Marilah kita merenungkan bersama makna dari tema blog ini yaitu:
Bahwa hidup kita sebagai orang percaya ialah berada dalam konteks di antara titik kejatuhan Adam dan Hawa di Taman Eden dan saatnya kita akan memasuki Taman Firdaus atau Taman Eden yang baru. Sejarah manusia mempunyai arusnya dan maksudnya. Sama sekali tidak berputar-putar melulu melainkan tetap menuju penggenapan yang ditentukan oleh Tuhan. Mereka yang menolak adanya Tuhan dalam hidup mereka hanyalah hidup pada zaman yang edan. Kita yang percaya pada kasih setia Tuhan ada pengharapan tentang zaman Eden.
Kita baru merayakan Natal tahun 2010. Bagi kita diberi kesempatan untuk merenungkan secara baru makna dari penjelmaan Tuhan Yesus menjadi manusia dengan darah dan daging sesuai dengan rencana Tuhan yang ditentukanNya sebelum dunia diciptakan. Bahkan Yesus datang sebagai Adam kedua.
Pernahkah saudara bertanya tentang asal-usul pohon Natal?
Kemungkinan besar pohon Natal berasal dari Jerman. Di negara Jerman hanyalah pohon pinus yang tidak rontok daunya pada musim gugur. Semua jenis pohon lainnya rontok daunnya. Sehingga pada musim Winter, menjelang Natal, pohon pinus tetap ada daun yang lebat dan hijau (O Tannenbaum, wie treu sind deine blätter - O pohon pinus, alangkah setia daunmu). Sehingga Luther menggunakan pohon pinus sebagai lambang kasih setia Tuhan. Sesuai dengan kasih setiaNya maka Mesias yang dinubuatkan oleh para nabi sepanjang zaman Perjanjian Lama dan yang dinanti-nantikan telah datang ke dunia pada waktu yang 'genap' (Galatia 4:4).
Di samping itu orang Jerman lazim mula-mula menghiasi pohon itu dengan buah apel. Dengan demikian pohon itu melambangkan buah di Taman Eden baru. Kita yang percaya kepada Tuhan Yesus diizinkan memasuki Taman Eden baru untuk makan dari buahnya (Kejadian 3:22; Wahyu 22:2).
Friday, December 31, 2010
Hell
Sesuatu yang lucu mengenai neraka :
In a University of Washington mid-term examination in Chemistry the following question was actually asked:
Is hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? support your answer with a proof.
Most students wrote about the ideal gas law and that gases heat up when they are compressed. One student, however wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of hell is changing over time. In other words, we need to know the rate souls are leaving hell. I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, then it will not leave. Therefore, we assume that no souls are leaving hell.
As for how many souls are entering hell: Let's look at the different religions that are in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions, and since people usually do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With the current birth and death rates we can expect the number of souls to increase exponentially.
Now we look at the rate of change of the volume of hell because the gas law states that in order for the temperature to stay the same the volume of hell has to expand as the souls are added.
This gives rise to two possibilities:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks.
2. Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster that the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given by Ms Theresa Banyan during my freshman year, "It will be a cold night in hell before I go out with you!" and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in that area, then 2. cannot be true, and so hell is exothermic.
Apparently, the student who gave this answer scored the only 'A'!
In a University of Washington mid-term examination in Chemistry the following question was actually asked:
Is hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? support your answer with a proof.
Most students wrote about the ideal gas law and that gases heat up when they are compressed. One student, however wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of hell is changing over time. In other words, we need to know the rate souls are leaving hell. I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, then it will not leave. Therefore, we assume that no souls are leaving hell.
As for how many souls are entering hell: Let's look at the different religions that are in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions, and since people usually do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With the current birth and death rates we can expect the number of souls to increase exponentially.
Now we look at the rate of change of the volume of hell because the gas law states that in order for the temperature to stay the same the volume of hell has to expand as the souls are added.
This gives rise to two possibilities:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks.
2. Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster that the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given by Ms Theresa Banyan during my freshman year, "It will be a cold night in hell before I go out with you!" and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in that area, then 2. cannot be true, and so hell is exothermic.
Apparently, the student who gave this answer scored the only 'A'!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Makna Natal
Sudah terlalu lama saya belum sempat pasang sesuatu pada blog ini. Mulai saat ini saya akan sewaktu-waktu muat sesuatu untuk merangsang kita semua lebih merenungkan iman kita dan hidup kita sebagai orang percaya.
Karena sudahlah menjelang Natal tahun 2010 maka saya akan cantumkan suatu akronim untuk membantu kita lebih memahami makna Natal:
Nobatkanlah Yesus sebagai Raja di atas hidupmu justru karena Dia lahir sebagai Raja dunia (Matius 2:11).
Akuilah dosa-dosamu justru karena Yesus lahir sebagai Juruselamat dunia (Matius 1:21; Lukas 2:11)
Terimalah Yesus dalam hidupmu - semua yang menerimaNya diberiNya kuasa menjadi anak-anak Allah (Yohanes 1:12)
Andalkan Yesus dalam hidupmu (lihat Kolose 1:15-20)
BerLututlah di hadapan Yesus (lihat Filipi 2:10,11)
Selamat Natal! Semoga Tuhan memberkati!
Karena sudahlah menjelang Natal tahun 2010 maka saya akan cantumkan suatu akronim untuk membantu kita lebih memahami makna Natal:
Nobatkanlah Yesus sebagai Raja di atas hidupmu justru karena Dia lahir sebagai Raja dunia (Matius 2:11).
Akuilah dosa-dosamu justru karena Yesus lahir sebagai Juruselamat dunia (Matius 1:21; Lukas 2:11)
Terimalah Yesus dalam hidupmu - semua yang menerimaNya diberiNya kuasa menjadi anak-anak Allah (Yohanes 1:12)
Andalkan Yesus dalam hidupmu (lihat Kolose 1:15-20)
BerLututlah di hadapan Yesus (lihat Filipi 2:10,11)
Selamat Natal! Semoga Tuhan memberkati!
Friday, April 25, 2008
PTC BLOG: Exploring all sorts of things
PTC BLOG: Exploring all sorts of things
What an encouraging post! It's good to see PTC have a healthy focus on mission for both the short term as well as the long term
cheers,
sujomo
What an encouraging post! It's good to see PTC have a healthy focus on mission for both the short term as well as the long term
cheers,
sujomo
Sunday, July 15, 2007
One small step for a man .... one changed life
Not sure who may be reading this in blogsphere but I haven't been able to work on this blog for some 3 months.
At the beginning of April my wife and I went to Switzerland to visit our daughter who was working there. While at the top of Jungfraujoch I slipped and ended up in hospital in Interlaken for 5 days. All it took was one step on a slippery floor (which turned out to be ice!) and I fractured my fibula and broke my ankle in such a way that the tendon was almost detached. Two metal screws were inserted into my ankle. Tomorrow I see the orthopedic surgeon who will decide when to remove these metal screws.
This accident happened on the second day of our time in Switzerland! Having to listen to German non stop for five days I have resolved to make an effort to learn German to get it to a level so that I can use it effectively.
I was able to visit an OMF missionary friend in Zurich. My friend took me in a wheelchair to see the Grossmunster where Zwingli ministered and I have been inspired to read up more on the works of Zwingli and Bullinger.
I am reminded of a verse of Scripture that has always been special to me - Proverbs 16:9 "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps".
I have been kept busy with ministry commitments and hamstrung with having to have a cast and having to walk with crutches for quite some time. I have just come back from being the last minute replacement speaker for our church camp.
I had one stimulating experience was when a visiting Indonesian New Testament scholar gave a seminar on his NT Greek/Indonesian Interlinear Bible with accompanying concordance. In referring to the parable of the rich fool he made a point about the verb in Luke 12:20 being 3rd person plural active. I had suggested to him off the top of my head that it might be a divine passive. When I did a cursory check via the internet I did discover an article that referred to 3rd person plural active used both in Hebrew and Aramaic to indicate the passive.
Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
At the beginning of April my wife and I went to Switzerland to visit our daughter who was working there. While at the top of Jungfraujoch I slipped and ended up in hospital in Interlaken for 5 days. All it took was one step on a slippery floor (which turned out to be ice!) and I fractured my fibula and broke my ankle in such a way that the tendon was almost detached. Two metal screws were inserted into my ankle. Tomorrow I see the orthopedic surgeon who will decide when to remove these metal screws.
This accident happened on the second day of our time in Switzerland! Having to listen to German non stop for five days I have resolved to make an effort to learn German to get it to a level so that I can use it effectively.
I was able to visit an OMF missionary friend in Zurich. My friend took me in a wheelchair to see the Grossmunster where Zwingli ministered and I have been inspired to read up more on the works of Zwingli and Bullinger.
I am reminded of a verse of Scripture that has always been special to me - Proverbs 16:9 "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps".
I have been kept busy with ministry commitments and hamstrung with having to have a cast and having to walk with crutches for quite some time. I have just come back from being the last minute replacement speaker for our church camp.
I had one stimulating experience was when a visiting Indonesian New Testament scholar gave a seminar on his NT Greek/Indonesian Interlinear Bible with accompanying concordance. In referring to the parable of the rich fool he made a point about the verb in Luke 12:20 being 3rd person plural active. I had suggested to him off the top of my head that it might be a divine passive. When I did a cursory check via the internet I did discover an article that referred to 3rd person plural active used both in Hebrew and Aramaic to indicate the passive.
Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Why was the stone moved?
In preparing for ministry this Easter I came across some previously unthought of ideas through my reading.
One is concerning the size of the rock that covered the tomb of Jesus. One source claimed that the entrance to the tomb was approximately 4-5 feet high (Peter actually went into the tomb, presumably bending over as John had to bend over to look into the tomb - John 20:3-9). This source estimated that the weight of the stone would be of the order of one and a half to two tons and that there is a variant reading to Mark 16:4 so that it reads "And when He was laid there, he (Joseph) put against the tomb a stone which twenty men could not roll away."
Is anyone aware of this variant reading? I will look further into this when I return from holidays. But I do note that Cranfield writes of this verse, "The MS. k has here quite an extensive gloss of an obviously legendary character".
Anyway, a very large stone would explain the question of the women, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? "(Mark 16:3). Furthermore, it would concur with the reference of Joseph of Arimathea who was a 'member of the Council' and clearly a man of means (cf Isaiah 53:9).
Who moved the stone? Matthew 28:1-4 records that an angel of the Lord rolled back the stone. The verb apokulio is used here (also in Mark and Luke). Someone has suggested that this verb indicates that the stone had to be rolled up an incline? Anyone got any thoughts on this?
I think a more interesting question is - why was the stone moved?
We know that the resurrected body of Jesus was not bound by walls. Jesus could appear and stand among His disciples even though they had hidden themselves in a room (John 20:19ff). So imagine this scenario: On the third day the resurrected Jesus passes through the stone at the entrance of the tomb and reveals Himself to the disciples and the women. At first, they don't recognise Him but He eats in their presence as per Luke 24:36-42 and invited them to inspect His wounds as per John 20:24-28). They are eventually convinced of the resurrection. Then as reports of His resurrection begin to circle the Jewish authorities are mobilised into action. The Roman guard is asked to remove the seal and then 'roll away' the stone. But it will not be an 'empty tomb'. They will then see no body but just the grave clothes lying exactly as John has recorded it - John 20:6,7). This would then be more than ample evidence for the fact of bodily resurrection.
Why was the stone moved?
I am reminded of John 12:28 where the people around Jesus heard a voice form heaven "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again". Jesus explained, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine" (John 12:30). I wonder if the reason the stone was moved was for the benefit of the disciples and the women. That is, so that Peter and John (and others) could see for themselves the 'empty tomb' and then, more readily, accept the reality of the resurrection when they met the resurrected Jesus. Had the stone not been rolled away would the disciples have accepted the fact of the resurrection (consider, for example, the reaction of the two that journeyed to Emmaus with Jesus)? Just a thought.
Have a blessed Easter!
One is concerning the size of the rock that covered the tomb of Jesus. One source claimed that the entrance to the tomb was approximately 4-5 feet high (Peter actually went into the tomb, presumably bending over as John had to bend over to look into the tomb - John 20:3-9). This source estimated that the weight of the stone would be of the order of one and a half to two tons and that there is a variant reading to Mark 16:4 so that it reads "And when He was laid there, he (Joseph) put against the tomb a stone which twenty men could not roll away."
Is anyone aware of this variant reading? I will look further into this when I return from holidays. But I do note that Cranfield writes of this verse, "The MS. k has here quite an extensive gloss of an obviously legendary character".
Anyway, a very large stone would explain the question of the women, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? "(Mark 16:3). Furthermore, it would concur with the reference of Joseph of Arimathea who was a 'member of the Council' and clearly a man of means (cf Isaiah 53:9).
Who moved the stone? Matthew 28:1-4 records that an angel of the Lord rolled back the stone. The verb apokulio is used here (also in Mark and Luke). Someone has suggested that this verb indicates that the stone had to be rolled up an incline? Anyone got any thoughts on this?
I think a more interesting question is - why was the stone moved?
We know that the resurrected body of Jesus was not bound by walls. Jesus could appear and stand among His disciples even though they had hidden themselves in a room (John 20:19ff). So imagine this scenario: On the third day the resurrected Jesus passes through the stone at the entrance of the tomb and reveals Himself to the disciples and the women. At first, they don't recognise Him but He eats in their presence as per Luke 24:36-42 and invited them to inspect His wounds as per John 20:24-28). They are eventually convinced of the resurrection. Then as reports of His resurrection begin to circle the Jewish authorities are mobilised into action. The Roman guard is asked to remove the seal and then 'roll away' the stone. But it will not be an 'empty tomb'. They will then see no body but just the grave clothes lying exactly as John has recorded it - John 20:6,7). This would then be more than ample evidence for the fact of bodily resurrection.
Why was the stone moved?
I am reminded of John 12:28 where the people around Jesus heard a voice form heaven "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again". Jesus explained, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine" (John 12:30). I wonder if the reason the stone was moved was for the benefit of the disciples and the women. That is, so that Peter and John (and others) could see for themselves the 'empty tomb' and then, more readily, accept the reality of the resurrection when they met the resurrected Jesus. Had the stone not been rolled away would the disciples have accepted the fact of the resurrection (consider, for example, the reaction of the two that journeyed to Emmaus with Jesus)? Just a thought.
Have a blessed Easter!
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Easter and God's plan
At our evening service on Sunday we sang the following contemporary song composed by Bryson Smith who ministers at the Presbyterian church in Dubbo, Central NSW, Australia:
At God's perfect timing
Christ died for fallen man
He wore a crown of thorns
Nails driven through His hands
Christ willingly endured it
To death He chose to go
He broke His body for us
Shed blood to make us whole
Nothing can I boast in
My life is scared with sin
My works are filthy rags
No merit can I bring
Yet mercy filled Christ's heart
Love took Him to the tree
It's grace alone which saves me
Christ's blood that sets me free
So, if I am boasting
I'll speak of my disgrace
For my weak self displays
The power of God's grace
Christ's Spirit works within me
In weakness He is strong
So I look to my Saviour
To safely bring me home
Many great biblical themes are alluded to in this great Christian song:
The first stanza contains a clear reference to Galatians 4:4 and God's plan for the salvation of men and women from Garden to Garden. The shedding of blood is a clear reference to Hebrews 9:22 and other NT passages which see the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross as a fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system to provide forgiveness, wholeness and reconciliation with God.
The second stanza has a reference to Isaiah 64:6 and affirms that righteousness is only found in Jesus who sets us free from the bondage of sin. Significantly, in the line 'love took Him to the tree' there is a reference to Galatians 3:13 which, in turn refers to Deuteronomy 21:23. Another clear link between the new covenant and the old covenant.
The third stanza refers to "Christ's Spirit works within me" and in so doing refers to the farewell discourse of John 14-16 with respect to 'going' of Christ and the 'coming' of another Paraclete. The presence of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus and in the life of the believer is evidence that the kingdom of God is here (Acts 2:17-21). But the kingdom of God is yet to come as we look to our Saviour "to safely bring me home" - that is, back to the Garden. All of this is by God's grace according to His plan.
What a great Christian song set to great music!
At God's perfect timing
Christ died for fallen man
He wore a crown of thorns
Nails driven through His hands
Christ willingly endured it
To death He chose to go
He broke His body for us
Shed blood to make us whole
Nothing can I boast in
My life is scared with sin
My works are filthy rags
No merit can I bring
Yet mercy filled Christ's heart
Love took Him to the tree
It's grace alone which saves me
Christ's blood that sets me free
So, if I am boasting
I'll speak of my disgrace
For my weak self displays
The power of God's grace
Christ's Spirit works within me
In weakness He is strong
So I look to my Saviour
To safely bring me home
Many great biblical themes are alluded to in this great Christian song:
The first stanza contains a clear reference to Galatians 4:4 and God's plan for the salvation of men and women from Garden to Garden. The shedding of blood is a clear reference to Hebrews 9:22 and other NT passages which see the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross as a fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system to provide forgiveness, wholeness and reconciliation with God.
The second stanza has a reference to Isaiah 64:6 and affirms that righteousness is only found in Jesus who sets us free from the bondage of sin. Significantly, in the line 'love took Him to the tree' there is a reference to Galatians 3:13 which, in turn refers to Deuteronomy 21:23. Another clear link between the new covenant and the old covenant.
The third stanza refers to "Christ's Spirit works within me" and in so doing refers to the farewell discourse of John 14-16 with respect to 'going' of Christ and the 'coming' of another Paraclete. The presence of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus and in the life of the believer is evidence that the kingdom of God is here (Acts 2:17-21). But the kingdom of God is yet to come as we look to our Saviour "to safely bring me home" - that is, back to the Garden. All of this is by God's grace according to His plan.
What a great Christian song set to great music!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)