Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
Heaven according to Newsweek
You can have the all one tolerant mindset or here you can read about throwing all of them together and throwing them out.
Posted: August 7, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
This week's Newsweek makes an effort to "explain" Heaven to all those poor souls out there who, in the words of column author Lisa Miller, "need" Heaven, "even when clerics insist that heaven is symbolic."
Miller evidently considers herself to be an expert on the subject and, in one sense, I suppose one could agree. Miller makes it clear that she doesn't believe in an afterlife, God or Heaven.
Since, from her view, it's all just a fairy tale, being an expert on Heaven is not much different than being an expert on Harvey the Invisible Rabbit. See the movie, read the book and bingo! – instant expert!
And who is going to dispute her "expert" analysis with facts? Somebody who's been there?
Miller explains Heaven from the points of view of Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism – even David Koresh's perspective is granted equal time with Christ.
Miller also applies the words of Pope Urban to the army of the Crusades and the promises of David Koresh with equal theological weight.
Miller's "explanation" of Heaven is both condescending and wildly inaccurate, unless one shares her perspective that since there's no such place, every explanation is equally valid.
She draws a conclusion that the Jews had no real understanding of Heaven until after the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C. Miller blames the Greeks, saying that Jews invented Heaven because the Greeks had one. She bases her conclusion on Daniel 12:2. "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
To make this work, she concludes the Book of Daniel was not written until around 165 B.C.
She says the Jews added this as the "first full-blown reference to resurrection in the Bible, an enormously dramatic historical event and 'an act of incredible theological chutzpah,' says Neil Gillman, professor of philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary." The incredible theological chutzpah belongs to Miller, as I read it.
It would take more column time than I have here to address the authorship of the Book of Daniel. There are tons of historical evidences, but for me, the validity of the Book of Daniel is addressed by the Bible itself.
Since Jesus validated Daniel as a prophet, (Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14) if Daniel was written in 165 B.C., then Jesus was also a fraud. In that case, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Miller says that the backdated and forged Book of Daniel (it would necessarily be both for her thesis to work) is the first reference to resurrection in the Bible. That pretty much establishes her theological credentials.
The Book of Job is generally considered to be the oldest book in the Bible, dating to a time bordering on pre-history.
Job 19:25-26 attests: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."
Since Job intends to stand "in his flesh" after "worms destroy this body" "at the latter day upon the earth" it doesn't require a doctorate in divinity to see he is referring to the resurrection that Miller says is not introduced into Jewish theology until 165 B.C.
Miller concludes, "Good, compassionate behavior is not a matter of historical necessity, political perspective or cultural bias. If one can make the mental leap to imagine God in heaven, meting out judgment at the final hour, it's not so much more of a stretch to believe that, in his or her wisdom, God must be able to sort out the bad guys from the good, and twisted rationalizations from what is true."
Miller is right. God has no problems sorting out the good guys from the bad guys and is quite capable of sorting out twisted rationalizations from what is true.
If it weren't such a serious issue, this latest attempt of the modern media to explain a crucial religious belief would be humorous.
Miller does accurately reveal the gross ignorance of natural man when it comes to things spiritual. Jesus explained this when He told a learned religious leader of his day, "Unless a man is born again spiritually, he can not understand the things of the kingdom of God." When the startled religious leader asked how a man could be born a second time when he is old, Jesus replied, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual." (see John 3)
Even a highly educated "religious minister" who does not have spiritual life can't understand the spiritual phenomena of God. The Bible further explains why: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Simply put, all mankind is born physically alive, but spiritually dead.
Until a person receives the gift of pardon for sin that Jesus died in our place to purchase for us, he cannot receive this spiritual birth. But the moment anyone recognizes that he or she is separated from a holy God by sin and receives this pardon, God causes to be born within him a new spiritual life. Then this person can understand the spiritual dimension of God.
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
