war, as you will remember, events took a sudden startling turn and without a word of warning the whole theatre of battle shifted abruptly to the South Pacific. 
For the first time, Americans began to hear of strange names of islands, like "Guadalcanal" and others, There, in those quiet, obscure, out-of-the way corners of the earth, the greatest powers on earth were locked in mortal combat. The islands became the battleground for the great fight between empires.

And something like this happened in the story of Job. Here is a man going about his private affairs, unaware that he has suddenly become the center of God's attention.

For the time being all of God's activity has focused upon him, and he has become the battleground for a conflict between God and Satan in which God is planning to pull the rug out from under Satan, and to reveal him as the phony that he is.

Job is that battleground, and Satan immediately moves in with shock troops.

In chapter 1 we read that, one by one, the props are pulled out of Job's life. It is a though some Western Union telegram boy delivers a series of messages to Job about terrible catastrophes. Hard on the heels of the first comes another one, and the messages keep coming in.

First, all Job's oxen have been taken by enemy raids, and then all his asses have been decimated.

Next, word comes that his sheep have been killed by a terrible electric storm, and crowding in after that is the news that his great herd of camels, true wealth in the oriental world, has been wiped out in a natural catastrophe.

Then comes the heartrending news that his seven sons and three daughters were together in one home enjoying a birthday celebration when a great tornado hit and the house was demolished. All of his children were killed in one fatal blow.

Yet Job remains steadfast.  Covered in dirt and ashes, Job is sitting on the rubbish dump. At the end of chapter 1 his response to this terrible series of tragic, senseless accidents is:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return; the LORD gives, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21 RSV)

I often wonder if I would have responded in that way.

Satan is somewhat taken aback, so he asks God to change the rules of the game. Satan has decided to attack Job more directly and petitions God for the right to strike Job's own body. This God grants. Without warning, Job is suddenly stricken with a series of terrible boils, or carbuncles.

I remember as young boy I had a boil on my arm, so I can have deep sympathy for poor old Job who was covered in boils all over his body!

There is nothing more aggravating than a painful boil which is not relieved by any kind of medication. You can only grit your teeth and endure agony until the boil comes to a head, and heals itself.

Consider how Job is stricken with these from the top of his head to the sole of his foot. He hardly knows what to do, but is determined to wait it out. As the malady continues, his wife is the one whose faith succumbs. She turns on him and says, "Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Why don't you curse God and die?" Job has to stand alone, but he is determined to be faithful.

Then comes the final test, when he receives a visit from three of his friends.

At this point the whole book slightly shifts its focus. We now are no longer looking only at Job but also at his controversy with these three friends, and their discourse occupies the major part of the book.

From their very human point of view, they attempt to answer that same haunting question, "Why do senseless tragedies afflict men?"

The major part of the book, written in beautifully poetic language, records the attempts by these men to come to an answer. And the three friends' answers are all the same. They answer the question of Job's problems with smug, dogmatic assurances that only one explanation is possible: he has committed some awful sin. They try to break down Job's defences with arguments.

Job’s friends are not necessarily wrong in their explanation. There are tragic events, catastrophes, heartache, pain, and suffering, which do occur because of sin. Any time that we violate the laws of God's universe, including the laws of health, there is an immediate and sometimes violent physical reaction and much suffering comes from that.

But the problem in Job’s friends' arguments lay in their dogmatic assertion that this is the only explanation possible for all kinds of suffering.

They each take three rounds with Job. Each of them presents three arguments, nine arguments in all, and each plays the same tune.

They try various approaches. First they try sarcasm and irony. Then they appeal to Job's honesty. 
Then they accuse him of specific crimes and misdeeds. Finally they act hurt and go away, miffed and sulking, pride fully appealing to Job' s conscience not to insult them anymore.

All the time they are attacking his integrity with the argument that if God is indeed just, then the righteous are always blessed and the wicked always suffer; therefore, if an individual is suffering, it must be because there is something wrong in his life. This is their argument. To these men, the explanation is a simple matter of cause and effect and is quite logical. It is neat and tidy and explains everything; that is, unless you happen to be the sufferer.

At first Job is slightly irritated with these friends. But then he becomes angry and, finally, sarcastic.

In the opening lines of his reply, he delivers a cutting piece of irony: "I am sure you alone are the people and wisdom is going to die with you." (Job 12:2) "You've got all the answers, you've solved all the problems, you know everything. So there's no use talking to you any longer!" With bitter sarcasm he replies that their explanation of his suffering is in error. Resentful, he openly entreats them to understand.

He says he can't confess sin because he is genuinely unaware of anything he has done that has offended God. Moreover, he can't believe in justice any longer because their arguments that the wicked always suffer simply are not true. He points out that many people who are very wicked, notoriously wicked, are prospering and flourishing and living in ease, and nothing horrible is happening to them.

Furthermore, he says, he doesn't know what to do because God won't listen to him; he doesn't even have a chance to plead his case before God, and he complains that God hides from him and cannot be found.

Eventually Job actually shouts at these friends in the turmoil of his confusion, bewilderment, anger, hurt, and frustration. He says he is afraid of this God, who is not the God he has known. He doesn't know what has happened to this dear old friend whom he could always rely upon.

Job has taken a strange turn in his attitude now that these awful things are happening to him.
He is uncertain what to think or say.

The glorious thing about this dear man is that throughout the whole book he is utterly and completely honest.

Confused and bewildered and puzzled by what is happening, he simply blurts out his thoughts. He refuses to admit things that he cannot accept: "All these pat answers don't help at all!" In his desolation he expresses in various ways the ultimate cry of the human spirit. Some wonderful verses emerge from this discourse by Job.

Stripped as he is to his very soul, he cries out again and again with some of the deepest expressions of the human heart. In chapter 9 he says of God,For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. (Job 9:32 RSV)

In Hebrew, his words are literally, 'Would that there were an umpire between us, oh that there were a daysman, a mediator between us who might lay his hand upon us both.' (Job 9:32-33)

That is the cry of a heart that recognizes that God is higher and greater and richer and holier than man, and man can't reach him. It is the cry for a mediator to come between them.

Then in chapter 14 comes another expression out of this man's faithful heart:
If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come. (Job 14:14)

"If I knew that after I die I would live again, I would gladly wait until that time to argue my case before God!"

"If a man die, shall he live again?" This great cry, the question uttered by so many of us, wells up from the depths of this man's desolation and suffering.

Then in chapter 16 Job cries out,Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high. (Job 16:19 RSV)

Earlier he had cried out for a mediator: "Oh, that I might have somebody step in between me and God." Now at last, born of his desperation, "I realize now that the only one who can adequately argue my case for me is God himself. If any cause of mine is going to be fairly presented before God, God himself has to do it."

In chapter 19 comes another distressed cry, in which he sounds this note of awful intensity:
"Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book! Oh that with an iron pen and lead they were graven in the rock for ever!" (Job 19:23- 24RSV)

That prayer was fulfilled in this record, the book of Job. Then, at last, a ray of light shines in his darkness:
"For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh["in my flesh," in the Hebrew] I shall see God." (Job 19:25, 26)

Out of the dark, deep distress of this man come these cries which find their fulfilment in the coming of Jesus Christ. He came to be mediator. He came to give assurance that man shall live again. He came to stand between man and God. He came to stand in the flesh upon the earth that man might see him face-to-face.

Now comes the final blow to Job, after all these so-called friends have had their chance with him and have tried to beat him down their arguments pounding him again and again like a club, poor Job, bruised, defeated, puzzled, bewildered, and confused, now meets with a young man who happened to be standing there all along but who is only now interjected into the picture. His name is Elihu.

Speaking for youth, he stands up to say, "You are all wrong. You friends of Job are wrong because you accuse him unjustly, and Job is wrong because he blames God for his difficulty. He is accusing God in order to exonerate himself."

Elihu points out the weaknesses in both arguments but still offers nothing positive to answer the question of Job's misery.

But suddenly the Lord himself answers Job. In a whirlwind's fury he comes to him and says, "Do you want to debate, Job? You have been saying that you want some answers to your questions and that I have been hiding and am not willing to debate with you. Do you want to debate your case? All right. First, let me see your qualifications. I have a list here of forty questions I would like to ask you, to see if you are competent to understand problems. These are very simple problems, very simple questions, and if you are able to handle these ABC's, then perhaps you are able to debate with me the questions you have in your heart."

Then, in chapters 38 through 40, you have one of the most remarkable passages in all of the Bible.

God takes Job on a tour of nature and asks him question after question about Job's ability to deal with this kind of thing or that kind of thing in nature. Gradually these three chapters draw the picture of a vastly complicated, intricately intertwined universe for which is required a tremendous superhuman mind to direct all these activities, to keep life in balance and to answer all the questions that the Lord is asking Job to answer.

At the end of this overwhelming display of the wisdom of God, Job falls down on his face and says:

"I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:5- 6 RSV)

God's essential argument is that life is too complicated for simple answers!

If you are demanding that God come up with simple answers to these deep and complicated problems, you are asking him to do more than you are able to understand. He is simply saying that only God can adequately deal with the answers to these kinds of questions.

Therefore, man must take the position of trusting him, not arguing with him.

God has displayed in the most amazing way his ability to work out complicated situations while keeping human life and the life of the entire world, with all their tremendously involved complexities, in beautiful balance.

Now if we really see that, then we must trust God to work out these complicated problems of our lives.

Job, overwhelmed by the vast might and wisdom and majesty of God, falls on his face, repents, and learns the lesson that God wants him to learn. Only God has the right to use men for whatever purpose he desires. In other words, God does not exist for man but man exists for God. God is not a glorified bell-boy at whom we can snap our fingers and have him run up asking, "May I take your order?"

We exist for him. We are God's instruments for the working out of his purposes, some of which are so vastly complicated they are quite beyond our ability to understand.

There are many questions which simply cannot be answered because our calculating minds are so inadequate.

The last of the book is a beautiful picture of what James calls the tender mercies of God toward Job (James 5:11).

God says to Job, "Now I want you to pray for your friends, these three dear men, so stubborn, so sure that they had all the answers, so well meaning, so sincere, so dedicated, but such utter blunderers. Pray for them. Job."

Then God said to Job, "How many sheep did you have?" Job said, "Seven thousand." God said, "All right, I will give you fourteen thousand. How many oxen did you have?" And he said, "Five hundred." God replied, "I'll give you a thousand. How many camels?" "Three thousand." "All right, Job, you will have six thousand camels. How many asses did you have?" "Five hundred." "I'll give you a thousand. How many sons and daughters?" "Seven sons and three daughters." "All right, you will have seven sons and three daughters more, doubled. Twice as many. Seven sons and three daughters in glory and seven sons and three daughters on earth."

God restored twice as much to Job and he lived the rest of his life in blessedness and happiness. The account closes with the words:

And Job died, and old man, and full of days. (Job 42:17 RSV)

Now the remarkable thing about this book is the answer we are given: the fact that the backdrop to human suffering is the age-long conflict of Satan's challenge to God's righteous government of the universe.

This answer is never given to Job, at least while he lives. At the beginning of the book you find God, Satan, and Job. At the end of the book, Satan has faded out of the picture entirely and God stands before Job with his arms akimbo, saying, "All right, I am responsible. Any questions?"

The great lesson of the book is that there are times when we cannot be told the whole picture. There are times when God does not adequately explain life to us. There are times when we must trust that not all suffering occurs because we are bad, but because it can also be the source of some final good.

The deepest note in the book may be struck when, out of the desolation of his heart and yet with the Spirit of God within him urging him on to faith in the midst of his bewilderment and confusion, Job says,
But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. (Job 23:10 RSV)

That is the lesson of this book:

Life is too complicated for us to handle alone. It gets so involved that we can't even be given some of the answers at times, but God is saying, "If you just take a look at all the problems that I keep solving on the very simplest levels of life and which even then are far beyond your ability to cope with, can't you trust me to work this one out as well?"

Why do bad things happen to good people....?

In Romans Paul rejoices, "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."   But NEVER will he take away without giving ten times more in return.


We live by grace and grace alone. 






Tuesday, December 1, 2015

ZIONISM AND JUDAISM - DIFFERENCES IN MEANING AND ORIGIN




ZIONISM AND JUDAISM

DIFFERENCES IN MEANING AND ORIGIN



Stes de Necker




ZIONISM

The term "Zionism" itself is derived from the word Zion (Hebrew: ציון, Tzi-yon‎), referring to Jerusalem. Throughout Eastern Europe in the late 19th century, there were numerous grassroots groups promoting the national resettlement of the Jews in what was termed their "ancestral homeland", as well as the revitalization and cultivation of Hebrew. These groups were collectively called the "Lovers of Zion."

The first use of the term is attributed to the Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, founder of a nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, who used the term in 1890 in his Journal ‘Selbstemanzipation’ (Self Emancipation). 

Readings of the founders of Zionism shows that they lived in the same Europe which spawned fascism and Nazism, and they adopted the anti-Jewish view that Jews did not belong in Europe as the core of their ideology.

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a political state whose territory they occupied in Biblical times, i.e. the Promised Land.

It doesn't imply any religious beliefs. 

Also, not all religious Jews are Zionist. Some of them believe the state of Israel won't exist until after the Messiah comes. However, there is a big overlap between the religious and the political beliefs.

ZIONISM AND THE APARTHEID SYSTEM OF SOUTH AFRICA

In December 1973, the UN passed a series of resolutions condemning South Africa and included a reference to an "unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism."

At the time there was little cooperation between Israel and South Africa, although the two countries would develop a close relationship during the 1970s. Parallels have also been drawn between aspects of South Africa's apartheid regime and certain Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, which are seen as manifestations of racism in Zionist thinking.

In 1975 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, which said "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". According to the resolution, "any doctrine of racial differentiation of superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, and dangerous."

The resolution named the occupied territory of Palestine, Zimbabwe, and South Africa as examples of racist regimes. Resolution 3379 was pioneered by the Soviet Union and passed with numerical support from Arab and African states amidst accusations that Israel was supportive of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

The resolution was robustly criticized by the US representative, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as an 'obscenity' and a 'harm ...done to the United Nations'. 

“The United States ...does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act… The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that it is not.”  (Moynihan 1975)

In 1991 the resolution was repealed with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86, after Israel declared that it would only participate in the Madrid Conference of 1991 if the resolution were revoked.

Arab countries sought to associate Zionism with racism in connection with a 2001 UN conference on racism, which took place in Durban, South Africa, which caused the United States and Israel to walk away from the conference as a response. 

The final text of the conference did not connect Zionism with racism. A human rights forum arranged in connection with the conference, on the other hand, did equate Zionism with racism and censured Israel for what it called "racist crimes, including acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing".

The problem with the Zionist ideology, as in the case of South Africa’s apartheid system, idea is twofold:

1) Most Jewish people are thoroughly intermingled with other races and cultures. So much so, that Israel requires only proof of one Jewish grandparent.

2) Zionism inevitably means that the native peoples of the holy land, the Palestinians, are displaced even though they have more of a right to be there in the first place.


JUDAISM
Judaism (from the Latin Iudaismus), is derived from the Greek Ἰουδαϊσμός, and ultimately from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah".

Yahadut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethos, is the religion, philosophy and way of life of the Jewish people.

Judaism is a monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Mishnah and the Talmud.

Judaism is considered by religious Jews to be the expression of the covenental relationship God established with the Children of Israel.

JUDAISM AND THE LAWS OF MOSES

The basis of Jewish law and tradition (halakha) is the Torah (also known as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses). According to rabbinic tradition there are 613 commandments in the Torah.
In my article ‘The Laws of Moses’ (My blog dated 30 may 2012) all the Mosaic Laws are listed.
Some of these laws are directed only to men or to women, some only to the ancient priestly groups, the Kohanim and Leviyim (members of the tribe of Levi), some only to farmers within the Land of Israel.

Many laws were only applicable when the Temple in Jerusalem existed, and fewer than 300 of these commandments are still applicable today.

Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3,000 years.

Judaism has its roots as a structured religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age.

Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions.

The Hebrews (Israelites) were already referred to as "Jews" in later books of the Tanakh such as the Book of Esther, with the term Jews replacing the title "Children of Israel".

Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law.

Jews are an ethno-religious group and include those born Jewish and converts to Judaism. 

SUMMARY

Nowadays the deliberate blurring of the distinction between Zionism and Judaism, which includes a re-writing of ancient as well as modern history, is exploited to stifle any criticism of Israel's policies and actions, however extreme and inhuman they may be. This, incidentally, also plays directly into anti-Semitic prejudices by equating Israeli arrogance, brutality and complete denial of basic human rights to non-Jews with general Jewish characteristics.

JUDAISM is a religion and a tradition.

ZIONISM is a political ideology.

Judaism refers to the values, rites and beliefs of the Jewish people.

Zionism refers to the idea that the Jewish people must relocate from the Diaspora to their ancestral homeland. 








QUILT HOLES - The ragged pieces of our lives




QUILT HOLES

The ragged pieces of our lives


                                                                                                  Stes de Necker



As I faced my Maker at the last judgment, I knelt before the Lord along with all the other souls.

Before each of us laid our lives like the squares of a quilt in many piles; an angel sat before each of us sewing our quilt squares together into a tapestry that is our life.

But as my angel took each piece of cloth off the pile, I noticed how ragged and empty each of my squares was. They were filled with giant holes. Each square was labelled with a part of my life that had been difficult, the challenges and temptations I was faced with in everyday life. I saw hardships that I endured, which were the largest holes of all.

I glanced around me. Nobody else had such squares. Other than a tiny hole here and there, the other tapestries were filled with rich colour and the bright hues of worldly fortune.

I gazed upon my own life and was disheartened.

My angel was sewing the ragged pieces of cloth together, threadbare and empty, like binding air.
Finally, the time came when each life was to be displayed, held up to the light, the scrutiny of truth.

The others rose, each in turn, holding up their tapestries. So filled their lives had been. My angel looked upon me and nodded for me to rise.

My gaze dropped to the ground in shame. I hadn't had all the earthly fortunes. I had love in my life and laughter. But there had also been trials of illness and wealth, and false accusations that took from me my world, as I knew it. I had to start over many times. I often struggled with the temptation to quit, only to somehow muster the strength to pick up and begin again. I spent many nights on my knees in prayer, asking for help and guidance in my life. I had often been held up to ridicule, which
I endured painfully, each time offering it up to the Father in hopes that I would not melt within my skin beneath the judgmental gaze of those who unfairly judged me.

And now, I had to face the truth. My life was what it was, and I had to accept it for what it was.
I rose and slowly lifted the combined squares of my life to the light. An awe-filled gasp filled the air. I gazed around at the others who stared at me with wide eyes.

Then, I looked upon the tapestry before me. Light flooded the many holes, creating an image, the face of Christ. Then our Lord stood before me, with warmth and love in His eyes. He said, 'Every time you gave over your life to Me, it became My life, My hardships, and My struggles. Each point of light in your life was when you stepped aside and let Me shine through, until there was more of Me than there was of you.'

May all our quilts be threadbare and worn, allowing Christ to shine through!

God determines who walks into your life...it's up to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay and who you refuse to let go.'

When there is nothing left but God, that is when you find out that God is all you need.







Thursday, October 22, 2015

DIE GODDELIKE DRIE EENHEID - Waar het die begrip ontstaan




DIE GODDELIKE DRIE EENHEID

Waar het die begrip ontstaan

                                                                                           Stes de Necker

Inleiding

Nêrens in die Bybel staan daar spesefiek dat die Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees, ʼn Drie-eenheid is nie.

Sovêr bekend is die term “Drie-eenheid” die eerste keer gebruik deur Tertullianus (150-225 n.C.), die soge­naam­de vader van die Latynse teologie, maar dit is eers in 350-450 n.C. in die Latynse vertaling van die Bybel (Vulgaat) opgeneem, waarskynlik as gevolg van die St. Jerome manuskripte van die Bybel. (Hy was onder andere ook verantwoordelik vir die skryf van die Vulgaat) Dit was eers tydens die Eerste Ekumeniese Konsilie van Nicéa (325 n.C.), wat die begrip van ʼn Goddelike Drie-eenheid, amptelike teologiese beslag gekry het.

Antwoord 25 van die Heidelbergse Kategismus, gee wel vir ons die antwoord op die vraag: “Terwyl daar maar tog net een, enige Goddelike Wese is, waarom praat jy van drie, naamlik die Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees ?”  (Antwoord: Omdat God Hom so in sy Woord geopenbaar het dat hierdie drie onderskeie Persone die enige, ware en ewige God is), maar die kategismus gee ongelukkig nie vir ons ʼn antwoord op die vraag, hoé, hierdie drie onderskeie Persone as een enkelvoudige “eenheid” verstaan moet word nie!

Eenheid in die Ou Testament

In Deuteronomium 6: 4 lees ons: “Luister, Israel, die Here is ons God, Hy is die enigste Here.”  (“Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.” [Echad – Hebreeuse woord vir “een”]  “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”)

Daar bestaan ʼn siening dat die Hebreeuse woord “echad” in Deuteronomium 6: 4 na ʼn “saamgestelde eenheid” (composite or compound unity) verwys en gevolglik kan die Drie-enigheid van God op hierdie wyse bewys word.

ʼn Saamgestelde eenheid het ʼn pluralistiese betekenis wat beteken dat die geheel uit ʼn verskeidenheid afsonderlik identifiseerbare komponente bestaan wat gesamentlik ʼn eenheid vorm, bv. een tros druiwe. Een druiwe-korrel verwys nie na die tros nie, en net so verwys die woord  tros nie net na een druiwe-korrel nie.

Eenheid in die Nuwe Testament

Die Heidelbergse Kategismus verwys egter na ʼn enkelvoudige eenheid in vraag 25 as dit sê “Terwyl daar maar tog net een, enige Goddelike Wese is, waarom praat jy van drie, naamlik die Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees ?”

Terwyl dit waar is dat die woord “echad” na ʼn saamgestelde eenheid kán verwys, (net soos wat die woord “een” in Afrikaans of “one” in Engels ook na ʼn saamgestelde eenheid kan verwys), bestaan daar geen bewyse vir die siening dat die woord “echad” soos gebruik in Deuteronomium, na ʼn saamgestelde eenheid verwys nie.  

Die laaste persoon in die Drie-eenheid is die Heilige Gees.

Volgens die Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis is die Heilige gees, net soos God en Jesus, deel van die Drie-eenheid. In Artikel 11 staan daar: Ons glo en bely ook dat die Heilige Gees van ewigheid van die Vader en die Seun uitgaan; dat Hy nie gemaak of geskep of gebore is nie maar van albei slegs uitgaan; dat Hy in orde die derde Persoon in die Drie-eenheid is; dat Hy van een en dieselfde wese, majesteit en heerlikheid as die Vader en die Seun is; dat Hy inderdaad ware en ewige God is, soos die Heilige Skrif ons leer.

Terwyl ons dus glo dat God Drie-eenig is, bely ons terselfdertyd dat Jesus opgevaar het na die Hemel, “en sit aan die regterhand van God” ….? Hoe verduidelik ons aan ʼn jongmens, of ʼn nie-christen, hierdie ooglopende paradoks?

Waar het die belydenis van ʼn Goddelike Drie-eenheid ontstaan

In die Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis staan daar in Artikel 9: “Want daar is drie wat getuig in die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een; en daar is drie wat getuig op die aarde: die Gees en die water en die bloed, en die drie is eenstemmig.” 

Hierdie belydenis was hoofsaaklik geskoei op 1 Joh. 5: 7-8 van die Nederlandse State Bybel (1637) : (7) “Want drie zijn er, die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het woord, en de Heilige Geest; en deze drie zijn een. (8)  En drie zijn er, die getuigen op de aarde, de Geest, en het water, en het bloed; en die drie zijn tot een.”

Ons vind ook dieselfde bewoording in die King James Bybel, (1 John 5 :7-8) : (7) ”For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” en (8) “And there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these Three agree in one.” 

Terwyl dieselfde bewoording ook in die ou vertaling van die Afrikaanse Bybel (1953) voorkom, staan daar egter in die nuwe vertaling van die Afrikaanse Bybel (1983): (7)“Daar is dus drie wat getuig: (8)die Gees en die water en die bloed, en die drie se getuienis stem ooreen.”

In die ou vertalings, was vers 7 van 1 Joh. 5, een van die belangrike verse van die Bybel aangesien dit die enigste vers in die Bybel was op grond waarvan die bestaan van die Goddelike Drie-eenheid, teologies beslag gekry het. 

Die verwysing na die drie “getuies in die hemel”, verskyn egter ook nie in enige van die oorspronklike manuskripte van die Griekse Bybel (Vulgaat) nie. Volgens Bybelse historici is hierdie gedeelte moontlik bygevoeg in die Latynse manuskripte van St. Jerome in die jare 350-450 n.C.

Dit was hoofsaaklik as gevolg van hierdie dwaling dat die Heidelbergse Kategismus in vraag 25, vra: “Terwyl daar maar tog net een, enige Goddelike Wese is, waarom praat jy van drie, naamlik die Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees ?” en dan antwoord:  “Omdat God Hom so in sy Woord geopenbaar het dat hierdie drie onderskeie Persone die enige, ware en ewige God is.”

Die weglating van “en hierdie drie is een” in vers 7 van 1 Joh. 5 in die nuwe vertaling van die Afrikaanse Bybel is, histories, die mees korrekte weergawe van wat die apostel Johannes oorspronklik in 1 Joh. 5: 7 geskryf het.

Die historiese dwaling rondom vers 7 van 1 Joh, 5. maak egter nie ons belydenis en geloof in die Goddelike 'Drie-eenheid' vals nie. 

Die vraag ontstaan bloot of dit nie miskien meer korrek sou wees om van n 'Drie-ledige' Godheid te praat nie?

Daar bestaan immers voldoende verwysings in die Bybel dat die Godheid 'Drie-ledig' is:  

Joh. 1: 1 en 14: (1) “In die begin was die Woord daar en die Woord was by God en die Woord was God self.”  (14) “Die Woord het mens geword en onder ons kom woon.”

Hand. 2: 17 “Ek sal my Gees uitstort op alle mense.”

Fil. 2: 6 “Hy wat in die gestalte van God was...”  het aan mense gelyk geword.

Jes. 42: 1 “Hier is My dienaar, Ek stel hom aan. Ek laat my Gees op hom kom ...’

Die mens as beelddraers van God   

Is dit moontlik dat ons die “Beeld-draers van God” is vanweë die feit dat daar nie nog ʼn maaksel soos ons bestaan wat op enige wyse, enige ooreenstemming of gelykenis met die “Beeld” van God het nie, of is ons, soos wat die Afrikaanse verklarende Bybel sê: Die mens verteenwoordig God, letterlik soos ʼn beeld of afbeelding van Hom, hier op aarde.

In die antieke Romeinse tyd het die Keiser dikwels standbeelde van homself in die afgeleë gebiede van die Romeinse Ryk laat oprig om die bevolking daaraan te herinner dat hy die keiser is; die een wat regeer. Dit is teen hierdie agtergrond dat die Afrikaanse verklarende Bybel sê dat, net soos die beeld van iemand gegeld het as sy verteenwoordiger (alter ego) in ʼn sekere gebied, net so verteenwoordig die mens God, as Heerser oor die skepping.

Alhoewel die Pentateug geskryf is tydens die ballingskap, nagenoeg 550 jaar voor Christus, het die skrywers van die Pentateug in werklikheid net die mondelings oorgedraagde geskiedenis, te boek gestel.  Die grootste gedeelte van hierdie teboekstelling, was die kopiëring of óórskryf, van die Tien Gebooie en die Mosaïese wette, wat nóg ʼn verdere 900 jaar voor die ballingskap reeds beskryf is. 
Hierdie wette was, onder andere,  baie spesifiek en verbiedend oor die maak, bestaan en gebruik van enige beelde.  

(1)  Eks. 20:4 ”Jy mag nie vir jou ʼn beeld of enige afbeelding maak van wat in die hemel daarbo of op die aarde hieronder of in die water onder die aarde is nie. Jy mag hulle nie vereer of dien nie ….” en in:

(2)  Deut. 7: 25 “…. die afgodsbeelde is afskuwelike goed in die oë van die Here jou God.” en in:

(3)  Lev. 18: 3 “Julle mag nie maak soos die Egiptenaars by wie julle gewoon het, of soos die Kanaäniete na wie se land toe Ek julle bring nie. Julle mag hulle gebruike nie navolg nie.” en verder in Lev. 20: 23 “Julle mag nie die gebruike van die nasies wat ek voor julle gaan uitdryf, navolg nie.”

Dit is gevolglik uiters onwaarskynlik dat, toe die skrywers van Genesis in Gen. 1: 27 geskryf het : ”God het die mens geskep as Sy verteenwoordiger, as beeld van God … ” hulle daarmee bedoel het dat die mens, God letterlik (soos ʼn standbeeld van die keiser) op aarde moet verteenwoordig. Dit sou in werklikheid beteken dat hierdie skrywers ʼn suiwer heidense gebruik, wat allerweë deur die wet van Moses en die Tien Gebooie verbied was, in die Ou Testament sou invoer.

Die King James vertaling van Gen. 1: 27 lees: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Die begrip “verteenwoordiger”, as sinoniem met die woord beeld of standbeeld, kom nêrens in die Engelse of die Hebreeuse tekste van Gen. 1: 27 voor nie.

Die Hebreeuse woord vir “beeld” (image) wat in Gen. 1:27 gebruik word is tselem (צלם) wat beteken “skaduwee” of “afbeelding”.  M.a.w. dit beteken nie dat ons soos God lýk nie, maar dat ons ʼn skaduwee van die aard en wese van die Godheid is. (Gen. 3: 22 “Die mens het nou soos een van Ons geword …” )

In 1 Kor. 3: 16 sê Paulus: “Weet julle nie dat julle die tempel van God is en dat die Gees van God in julle woon nie?” en verder in 1 Kor. 6: 19  “Of besef julle nie dat julle liggaam ʼn tempel van die Heilige Gees is nie?”

Die Tempel het ook uit drie  dele bestaan: die Voorhof, die Heilige en die Allerheiligste. Die voorhof was die enigste gedeelte waar die gewone mense kon ingaan.

Die Heilige en Allerheiligste gedeeltes van die tempel was nie vir die gewone mens toeganklik nie en was van die Voorhof geskei deur die “voorhangsel”. Net die priesters kon in die Heilige gedeelte binnegaan en slegs die Hoë-priester kon net één maal per jaar, op versoeningsdag (Yom Kippur), die Allerheiligste binnegaan.

Met Jesus se versoenings-dood skeur die voorhangsel in twee, en kry die mens toegang tot God (die Heilige en Allerheiligste) deur Jesus Christus.

Indien ons die Bybel se beskrywing van “na die beeld van God” eerder sien as die figuratiewe ooreenkoms met die Drie-enige aard van die Godheid, (die “beeld” van God) dan kry die versinnebeelding van die mens, as beeld-draer van hierdie Goddelike Drie-eenheid, vir ons ʼn totaal nuwe betekenis.

Na Sy opstanding het Jesus nog steeds op die aarde vertoef sodat Hy homself aan Sy dissipels en geliefdes kon openbaar as opgestane Heiland, maar nou met ʼn verheerlikte liggaam, en dit was in hierdie verheerlikte vorm wat Jesus ook opgevaar Hemel toe. Ons glo dat die mens ook sal opstaan in ʼn verheerlikte liggaam, waarin die siel en die Gees van God nog altyd sal wees.

In Matt. 10: 28 skryf die apostel: “Moenie bang wees vir dié wat die liggaam doodmaak, maar die siel nie kan doodmaak nie. Nee, vrees Hom eerder wat sowel die liggaam as die siel in die hel kan laat vergaan.”  

Dit bring ons terug by Gen. 3: 22 naamlik, “Die mens het nou soos een van Ons geword ….”, en dan bied die Ou Testament vir ons, weereens, daardie ryke agtergrond waarteen ons die inhoud en betekenis van die Nuwe Testament, soveel meer sinvol en prakties kan verstaan.

“Het algemeen geloof nu is, dat wij één God in de drieheid en de drieheid in de eenheid aanbidden, zonder de Personen te vermengen of het Wezen te delen.” en dan verder in paragraaf 35: “Want zoals een redelijke ziel met het lichaam één mens is, zo is ook God en mens (Jesus in Sy menslike voorkoms) één Christus.”  (Gedeelte tussen hakies eie byvoeging.)


Sou graag meer opinies wou hoor.....