Typology — representation of Jesus in the Old Testament

 

Brain Memory

*

The Bible blows me away for the Bible’s reversal of expectation (inside-out/outside-in)   — “swallowing one’s own stomach,” so to speak.    Incomprehensibility outcomes as authenticity/truth.

*

*

*
*
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/03/get-to-know-me-my-approach-to-interpreting-the-bible-in-5-words/
*

Genre-calibration — The Bible, like anything that has ever been written, can be classified according to genre—many genres, in fact (letters, laws, wisdom, apocalyptic, prophecy, story, parable, etc.). Recognizing what genre you are in is key to sound biblical interpretation (i.e., don’t expect a parable to relay historical information; don’t read proverbs as if they were laws).

Recognizing the various ancient genres of our ancient Bible is greatly aided by our ability to compare and contrast the Bible with similar writings from the ancient world, i.e., by “calibrating” the Bible against ancient analogs and thus learning to adopt ancient expectations for interpreting biblical literature rather than imposing alien, modern conventions of reading.

So, Genesis 1-11 is best understood when compared to other ancient origins texts rather than expecting something along the lines of modern science; the Gospels are best understood alongside of ancient Greco-Roman “biographies” rather than contemporary biographies.

ChristotelicTelos is a Greek word meaning “end” or “goal.”

*

The Old Testament does not so much flow easily into the New Testament,

*

nor do the Old Testament writers “predict” Jesus of Nazareth in any conventional sense of the word “predict.”

*

Rather, after the resurrection, New Testament writers read their scripture (the Christian Old Testament) in light of—in taking into account—the surprise ending of a crucified and risen messiah.

The faith of the New Testament writers is that Christ is deeply connected to Israel’s story while at the same time grappling with this surprise, counterintuitive development of the gospel. This led the New Testament writers (especially Paul and the Gospel writers) to cite the Old Testament well over 300 times (connecting the gospel to Israel’s story) and in doing so significantly re-read, i.e., transpose, Israel’s story to account for the surprise ending.

*

The tendency toward “creative”(i.e., midrashic) readings of scripture in Judaism in general at the time is the proper hermeneutical backdrop for understanding this “Christotelic” hermeneutic (another instance of genre-calibration).

*

This is why–as many Bible readers already know–New Testament writers, when quoting the Old Testament, typically “take it out of context,” meaning the context of the original utterance. The gospel requires creative re-framing of Israel’s story.

*

*

*

*

*

*

http://www.jesus.org/is-jesus-god/old-testament-prophecies/is-jesus-in-every-book-of-the-old-testament.html

*

As you read through God’s Word, see how it points you to Jesus.

  • Christ is the Seed of woman and in Genesis 3:15 we are told He will one day crush Satan.
  • In Exodus we find the story of the Passover Lamb, and Christ is the sacrificial Lamb given for us.
  • In Leviticus we read of the high priests making sacrifices for the people, and Christ has become our High Priest, making the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins.
  • In Deuteronomy Moses prophesied of a prophet who would come that would be greater than Himself. Jesus is that Great Prophet.
  • In the book of Joshua, Joshua met the Captain of the Lord’s host. That man is Jesus Christ.
  • In Judges, the leaders were judges who delivered God’s people, each of them typifying the Lord Jesus.
  • Boaz, the kinsman who redeemed Ruth’s inheritance, is a picture of Christ.
  • David, the anointed one, pictures Jesus and Jesus is described as being the Son of David.
  • In 2 Samuel when the king is being enthroned, the entire scene is descriptive of the Lord Jesus.
  • The books of Kings speak of the glory of God filling the temple and the Chronicles describe the glorious coming king, both referring to Jesus, the King of Kings.
  • Ezra depicts Jesus as the Lord of our fathers.
  • Job says clearly that the Redeemer is coming!
  • Esther offers a picture of Christ interceding for His people.
  • Christ appears time after time in the Psalms, including when David describes Him as “the Shepherd.”
  • Isaiah details His glorious birth.
  • Jeremiah reveals that He will be acquainted with sorrows.
  • Joel describes Him as the Hope of His people.
  • Amos tells us that Jesus is the judge of all nations.
  • Obadiah warns of the coming eternal kingdom.
  • Jonah offers a picture of Jesus being dead for three days, then coming back to life to preach repentance.
  • Zephaniah says that He will be the king over Israel.
  • Zachariah is the prophet who speaks of Jesus riding on a colt.
  • Malachi is the one who calls Him the Son of Righteousness.

The entire Old Testament points toward Jesus as Savior, and if you miss that, you’ve missed the entire point of the Scriptures. Jesus is the Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy.

*

*

*

The Old Testament prepares the way for the New Testament, and all of God’s promises find their “yes” and “amen” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The exodus from Egypt, though a real, historical event, prefigures the saving work of Christ for His people. What God did through Moses was to provide physical salvation from physical slavery. What God does through Christ is provide spiritual salvation from a spiritual slavery. However, our slavery isn’t like that of the Israelites in Egypt. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt, but we are all slaves to sin. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:34, 36).

The passing through the Red Sea is symbolic of the believer’s identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul says, “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:1–4). Paul is giving the exodus from Egypt a Christological reading; he is making the connection between the exodus from Egypt and salvation in Christ. Notice how Paul says “all were baptized into Moses.” Just as the Israelites were “baptized into Moses,” so too are Christians baptized into Christ: “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).

So the parting of the Red Sea not only finalized God’s redemption of His people from slavery in Egypt, but it also prefigured the greater spiritual reality of God’s redemption of His people from slavery to sin through the work of Christ.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/parting-Red-Sea.html#ixzz3Ml5z2EcU

*

*

*

*

Lukewarm is worse than cold, so to speak, just as the good portion of the tree of knowledge also is self-deception (contaminated by self/Satan)  –

*

“I wish that you were cold or hot” (Revelation 3:15–16)

*

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

*

*

Interpreting Scripture requires an understanding of spiritual language, the hidden truth that lies just beneath its surface.

*

Dramatic presentation , irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations are characteristic of Jesus (e.g. good Samaritan parable/Beatitudes).    Does a pericope/concise passage illustrate opposites or impossibilities?   Yes, Jesus teaches us all.

 

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/in-the-case-of-christ-we-have-a-unique-form-of-persuasion-it-is-like-what-happens-when-an-error-in-our-viewpoint-is-shown-to-us-and-our-mind-reassembles-around-the-truth-that-we-have-not-seen-but-i/

*

*

*

*

Jesus knew what lay in the dark corners of men’s hearts.

*

Through the use of questions He exposed the motivations of the hearers—not to shame but to heal them.

*

Through the use of the poignant question, Jesus gently uncovered the realties of our inward life, the life seen by no one.

*

But Jesus sees it.

*

He knows what is in the heart of man because He has traveled the corridors of every man’s heart.

*

In fact, as many of us have discovered, sometimes to our chagrin, He sees our hearts better than we do.

*

By the power of the query He turns the light on our inward parts.

*

The questions of religious men are crafted that they might expose for the purpose of judging and condemning. In contrast, the questions of Jesus were specifically designed to reveal for the purpose of healing.

*

Rejection fills life.

*

“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” John 5:44 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:47

*

Questions such as these test our ability to look deeply at spiritual reality while they also force us to peer beneath the surface of life.

*

They will also unlock the door to the ancient language.

*

Our attempts to look for the answers to the questions and the struggle to express those answers open new pathways of personal and spiritual reality.

*

If we allow the question to do its job, it will search us and reveal the hidden, broken places in our hearts that it may accomplish what Jesus intended.

*

*

*

*
*
*

The New Testament prompts not only correlate with the Old Testament tablets of stone (e.g.  first prompt of baptism & the coming of Jesus) and the convergence of the human and holy spirit   –

*

the prompts also correspond with the other three items in the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Spirit –

*

*

the Lord’s table  juxtaposes with the Torah Scroll and intuition;

*

the  breaking of the bread  juxtaposes with manna and fellowship;

*

and the sipping of the wine juxtaposes with Aaron’s rod and conscience.

*

*

Understandably, our spiritual intuition, fellowship, & conscience are inseparable, just as the convergence of our human & holy spirit consists as fluid in one broth, so to speak.

*

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/the-bible-just-blows-me-away-baby/

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steven-kalas/embrace-rebirth-epiphany
*
Praying down heaven
*
 is outside-in.
*
You zero in on a frequency.
*
“I’ve had an epiphany,” you say. And then, “I’m not exactly sure what’s happening to me.”
You got that right. Something is happening to you. That is, this is nothing you’re doing, nothing you’re deciding. This is outside-in.
*
Incredulity is the right response to an epiphany. Incredulity is the wonderful, delicious (and awkward, frightening and uncomfortable) moment when everything you think you know and think you believe slams into a Deeper Reality. A Deeper Truth. And there, suddenly, you “get” that you don’t know anything much at all.
*
An epiphany is an in-breaking. No one knows why or how they happen. Or why they don’t. Or maybe epiphanies are always happening, always around us. In which case no one knows why or how they are suddenly recognized and acted upon. Or recognized and refused. Or never recognized.
*
Epiphany experiences are and will remain a mystery. Which is part of why epiphanies are so utterly cool when they happen to you. Or when, like me today in this office, you get to be an audience to an epiphany rippling through someone else.
*
For Christians, Epiphany is a liturgical feast day (Jan. 6, although the date varies in some churches), recalling and retelling the story of a star beckoning three astrologers (the Magi) to the birth of Jesus. This epiphany was a cosmic in-breaking, recognized and acted upon by “Three Wise Men.” They followed the star. They were obedient to the signs and energies inviting them forward into a new life. A new understanding of themselves and the world.
*
Epiphany experiences are about birth all right — our birth! And rebirth! Again and again life presents the invitation to burn down our limiting, inauthentic, not-so-useful, not-so-lovely and sometimes really unhappy, unpleasant or even destructive ways of being in exchange for a new vision of self and the world.
*
A better vision.
*
I tell the man he reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge who, after an epiphany of three dreams, is standing in his pajamas on a snow- crusted balcony, tossing money over into the street, giggling and dumbstruck, like a man bailing water out of a foundering boat.
*
Like an innocent child.
*
Incredulity is the first response to epiphany. Gratitude should be the next. Thirdly, action! Go. Do. Redeem your past self now with every breath, word and deed.
*
It’s time to see the star again.
*
*
*

*

*

*

*

And like the older spiritually mature Biblical Jacob  —    Pastors Wilfredo Agngaray, Cathy Poai Simmons, & Robert/Donna Mae Gomes  –

*

1)  shake off the dust (do not react in the flesh or of the self) of “the world,” so to speak,

*

2) and empathize with adversaries, if there by any, by praying  for their imperviousness to afflictions.

*

*

*

*

*

Jacob’s ladder

*

is the human soul and the angels are God’s logoi (messengers),

*

1)  pulling up the soul in distress (release from suffering)  — “shake off the dust”  — don’t overreact –

*

2)  and descending in compassion (empathize/pray for adversaries).

*

#2 above is characterized as “praying down heaven” to earth.   Smith Wigglesworth was a man who knew how to “pray down” heaven. He understood the powers available from above and knew how to bring those powers into this realm.   Pastor Cathy Poai Simmons especially is inspired by Smith Wigglesworth.    Angel Dust  Pastor Cathy imbued us all in “Martin Luther tabletalk” (Pastor Cathy’s ministry) with “praying down heaven.”

http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/praying-heaven-down-dan-anderson-sermon-on-prayer-adoration-96978.asp

*

This thought comes from the Lords Prayer. When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, He responded, “May your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” [Matthew 6:10] Or basically, we are to pray in faith: As it is in heaven, may it be that way now – on earth!      

http://www.pastorericdykstra.com/eric_offstage/2013/05/praying-heaven-down-pastor-eric-dykstra-the-crossing-church-elk-river-mn.html

*

If only You would tear the heavens open [and] come down, so that mountains would quake at Your presence…”     Isaiah 64:1-3

http://mountain-top-musings.blogspot.com/2012/07/praying-heaven-down.html

*

*

*

*

*

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_Ladder#Judaism

*

*

Jacob’s Dream by William Blake (c. 1805, British Museum, London)

*

*

Segment above is in my article here      –

*

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/luck-of-the-draw-bad-or-good-forgive-yourself-for-what-is-not-in-your-power-to-do-steven-kalas/    (in praise of Pastor Cathy Poai Simmons)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The earthly tabernacle was patterned after the one in heaven (Exodus 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8; Numbers 8:4; Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:11-12)

*

*

Spiritual gifts, including the miraculous, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 12:27-31, Romans 12:3-8, Ephesians 4:7-16 — impress (via the holy spirit) today.    Pastor Cathy Poai Simmons’ fruit of the Spirit (transformation & sanctification) manifests her spiritual character of love, not of her  as a gifted (purified/holy) disciple, but of the glorious building up of the collective body of Christ. 

*

http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/ex25v22.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance_ministry

http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/when-a-seat-of-mercy-becomes-a-throne-of-grace-everett-mccoy-sermon-on-grace-124553.asp?Page=2

*

God interfaces sinful man with Jesus at the Tabernacle’s Mercy Seat.    The Shekinah glory shows God’s presence between the cherubim over the cover of the Mercy Seat.    Sin separates man from God. A holy God shuts out sinful man from the Mercy Seat by walls and the veils. Our sins shut out us from the presence of a thrice holy God.   When the sinner could not go to heaven because of his coming short of the glory of God, God in the person of His Son came from heaven to earth “that He might bring us to God.” (1 Peter 3:18)  God issues an invitation for each of us eventually to “draw near with confidence to the Throne of Grace,” so that we may complete via mercy (Mercy Seat) from Jesus and grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)   Let’s “keep on drawing near(er)” with confidence to the places and times where God meets us in Christ.    We come now to the Mercy Seat (for eventual salvation), to draw nearer to Jesus’ Throne of Grace.   

*

Essentially, Jesus’ Mercy Seat for us and Jesus’ Throne of Grace contrast God’s relationship with man in the Old and New Covenants. When God set up residence on earth, He called His throne the Mercy Seat (for us all).   After Calvary Jesus prompted man via the Holy Spirit to Jesus’ Throne of Grace.  

*

The Old Testament was the preparation for the coming of Christ.   And Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

*

*

In the ark we saw the person of Christ, but in the Mercy Seat we see the work of Christ.   In the Throne of Grace we see the fulfillment of Christ in us.

 *

God has revealed His heart to us by the name of His throne.  Man comes frighteningly to the Judgment Seat, and finds the Mercy Seat, though Judgment eventually awaits us all.

*

Jesus’ Mercy Seat is a place we go to and not be condemned. And this is wonderful. Yet God has so much more for us. By way of Jesus, God’s throne is now called the Throne of Grace.  Not only will He forgive (Mercy), or not give you what you do deserve (destruction)  —  His intent is to bless, or give you what you do not deserve (Grace)!

 *

*

Segment above is in articles here    –

*

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/luck-of-the-draw-bad-or-good-forgive-yourself-for-what-is-not-in-your-power-to-do-steven-kalas/ (in praise of Pastor Cathy Poai Simmons)

*

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/1-peter-48-love-covers-a-multitude-of-sins-center-of-grace-or-in-the-secular-sense-forgive-yourself-for-what-is-not-in-your-power-to-do/    (tribute to Pastor Wilfredo Agngaray)

*

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/in-praise-of-christian-missioner-kolina-ana/   (testimonial to Pastors Robert & Donna Mae Gomes)

*

*

As erudite Pastor Cathy Poai Simmons intones, we are made in God’s image to be more than  indwelled with the Word of God (Scripture)  — that is, to pour out beyond in the Spirit of God by way of God’s holy spirit in us.   The significance of the Ark of the Covenant is not just to break us out of bondage,  but more so to enjoy Jesus’ throne of grace via Jesus’ mercy seat for us (our seat of grace)    — as we are touched deepest by the throne of the kingdom of God.        According to traditional teachings of Judaism in the Talmud, the tablets of stone (tablets of testimony)  were made of blue sapphire stone as a reminder of  God’s throne.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Prophecy (Coming) of Jesus by way of Old Testament  –
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)#Development_of_typology
Origin of the theory
Christian typology begins in the New Testament itself, with Paul in Romans 5.14 calling Adam “a type [τύπος] of the one who was to come”, i.e. a type of Christ. He contrasts Adam and Christ both in Romans 5 and in 1 Corinthians 15.
The early Christians, in considering the Old Testament, needed to decide what its role and purpose was for them, given that Christian revelation and the New Covenant might be considered to have superseded it, and many specific Old Testament rules and requirements in books such as Leviticus dealing with Expounding of the Law were no longer being followed.  One purpose of the Old Testament for Christians was to demonstrate that the Ministry of Jesus and Christ’s first coming had been prophesied and foreseen, and the Gospels indeed were seen to contain many quotations from the Old Testament which explicitly and implicitly link Jesus to Old Testament prophecies. Typology greatly extended the number of these links by adding to Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ others based on the mere similarity of Old Testament actions or situations to an aspect of Christ.
Typology is also a theory of history, seeing the whole story of the Jewish and Christian peoples as shaped by God, with events within the story acting as symbols for later events – in this role God is often compared to a writer, using actual events instead of fiction to shape his narrative.
Development of typology
The system of Medieval allegory began in the Early Church as a method for synthesizing the seeming discontinuities between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. While the Church studied both testaments and saw each as equally inspired by God, the Old Testament contained discontinuities for Christians, for example, the Jewish kosher laws and the requirement for male circumcision. This therefore encouraged seeing at least parts of the Old Testament not as a literal account, but as an allegory, or foreshadowing, of the events of the New Testament, and in particular examining how the events of the Old Testament related to the events of Christ’s life. Most theorists believed in the literal truth of the Old Testament accounts, but regarded the events described as shaped by God to provide types foreshadowing Christ. Others regarded some parts of the Bible as essentially allegorical; however the typological relationships remain the same whichever view is taken. Paul states the doctrine in Colossians 2:16-17 – “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” The idea also finds expression in the Letter to the Hebrews.
The development of this systematic view of the Hebrew Bible was influenced by the thought of the Hellenistic Jewish world centered in Alexandria, where the Jewish philosopher Philo (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE) and others viewed Scripture in philosophical terms (contemporary Greek literary theory highlighted foreshadowing as a literary device), as essentially an allegory – using Hellenistic Platonic concepts. Origen (184/185 – 253/254) Christianised the system, and figures including Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368) and Ambrose (c. 340 – 397) spread it. Saint Augustine (345-530) recalled often hearing Ambrose say that “the letter kills but the spirit gives life”, and Augustine in turn became a hugely influential proponent of the system, though also insisting on the literal historical truth of the Bible. Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636) and Rabanus Maurus (ca. 780-856) became influential as summarizers and compilers of works setting out standardized interpretations of correspondences and their meanings.
Jewish typological thought continued to develop in Rabbinic literature, including the Kabbalah, with concepts like the Pardes – the four approaches to a Biblical text.

Jacob’s Ladder from a Speculum Humanae Salvationis ca. 1430, pre-figuring the Ascension above

Typology frequently emerged in art; many typological pairings appear in sculpture on cathedrals and churches, and in other media. Popular illustrated works expounding typological couplings were among the commonest books of the late Middle Ages, as illuminated manuscripts, blockbooks, and incunabula (early printed books). The Speculum Humanae Salvationis and the Biblia pauperum became the two most successful compilations.
Example of Jonah
The story of Jonah and the fish in the Old Testament offers an example of typology. In the Old Testament Book of Jonah, Jonah told his shipmates to sacrifice him by throwing him overboard. Jonah explained that due to his own death, God’s wrath would pass and that the sea would become calm. Subsequently Jonah then spent three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish before it spat him up onto dry land.
Typological interpretation of this story holds that it prefigures Christ’s burial, the stomach of the fish representing Christ’s tomb: as Jonah exited from the fish after three days and three nights, so did Christ rise from His tomb on the third day. In the New Testament, Jesus invokes Jonah in the manner of a type: “As the crowds increased, Jesus said, ‘This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.’” Luke 11:29–32 (see also Matthew 12:38–42, 16:1–4). Jonah called the belly of the fish “She’ol“, the land of the dead (translated as “the grave” in the NIV Bible).
Thus whenever one finds an allusion to Jonah in Medieval art or in Medieval literature, it usually represents an allegory for the burial and resurrection of Christ. Other common typological allegories entail the four major Old Testament prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel prefiguring the four Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; or the twelve tribes of Israel foreshadowing the twelve apostles. Commentators could find countless numbers of analogies between stories of the Old Testament and the New; modern typologists prefer to limit themselves to considering typological relationships that they find sanctioned in the New Testament itself, as in the example of Jonah above.
Other Old Testament examples

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.  In the Sermon on the Mount he commented on the Law. Some scholars consider this to be an antitype of the proclamation of the Ten Commandments or Mosaic Covenant by Moses from mount Sinai.

*
*
Sacrifice of Isaac
Genesis Chapter 22 brings us the story of the preempted sacrifice of Isaac. God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to Him, cited as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Jesus. When a suspicious Isaac asks his father “where is the lamb for the burnt offering” Abraham prophesied “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And indeed a ram caught by its horns awaited them, which is also seen as a type for Christ, the lamb that God provides for sacrifice crowned by thorns.
Joseph
Genesis Chapters 37-50 has the story of Joseph in Egypt. Joseph is commonly cited as a Christ type in the story.  Joseph is a very special son to his father. From his father’s perspective Joseph dies and then comes back to life as the ruler of Egypt. Actually Joseph’s brothers deceive their father by dipping his coat in the blood of a sacrificed animal. Later Joseph’s father finds that not only is Joseph alive but he also is the ruler of Egypt that saves the world of his day from a great famine. Other parallels between Joseph and Jesus include, both are rejected by their own people, both became servants, both are betrayed for silver, both are falsely accused and face false witnesses. Additionally, both attain stations at the “right hand” of the respective thrones (Joseph at Pharaoh’s throne and Christ at the throne of God), and both provided for the salvation of gentiles (Joseph a physical salvation in preparing for the famine, while Christ provided the deeper spiritual salvation). Finally, Joseph married an Egyptian wife, bringing her into the Abrahamic lineage, whereas Christ’s relationship with the church is also described in marriage terms in the New Testament.
Moses
Moses, like Joseph and Jonah, undergoes a symbolic death and resurrection. Moses is placed in a basket and floated down the Nile river, and then is drawn out of the Nile to be adopted as a prince (floating the body down the Nile river was also part of an Egyptian funerary ritual for royalty).
While in the wilderness, Moses put a brazen serpent on a pole which would heal anyone bitten by a snake who looked at it (Numbers 21:8). Jesus proclaimed that the serpent was a type of Himself, since “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John 3:14) and “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Co 5:21)
In a battle with the Amalekites, Exodus 17:11 states that “as long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning.” Commentators interpret Moses’ raised hands as a type of Jesus’ raised hands upon the Cross, for when Jesus’ hands were raised as He died, a figurative battle with sin was waged, the end result being victory – that “all will be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22)
Inanimate types
Other types were found in aspects of the Old Testament less tied to specific events. The Jewish holidays also have typological fulfillment in the life of Christ. The Last Supper was a Passover meal. Furthermore, many people see the Spring Feasts as types of what Christ will accomplish in his first advent and the Fall Feasts as types of what Christ will accomplish in his second advent.
The Jewish Tabernacle is commonly seen as a series of complex types of Jesus Christ: for example, Jesus describes himself as “the door”,[ and the only “way” to God,[13] represented in the single, wide gate to the tabernacle court; the various layers of coverings over the tabernacle represent Christ’s godliness (in the intricately woven inner covering) and his humanity (in the dull colouring of the outside covering) The Showbread prepared in the Temple of Jerusalem is also seen as a type for Christ.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
As Cliff Livermore’s great editor intones,  –
*
Like both the accusers and the woman caught in adultery, none of us has righteousness apart from Christ based on our own terms.
*
We are dealing with a holy God and must be dressed in HIS holiness to enter into the Holy of Holies.
*
We are all sinners,
*
but we get to choose whether we fall upon the Rock
*
or whether the Rock falls upon us.
*
Either way, we get a Rock.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Prophecy (Coming) of Jesus by way of Old Testament  –
*
*
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_(Bible)
*
Christological (study of Christ) inferences in the context of chapter four of the Song of Solomon suggest a kenotic (‘self-emptying’ of one’s own will and becoming entirely receptive to God’s divine will) significance to Amana (perennial or as site of mountain ergo heaven). The husband (Christ) declares His love for His bride (the Church) throughout chapter four. He (Christ) sees no imperfection in His bride.
*
This is only possible through the descent from heaven through the incarnation and the propitionary death on Calvary, establishing a typology with the Gospels.
*
Amana and the other mountains are allegorical to heaven. The bride’s presence at the summit is possible through the acceptance of Christ resulting in as Paul later expressed it in Ephesians 2:6 being simultaneously “seated in the heavenlies” (figuratively) while walking in the world prior to glorification. The descent from Amana is through the dens of lions which are allegorical to the present dangers of the world and suggesting a typology with Christ’s Passion. The descent from Amana safely through the world (and by implication back to heaven [Amana]) is hand in hand with Christ.
Charles Spurgeon refers to Amana in his famous Morning and Evening devotional for September 18: “To the top of Amana, to the dens of lions, or to the hills of leopards, we will follow our Beloved.”
*
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis#New_Testament_usage
*
The New Testament does not use the actual noun kenosis,  but the verb form kenóō occurs five times (Ro.4:14, 1Co.1:17, 9:15, 2Co.9:3, Phil.2:7). Of these five times it is Phil 2:7, in which Jesus is said to have “emptied himself,” which is the starting point of Christian ideas of kenosis.
John the Baptist displayed the attitude when he said of Jesus, “He must become greater; I must become less.” (Jn 3:30).
*
The kenotic ethic is the ethic of Jesus, considered as the ethic of sacrifice. The Philippians passage urges believers to imitate Christ’s self-emptying. In this interpretation, Paul was not primarily putting forth a theory about God in this passage, rather he was using God’s humility exhibited in the incarnation event as a call for Christians to be similarly subservient to others.
*
In Christian theology, kenosis is the concept of the ‘self-emptying’ of one’s own will and becoming entirely receptive to God and the divine will. It is used both as an explanation of the Incarnation, and an indication of the nature of God’s activity and will. Mystical theologianJohn of the Cross‘ (1542-1591) work “Dark Night of the Soul” is a particularly lucid explanation of God’s process of transforming the believer into the icon or “likeness of Christ.”
*
Another perspective is the idea that God is self-emptying. He poured out himself to create the cosmos and the universe, and everything within it. Therefore, it is our duty to pour out ourselves. (This is similar to C.S. Lewis’ statement in Mere Christianity, that a painter pours his ideas out in his work, and yet remains quite a distinct being from his painting)
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism#Gospels
*
*
*
*
*
Gospels
*
Transfiguration of Jesus with Moses & Elijah
*
The Christian scriptures, insofar as they are the founding narrative of the Christian church, provide many key stories and concepts that become important for Christian mystics in all later generations: practices such as the Eucharist, baptism and the Lord’s Prayer all become activities that take on importance for both their ritual and symbolic values. Other scriptural narratives present scenes that become the focus of meditation: the Crucifixion of Jesus and his appearances after his Resurrection are two of the most central to Christian theology; but Jesus’ conception, in which the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, and his Transfiguration, in which he is briefly revealed in his heavenly glory, also become important images for meditation. Moreover, many of the Christian texts build on Jewish spiritual foundations, such as chokhmah, shekhinah.
*
To say, as haughty belligerent J.R Larson exclaims, that the Resurrection outdoes the Crucifixion, is to say that an airplane can fly on one wing (Resurrection) instead of the necessary two wings (including the Crucifixion) for completion/balance.    Christian mystic Pastor Robert Gomes totally transfixed into a pillar of salt J.R. face to face at Pastor Gomes’ ministry off Lanikaula St. in Hilo.
*
But different writers present different images and ideas. The Synoptic Gospels (in spite of their many differences) introduce several important ideas, two of which are related to Greco-Judaic notions of knowledge/gnosis by virtue of being mental acts: purity of heart, in which we will to see in God’s light; and repentance, which involves allowing God to judge and then transform us. Another key idea presented by the Synoptics is the desert, which is used as a metaphor for the place where we meet God in the poverty of our spirit.
The Gospel of John focuses on God’s glory in his use of light imagery and in his presentation of the Cross as a moment of exaltation; he also sees the Cross as the example of agape love, a love which is not so much an emotion as a willingness to serve and care for others. But in stressing love, John shifts the goal of spiritual growth away from knowledge/gnosis, which he presents more in terms of Stoic ideas about the role of reason as being the underlying principle of the universe and as the spiritual principle within all people. Although John does not follow up on the Stoic notion that this principle makes union with the divine possible for humanity, it is an idea that later Christian writers develop. Later generations will also shift back and forth between whether to follow the Synoptics in stressing knowledge or John in stressing love.
*
In his letters, Paul also focuses on mental activities, but not in the same way as the Synoptics, which equate renewing the mind with repentance. Instead, Paul sees the renewal of our minds as happening as we contemplate what Jesus did on the Cross, which then opens us to grace and to the movement of the Holy Spirit into our hearts. Like John, Paul is less interested in knowledge, preferring to emphasize the hiddenness, the “mystery” of God’s plan as revealed through Christ. But Paul’s discussion of the Cross differs from John’s in being less about how it reveals God’s glory and more about how it becomes the stumbling block that turns our minds back to God. Paul also describes the Christian life as that of an athlete, demanding practice and training for the sake of the prize; later writers will see in this image a call to ascetical practices.
*
Within theistic mysticism two broad tendencies can be identified. One is a tendency to understand God by asserting what He is not and the other by asserting what He is. The former leads to what is called apophatic theology and the latter to cataphatic theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism#Types_of_meditation
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_mysticism#The_mystical_teachings_of_Paul
*
*
*
*
*
*

*

*

*

Even for doubters (agnostics) and especially for nonbelievers (atheists)  –

*

it simply is astonishing and mind-blowing that hypothetically  –

*

we can devise an ethic –

*

a super conscience –

*

to keep us in check –

*

and balance  –

*

to ensure our survival as a species among nature’s creations

*

(ecosystem equilibrium akin to hydrostatic equilibrium  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium#Fluids  ).

*

*

*

*
*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/22/atheist-ten-commandments_n_6198734.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
*
The 10 “non-commandments” — the atheist’s irreducible statements of atheist and humanist belief  –
*
I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.
IV. All truth is proportional to the evidence.
V. There is no God.
VI. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
VII. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave.
VIII. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy.
IX. We benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society.
X. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.
*
*
*
Cry if you have to  –
*
Let it out. It’s not normal to get an infection from a paper cut or celebrate a holiday alone.
I make peace with  loneliness by acknowledging the absurdity of it.
*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-gimeno/4-tips-on-celebrating-a-h_b_6222380.html?utm_hp_ref=gps-for-the-soul&ir=GPS%20for%20the%20Soul
*
*
*
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steven-kalas/pondering-mysteries-time-new-year-looms
*
We have yesterday, today and tomorrow. Otherwise known as past, present and future.
I have been reminded, over the course of my life, to learn from the past, to be prepared for the future, while simultaneously staying alive to the present. It seems quite the juggling act.
Or maybe not. Maybe, as Einstein said, it’s all happening at once. Time coinheres (exists simultaneously).
*
Though he was ever the troubled sarcastic soul, John Lennon was right: “Life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans.”
*
Understanding time means knowing that today is the day to say “I love you.” To say, “I forgive you,” or, “I ask for your forgiveness.” Right now would be a good time to tell him/her how you feel. What you want. For what your heart longs.
*
*
Life contains injustice, tragedy and suffering. We can take these experiences and forge bitterness, denial, despair, addiction and other victimhoods. Or we can empathize. We can forge something meaningful, noble and beautiful, which we can then give back to the world.
 http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steven-kalas/raising-kids-emotional-security-alchemy-empathy
*
*
*
*
The resurgence of Reformed theology in American evangelicalism and fundamentalism–commonly referred to as the Neo-Reformed movement–is a belligerent movement. This is why it exists–to correct others, not to turn the spotlight inward.  So don’t be shocked, Tullian Tchividjian [& self-deceived fanatic “acolyte” of  erudite theologian Witness Lee — sad Joe Daubenmire (Any surprise?  DNA?
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/10/29/163433/89
)] , if it happens to you. Yesterday’s heroes can quickly become tomorrow’s vanquished foes.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/12/my-5-best-blogs-of-2014-that-as-far-as-we-know-whos-to-say-really-will-likely-change-the-world/#ixzz3NQK4uprN
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Understandably, here is new ager pantheist Chopra’s ‘sure’ list  –
*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/why-god-makes-more-sense-_b_6212042.html?utm_hp_ref=books&ir=Books
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/how-richard-dawkins-lost-_b_6172040.html?utm_hp_ref=books&ir=Books
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/hard-to-think-straight-pr_b_6200306.html?utm_hp_ref=science
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/pan-american-health-organ_n_6029402.html?utm_hp_ref=gps-for-the-soul&ir=GPS%20for%20the%20Soul
*
  1. Science isn’t by definition anti-religious.
  2. Atheists have a point when they accuse organized religion of a litany of gross failings, including crusades, jihads, and the Inquisition. But religions are human institutions prone to every human failing. Religious history is about us, not about whether God exists.
  3. God can be approached without resorting to the cultural mythology of a humanized Father and Mother watching over us from Heaven. Atheists largely attack this myth, but smashing a myth doesn’t mean you’ve smashed reality.
  4. There is a rich tradition, both East and West, of an impersonal God. This God is the source of consciousness and all that we associate with consciousness: self-awareness, intelligence, creativity, evolution, etc.
  5. The experience of God is found inside our own consciousness, not “out there” in a supernatural realm.
*
  1. If all experience is subjective, going inward is a valid means of exploring reality.
  2. In this exploration, new levels of consciousness reveal themselves.
  3. At deeper levels of consciousness, perception changes radically.
  4. As perception changes, so does reality itself, since nothing is real for us beyond what we can perceive in some way.
  5. The conjunction of the individual mind with the source of consciousness is where God lives.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Profound and inexplicable that we “first mold” (archetype typology) instinctively (internal drive)

*

for some paradigm (pattern/creation)

*

greater than the self

*

as the only real (sane — fulfilling) path

*

for finding a whole complete self.

*

*

Jungian scholars posit that inside every human heart is a personal picture of the divine, be it a personal God or an uninvolved pantheistic entity.

*

*

Agnostics/atheists posit that Jews have imago dei (image of God), whereas Christians have imago Christo (image of Christ).

*

*

*

*

*

Symbols are the language of dreams. A symbol can invoke a feeling or an idea and often has a much more profound and deeper meaning than any one word can convey.

http://www.dreammoods.com/dreamdictionary/

*

Symbols (other persons/things)  often “mask” the actual person/thing  (of one’s deepest secrets and hidden feelings –

unresolved conflicts discoverable via transference, as an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalytic_dream_interpretation#Contemporary_psychoanalytic_approach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(psychology)    )

 –

*

inasmuch the real person/thing emblematic of  immense suffering stretches oneself (e.g. the dreamer) into the vortex of vulnerability –

*

a psychic well so deep that is not without grave cost    –

*

perhaps in the extreme instance  –   to die as one lived –  as a person of self-determination and self-worth.

*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/02/brittany-maynard-death_n_6077482.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

*

Yet, in the depths of despair, absurdity, and indifference of life,

*

one finds the deepest connectedness, the deepest continuity,

*

with the primary humanity which defines you  –

*

 the piety of being who you are because someone loved you.

*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-anderson/why-cornel-west-loves-jan_b_6140744.html?utm_hp_ref=books

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Similarly   –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Christianity#Parables

the parables of Jesus represent a major component of his teachings in the gospels, the approximately thirty parables forming about one third of his recorded teachings.   The parables may appear within longer sermons, as well as other places within the narrative.

*

Jesus’ parables are seemingly simple and memorable stories, often with imagery, and each conveys a teaching which usually

*

relates the physical world to the spiritual world.

*

In the 19th century, Lisco and Fairbairn stated that in the parables of Jesus, “the image borrowed from the visible world is accompanied by a truth from the invisible

*

(spiritual)  world,”

*

and that the parables of Jesus are not “mere similitudes which serve the purpose of illustration, but are internal analogies where nature becomes a witness for the spiritual world.”   Similarly, in the 20th century, calling a parable “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning,”  William Barclay states that the parables of Jesus use familiar examples to lead others’ minds towards heavenly concepts. He suggests that Jesus did not form his parables merely as analogies but based on an “inward affinity between the natural and the spiritual order.”

 *
*

For literary observers   — the reversal of expectations typical of Jesus is a mind-blowing experience.   The parables (which consist of a third of all of Jesus’ teachings) speak in symbols, not by direct reference to us — for we in the flesh/of this physical world reject outright any direct condemnation vs. us.    The parables, like slave Aesop’s fables, expose our unloveliest nature in order for us to choose good over evil.    The story of Jesus is a therapeutic/spiritual  completion of our physical stuckness, whereas Aesop’s snippets are snapshot segments about man’s wretchedness.

*

Michele Mckeag Larsen

*

*

Joshua’s trek toward the land of milk and honey (no shortage of faith), unlike Moses’ early failed quest (shortage of faith)   — is a representation of Jesus cometh.    In this sense Joshua’s parable gave ample opportunities for the “chosen ones” to indwell with Christ, and to pour out beyond in the spirit of the Holy.

*

*

*

*

*

*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-samudre/6-reasons-spiritual-leade_b_6575080.html

*

6 Reasons Spiritual Leaders Are More Successful in Life

*

1. They know they can distance themselves from the noise.
Warren Buffett is known for saying, “The difference between successful people and unsuccessful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything.” Basically, the successful person is comfortable saying no to the matters that don’t contribute to their mission. They know how to filter through the noise. Yet, the unsuccessful person is someone who can’t filter the noise, and as a result, say yes to everything.

A spiritual leader knows they don’t have to contribute to everything. They are content with the silence. In fact, most spiritual practices incorporate a practice of being content to offer nothing to the noise. Silence is how spiritual leaders spend time with more important matters.

2. They incorporate intentional practices of slowing down.
A spiritual leader is concerned with finding peace throughout the day. This is why many leaders wake up early and do devotionals in the morning. They are concerned with sharpening themselves to face the day. An unspiritual leader might wake up early but get right into the rush of work, while the spiritual leader knows that their most optimal performance only comes after establishing peace.

3. They don’t feel the need to showcase their accomplishment.
Humility is a large part of spiritual practices, but it isn’t treasured in many cases outside spirituality. However, it should be valued in all cases, because many of us waste our time, attention, and energy trying to get others to notice our work rather than doing better with our work. Humility and secrecy is how we break free of the addiction to showcase our accomplishments, and focus on creating better victories instead.

4. They focus on the wellbeing of their employees, not just their output.
A benefit of cultivating one’s own spirituality is that they know how important it is for others to do the same. They know the health it brings to someone’s entire life. Because of this, they foster habits and practices that encourage not only output from their workers, but transformation. They are more inclined to care about their worker’s overall wellbeing, which in turn improves their workers commitment to the mission.

5. They measure success with internal features more than external ones.
Many of us measure success with numbers and statistics. Yet, the true success is not only an external matter. Most successes spill out from internal reservoirs, such as our belief in the project or our personal achievement in it.

The irony is, when we care more about the internal aspects of a success, we create better success than we would if we cared more for an external feature. For instance, when we are passionate for a project, we work harder for its success than we would if we were just putting it out there for the numbers or response from others. Spirituality, by discipline, teaches us that it is the heart that matters in many cases–not how people respond to what we do. Because of this, we create better success by first pouring all of ourselves into the project–not by catering it to fit mass popularity.

6. They understand life is not all about their work.
People with spirituality often have a bigger scope to life. They realize that life is much larger than their work, though it comes as a high priority in one’s life. Their scope typically includes how they respond to God in their daily dealings. Because of this larger scope, they allow for more grace and margin for errors in their life. They understand there is more to life than work when they commit a mistake at work. Giving themselves grace because of this scope keeps them healthy and guilt-free–the conditions necessary for making a difference.

While it’s true that anyone can be successful in life, letting your beliefs inform all aspects of your life helps establish the balance necessary for finding a deeper success–one that’s not defined by how much you do or have, but rather by the meaning you feel resonate in your life.

Beliefs add meaning to life. It’s time to apply those beliefs into our work so we can feel a deeper meaning there as well.

*

*

*

*

*

*

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-233/What-is-Sin

*

Psychologists reject sin because they want to exalt man, and they want to eliminate God.  So, because they reject sin, they have no explanation for why man is the way he is.  They misdiagnose him totally, so they offer really no help.  And what do we do?  We try to come up with harsher penalties, the, what is it, the three-strike law: three felonies in a row and you go to jail and they throw the key away.  We bring back the death penalty.  But nothing can end the reign of terror; nothing can end the reign of corruption.  You can’t do it with counseling.  You can’t do it with psychotherapy.  You can’t do it with Prozac.  You can’t do it, because the issue is sin.  The issue is: we’ve all inherited a corrupted nature.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Dig out your root of bitterness    (tribute to Christian mystic Pastor Wilfredo Agngaray)    –

*

http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/bitterness.php

*

Bitterness is a root!

Hebrews 12:15, “Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.”

*

Bitterness is hidden under the soil or surface. The same is true with bitterness in a person’s soul. It is a hidden element that lies under the surface, and out of it sprouts up anger and other negative emotions against others and against the circumstances around us. People who have a root of bitterness find it easy to get upset over things that others are doing around them. It’s like a volcano that lies beneath the surface, waiting to explode onto the surface.

Bitterness is a root, thereby making it harder to identify and expose than many surface issues, but none the less it’s a deadly poison that needs to be released.

*

“Why do you drink a poison brewed from the root of bitterness — in order to foment a curse on your adversary??”  rhetorically asks erudite sage Wilfredo Agngaray.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

My life has been a Griffin Dunne character in After Hours    

*

Paul Hackett (Dunne) experiences a series of misadventures as he tries to make his way home  (mishaps produce laughter via cynicism, skepticism, & the irony of incurring wrath thru one’s desire of pleasure).

*

This film is on the list of “Great Movies,” and it combines comedy, satire, and irony (irreducible truth) with unrelenting pressure and a sense of all-pervading paranoia/destruction.

Hopscotch to oblivion’, Barcelona, Spain

*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtPI9jIx1kU

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Hours_(film)

*

*

*

*

*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-schwartz/losing-the-soul-of-a-writer_b_6785530.html?utm_hp_ref=books&ir=Books

*

The creation of art requires assimilation of the starkest realities and contradictions of our uncertain nature and existence. Betrayal, violence, and death dangerously draw the artist to the flame. The artist travels where others will not tread. She rends the veil. Great art is religion without God. The artist is Tolstoy’s Hermit in Three Questions, Cormac McCarthy’s Mennonite in Blood Meridian, a Prophet Fool.

Art is genesis. Hatching a fully fleshed world, dense with character and narrative, from a single deed. A passing glance.

However, creation requires transgression, the obliteration of boundaries, and vision beyond vision. The artist does not choose her creation. The creation chooses the artist, impregnates the artist, violates the artist, and inflames the artist. This requirement, to inhabit the worlds one births, both elevates and isolates the artist. The art is a subtraction of the self, an absence, a loss one can experience but never share. Hence the loneliness. And it should not surprise us, therefore, that few of the authors mentioned in this essay escaped the afflictions of postpartum poverty, depression, illness, and addiction. Creation hurts. The artist falls anew each day.

Loss too easily slips into failure. Creation can require destruction. Of spouses. Of progeny. Of friends. Creation also requires an audience, but cannot guarantee it. Without an audience, without external validation, emptiness and nihilism can impinge upon the artist. The scorn of one’s peers will buffet a writer, but silence will utterly unhinge her.

And yet no writer can create without claiming and embracing a marginal status, without the immense artistic horizons self-reduction offers. The artist as loser, as outcast, as exile, as a point diminishing to near oblivion, acquires the freedom to create capaciously out of nothingness, which is the same as infinity. The artist vanishes. We inherit everything left behind.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

What others meant for evil, God meant for good   — the epiphany of Josephine A. Roche  — she loved to no end her dad — but also empathized with the forsaken of society  —

*

In 1925, Roche returned to Colorado due to her father’s failing health, and in 1927 inherited his holdings in the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, a coal mining company which he had founded.   By 1929, she had purchased a majority interest in the company and become president. She then proceeded to enact a variety of pro-labor policies, including an invitation for the United Mine Workers of America to return to Colorado and unionize her mines, 15 years after her father and other coal mine owners had broken the unions in the aftermath of the Ludlow Massacre of 1914.

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Roche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church 

*

My mother used to tell me that we weren’t the type of people to air out our dirty laundry. What she meant was good Southern girls didn’t go around talking about their troubles or divulging their secrets. (I can only assume it was by some divine corrective that their daughter turned out to be a blogger.)

But this is a cultural idiom, not a Christian one.

We Christian don’t get to send our lives through the rinse cycle before showing up to church. We come as we are–no hiding, no acting, no fear.

We come with our materialism, our pride, our petty grievances against our neighbors, our hypocritical disdain for those judgmental people in the church next door.

We come with our fear of death, our desperation to be loved, our troubled marriages, our persistent doubts, our preoccupation with status and image.

We come with our addictions–to substances, to work, to affirmation, to control, to food.

We come with our differnces, be they political, theological, racial, or socioeconomic. We come in search of sanctuary, a safe place to shed the masks and exhale.

We come to air our dirty laundry before God and everybody because when we do it together we don’t have to be afraid. (pp. 70-71)

*

I can tell you what I hear a lot: church is fake, and if church is fake, God is fake, and life is too short for fake, so no thanks.

People  need to hear that they are understood, and to watch someone model the very path they are on and yet still talk about church in a hopeful way. I’m glad this book exists.

*

Rachel is able to speak to people like that because she went through that process herself–not to mention she is a great writer, with a healthy tone of self-deprication and humility in all of it. She sees herself in this list; I see myself, too.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/05/a-brief-word-on-rachel-held-evans-her-dirty-laundry-and-her-new-book/
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Old Covenant’s theocracy has its progeny in today’s political dead works  –

*

from my astute fellow politico analyst    –

*

Hi Curtis,

*

Yes, clearly, one gets what one invests (acumen/money/time).

Please continue to ponder this issue (Hawai’i changing demographic impact on voting) and provide any additional insights and comments as they come to mind.  I do appreciate your thoughts as you are a student, unlike any other, of the history and relationships that run Hawaii politics.     Yours truly,   — Tom   Dec. 14, 2114

*

*

Run as democrat.  No sense get elected and then be rendered totally ineffective by the majority.

In 2008 none of the candidates, Kim, Fujiyama, Nakashima, Nakkim had much of a campaign.  None understood the concept of grass roots organizing, or chose not to use it as the campaign basis.  All based the campaigns on media.  Media cannot overpower grassroots organization (witness Abercrombie vs Ige at 10:1 $$ advantage, but Ige won).  People who do not understand campaigning feel they only can win with $$$ for media, and concentrate only on that aspect (so they lose).  Roth was outspent by Ashida, but had (in the end) better grass roots effort so he won.  Very few people understand how to win local campaigns.  Lingle, during her first gubernatorial campaign, did not have much money.  She relied on grassroots and won all islands except for a tiny area in Aiea (or thereabouts) by 1000 votes (total was 2000, but divide by 1/2) because they did not rely enough on grassroots (my brother was involved there so he saw what was going on).  Later, when she fell under the influence of big name campaign consultants from the mainland, she relied on media and money.  Got smashed.

*

I’ve been a member of the republican party and know the gang.  I know how they think and how the campaign.  I keep telling them to wise up, but they don’t get it.  They always resort to issues, reasoning, and money for media.  They totally miss the most important point:  People vote based on emotions.

*

*

Yes, how to win local grassroot campaigns (voters personally invest their hearts/emotions) as opposed to “global” (money/media) campaigns is where candidates “trip up.”

*

The glitz & glam of going bigtime sadly entice even the most impervious of candidates.

Scrub Tanaka’s (1915-2006)  “ohana” (“family” in Hawaiian) outreach & “inflow” of ground support are eternal keys to victory.   The point is to distinguish one’s plan/platform and execution from the incumbent.   And then win the hearts of every existing and potential voter.

*

Why does Hawai’i have just about the worst voter turnout in the nation?    The answers to this question are the keys to victory.

*

Answers:   Isolated island archipelago’s traditional laid-back culture (we don’t identify as voters, we identify as so-and-so family members)  — combined with Hawai’i being a humdrum boring one-party State with no high drama   — Democrats generically agree on most social issues,  so the intra-party popularity contest takes precedence over crucial fiscal (tax/revenue/debt) matters.   It’s no mistake why Scrub Tanaka coined our age-old populist methodology as “ohana” (appeal to family)!

*

*

*

from Angel on our shoulders Heather –

*

Heather look-alike Catherine Deneuve

Hey Curtis,

Interesting insight.

For one answer to your question: why do we have the worst voter turnout?

Because among voters in elections, we have NO VOICE even if we DO vote.   (Tom above says when you vote for the wrong candidate, you need to

The poly-tics choose to run on empty but glamorous promises (if and when they do tackle real issues) — then do nothing while in office. And when they AREN’T doing that in the ads, they are merely attacking the opponents’ character.

We aren’t stupid. We can tell whether a person is of poor character. Well, some can. The rest are stupid, to everyone’s ruin (ex. A: Barrack H. Obama and family).

Anyway, when the people that run actually start working for the people who vote for them, and it becomes apparent by an overall improvement in the lives the American voters, then I will play their Game.

Other than that, the Game is rigged in favor of career politicians that merely suck the life out of the people and extort and prey upon their hard work. If “we” the people can even find work, that is.

My many cats have given me more opportunities for “shovel ready” jobs than our fraud-in-chief has even come close to offering.

Blessings,

Angel (Heather)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The value of the Old Testament includes not just the representation of Jesus  — but also the expectation of long suffering  (perseverance of the saints)     –

*
*
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/12/well-at-least-the-old-testament-has-one-thing-going-for-it/
*
Their experiences are very much like ours today: life is hard, and life of faith does not automatically make it easier. It may actually make it harder at times.
Spiritual struggles are normal for Christians. They are not to be sought after, but they are normal. They are not to be romanticized, but they are normal. They are not to be shown off and bragged over, but they are normal.
To speak otherwise is to ignore the counter testimony. The Bible tells me so–and I’m glad it does.

*

*

*

*

*

*

In praise of Pastor Doreen Ah Nee Keaukaha born 1939   —

*

Pastor Doreen look-alike

*

Doreen’s body of work is Faith, which, by its very nature, begins and ends in the realm of the unseen.   It is conviction supported by evidence concerning things we do not know by experience. By faith we accept that the invisible things of God are behind the visible universe (Heb. 11:3). By faith we hope for a home in heaven, though we have never seen that paradise (2 Cor. 4:18).          “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

http://www.christistheway.com/2001/a01a07aa.html

*

The word “substance” is rendered “assurance” by the American Standard Version. The word literally means “a standing under, support” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, vol. 1, p. 85). “Faith,” in relation to hope, is assurance. It stands under and supports our hope. Thus, one’s hope is only as secure as his faith is strong.

*

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.     “substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen”

 http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
 *

We are made in God’s image to be more than  indwelled with the Word of God (Scripture)  — that is, to pour out beyond in the Spirit of God by way of God’s holy spirit in us.

*
*
*
*
*
*
Dedicated to shepherds Wilfredo Agngaray, Cathy Poai Simmons, & Bob/Donna Gomes  (the greatest commandment is to love)
*
*
This year marks the 95th anniversary of the National Football League.   In the singular instance of dispensation at one’s death, longtime Boston quarterback Steve Grogan could not muster the words to bid adieu to 61 yr. old Jack Tatum when Tatum died 5 yrs. ago, after Tatum had crippled Grogan’s wide receiver Darryl Stingley 37 yrs. ago, and Stingley succumbed to the effects of his quadriplegia and died 8 yrs. ago, 3 yrs. before Tatum after Tatum amputated both legs from diabetes and circulatory problems.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Tatum#Health_issues_and_death
*
*
That Tatum lived his final years with no legs after the previous 25 yrs. not having made up with Stingley — was tragically poetic/fitting to some, like Grogan.   Till Tatum’s dying day, Tatum never consoled Stingley, who died at age 55.
*
*
“I’m sorry because there was a life lost today,” said Darryl Stingley’s son, Derek, who was 7 when his father stopped walking. “Jack Tatum had a family. He was somebody’s father, somebody’s brother, somebody’s cousin or uncle. I truly am sad because of that.”
*
*
“He had close to 30 years to apologize,” Derek Stingley said. “There were plenty of opportunities.””This is a reminder to put things to the side and let bygones be bygones. I wish they had that opportunity to close that chapter in their lives, but it never happened.”
*
*
Tatum’s legacy was forever tainted by his callousness. ESPN’s John Clayton wrote a remembrance of Tatum and noted the behavior toward Darryl Stingley likely prevented Tatum from garnering consideration for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.    Tatum’s style was outlawed in this new age of football.
*
*
To its discredit, the NFL Network ranked Tatum at the top among the most fearsome tacklers in history, but the program never mentioned his hit on Darryl Stingley.
*
*
Tatum never spoke to Darryl Stingley after the injury — although he did suggest a televised reconciliation to coincide with the release of a book. Tatum wrote three of them: “They Call Me Assassin” in 1979, “They Still Call Me Assassin” in 1989 and “Final Confessions of NFL Assassin Jack Tatum” in 1996.”
*
*
When something like that happens and you don’t apologize for it, and then go out and write a book to make money and try to get famous off the incident, that’s just not right,” Grogan said. “I felt Jack  handled it very poorly.”
*
*
In a 2003 Boston Globe story, Darryl Stingley said he still would welcome a visit or a call from Tatum — without a commercial agenda.”If he called me today, I’d answer,” Darryl Stingley said. “If he came to my house, I’d open my door to him. All I ever wanted was for him to acknowledge me as a human being. I just wanted to hear from him if he felt sorry or not. It’s not like I’m unreachable. But it’s not a phone call I’ll be waiting for anymore.”
*
*
Darryl Stingley also claimed he harbored no hatred for Tatum.”It’s hard to articulate,” Darryl Stingley said. “It was a test of my faith. The entire story. In my heart and in my mind I forgave Jack Tatum a long time ago.  I take no pleasure in what has happened to him since then. How can anyone feel pleasure in another man’s pain?”
*
*
In 2003 Stingley recalled of the day he learned that the man who paralyzed him 25 yrs.  before was now losing his own legs. “The newspaper was folded so I’d see the bottom of the story first. It said something about how in 1978 Jack Tatum paralyzed me with a hit during an exhibition game. When I flipped over the paper, I saw the headline. `Fund raiser for fallen Buckeye.’ That’s when I first learned what happened.”
*
*
For the man Tatum put in a wheelchair but never spoke to since, there was only one human thing to say.
*
*
Typical of Darryl Stingley, he didn’t say it.
*
*
The human thing was to say what some of Stingley’s friends and former teammates said: “What goes around comes around.” The human thing was to say, “He finally got what he deserved.”
*
*
What Stingley said was different because he’s different. Or at least he chooses to be different.
 *
*
“You can’t, as a human being, feel happy about something like that happening to another human being,” Stingley said from his condominium overlooking Lake Michigan in Chicago. “Maybe the natural reaction is to think he got what was coming to him but I don’t accept human nature as our real nature. Human nature teaches us to hate. God teaches us to love.”
*
*
“I feel for him in that situation. I lived it with my father. I know what he and his family are going through. When I first read it, I was shocked momentarily. Then I began to think about my own father. He was also diabetic and I remember how first he lost a few toes. Then a leg. Eventually we lost him. My thoughts quickly left me and Tatum and went to my father and how I missed him. I wondered if he was proud of me. I wondered if he thought I’d handled well the things I had to handle . Was I right in his eyes? That’s where my thoughts went to.”
*
*
“The irony of Tatum losing his legs hit me. It was like the situation between us coming full circle. I know how that will change his life forever. I’d never wish that on anyone after I saw it with my own father.”
 *
*
Open the heart of “The Assassin” Tatum? Open the heart of a man who never once visited Stingley in all these years? Never once picked up the phone? Never once made a move toward reconciliation for the life-altering event they shared that night in 1978?
*
*
“I’m one of God’s children. Jack Tatum is one of God’s children, too. We both have crosses to bear. For each of us there’s always a battle between the good side and the bad side. Sometimes the bad side wins. Sometimes the good. It’s up to us to make the choice. I choose to believe in God.”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
deja vu  (America’s greatest military sniper  —  160 confirmed enemy kills  — gets killed by a friendly  bullet )   —
*
You live by the bullet, you die by it?
*
*
*
*
*
 *
*
*
 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The great Soviet romantic father of ice hockey, Tarasov, vs. cynical (die by the bullet  — Lake Placid’s “miracle on ice” epic event)  Tikhonov    —
*
*

Great role model Tarasov

*
http://www.staradvertiser.com/features/20150306_Film_explores_paradox_of_superb_Soviet_hockey_team.html
*

Fetisov  compared Tikhonov, his old coach, to Stalin, saying: “Coach with no heart, can he teach us to play? No. He give us drills, discipline. He wants to see us still as puppets, dancing to his whistle for the rest of our lives. That’s dictatorship.”

The style of hockey they played was not Tikhonov’s invention, he pointed out, but rather that of the beloved Anatoly Tarasov, who turns up in some archival footage in the movie, looking like a cheerful, potbellied Russian bear.

“Tikhonov never played this style himself,” Fetisov went on. “All he needed to do was let us play. At age 22, 23, we became the No. 1 line in hockey. For us, it was fun, a challenge: inside the most unfree system, to create a beautiful game.”

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Sugar master Tom Spencer’s great-grandson on people, places, & power    —

*

From late 19th century land baron Capt. Tom Spencer’s great-grandson Scotty Brewster  —

My good friend Curt,

this is very interesting.

I am a semi-professional umpire in Sacramento, working college and high school baseball.

Yours,

Scotty Brewster

 http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2015/11/26/hawaii-news-captain-thomas-spencer-and-makaleka-kiiwaiopualani-kaaloimaka-robinson-family-seeks-reunion-dec-5/

 *

 *

 *

Capt. Tom Spencer look-alike

Capt. Tom Spencer married Makaleka Robinson (daughter of shipbuilder Robinson & Luika Kawaipua).   For us Hilo folks, Tom Spencer owned a hilltop palisade (Niolopa) which became the eventual Hilo Hotel (Tom was King Kalakaua’s dear friend) overlooking Hilo bay.  Tom also owned under a thousand acres in Amau’ulu where he cultivated some 4,000 acres in sugar cane (which eventually transitioned into Wainaku’s Hilo Sugar Co. after Tom died in 1884).  Tom also had his own ocean landing/pier at what is today’s Isles Landing by Lili’uokalani Park & the Nihon Restaurant.  Tom’s 1861 landing site morphed into the 1900-1918 Railroad Wharf with its 800 ft. long 100 ft. wide pier in the lee of Moku’ola (island) (today’s Coconut Island leisure park).  Tom’s wheelhouse power contemporary William Reed built Reed’s own landing at the same time just a stone’s throw away at Kalauokukui Point (the later Government wharf 1900-1906), where today’s “jetty” outcrop is with its picnic benches and walkways.   Reed’s landing was not as ship friendly because of its shoreline exposure to high surf.

*

*

*

from Scotty Brewster   —

*

Robinson

                                                                     

1)      11/14/1848 Robert Robinson was awarded Hawaiian Naturalization (note: I have source documents for everything disclosed).

2)      1850 Island of Hawai’i: Hamakua…Ahupuaa: Keahua 1,2…Feature: ahupua’a…”the entire ahupuaa, Keahua-akahi, was awarded to Robert Robinson as LCAw 231 (TMK 4404,4406).     (cf.   http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/ef/hawaii/documents/CulturalAssessmentLAU.pdf   )

3)      1855 Session,  Robert Robinson elected as Representative of Hamakua.

4)      Makaleka K Robinson owned two or three whaleboats.

                                                          

                                                            Spencer

 

1)      1890 – 1892 Charles Nicholas Spencer, Minister Of The Interior. Charles Spencer was merely reappointed by Queen Liliuokalani, to the position he held in the preceding cabinet 1888, with King Kalakaua

2)      Charles and Captain Thomas Spencer, were loved by the King and Queen. They were true to the monarchy to the very end. I am familiar with the treason and conspiracy within the Queens own ministry,

how and who warned her ahead of time.

3)      1868  Mark Twain lived in the previous home of Charles N. Spencer, located in Waiohinu, Kau, Hawaii (I have pictures of this property).  

4)      1877 Charles Spencer and Hutchinson Suger Plantation were partners in a new sugar enterprize at Hilea, where a new mill was built and put in operation the following year.

 

1)      1874 – 1884 Captain Thomas Spencer U.S Consulate for Hilo

2)      1859 Captain Thomas Spencer owned multiple whaleships, two of them commanded by his brothers Captain R. G. Spencer and Obediah Spencer,

3)      1860 Captain Thomas Spencer purchases the Ewo Plantation along with B. Pitman’s land.

4)      1861 Captain Thomas Spencer , an American expatriate living in Hilo, Hawaii, raised and drilled a company of Infantry thru “Scott’s Infantry tactics”,  composed mostly of Native Hawaiians.

The self-described “Spencer’s Invincibles” offered their services to President Lincoln.

5)      7/24/1869, 7/28/1869, & 8/07/1869, Captain Thomas Spencer welcomed His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to his home as the Duke’s lodging place of his choice. They built a very strong friendship.

6)      When King Kalakaua visited Hilo, he would stay at Captain Thomas Spencer home. Many state secrets were entrusted to him. He stoutly assisted in the elevation of Kalakaua to the Throne. They built a very strong friendship.

7)      7/24/1856 Captain Thomas Spencer moved his only wife Lydia and children to Honolulu.

8)      11/1847 Captain Thomas Spencer first arrived in the Hawaiian Islands at Maui as Captain of the Whaleship Triton. Three weeks later they made sale to Honolulu, and the island Kauai. On the 8th of January, they set sail for Sydenham Island (big mistake, see Narrative “Events Attending The Massacre of part of the crew belonging to the WHALESHIP TRITON, OF NEW-BEDFORD by the natives of SYDENHAM’S ISLAND)

WRITTEN BY THOMAS SPENCER, MASTER

 *

 *

 *

*

*

*

The Hilo Hotel/former Spencer home site is at the top of the junction of Kino’ole & Kalakaua Streets in downtown Hilo.     Kalakaua St. is the former King St.

Good to know of your interest in your turning point family (transition from Polynesian to Western society).     Aloha!!

*

from newspaper article provided by Scotty Brewster

Thomas

Spencer.

Captain Thomas Spencer, who died in

Honolulu nine or ten years ago, was one

if-.he most enthusiastic and uncompromising

Americans that ever maintained with

voice and muscle the prowess nnd dignity

of the great republic in a foreign land.

And he possessed an abundance of both,

lor he was a man of grand proportions,

with tin! strength of an ox and lungs of a

lion. In disposition he was eminently

jovial, kind and peaceful; but any word

in his hearing of intentional disparagement

of the land of bis birth promptly

aroused his wrath, and a fight oran apology

was the inevitable satisfaction demanded.

His patriotism was boundless and unconditional,

and extended not alone to a defense

of the institutions of the republic,

but to its prominent leaders as well, no

nintter to which of the political parties

they belonged. Of course, such a man

could not always be rt-!»«onnb!e in a cbampioiifliii)

bo broad ami ucequlrocal, but his

hobby was understood and tolerated by his

friends of other nationalities, nut only because

of his mauy good qualities, but for

the further reason that he seldom spoke

disrespectfully of other nations, or denied

i, their citizens patriotic instincts as intense

as his own.

Kor was •”Uncle Tom Spencer,” as he

was familiarly called, more notPd for his

sturdy loyalty to the land of hi* birth than

for ins reckless generosity and almost

limitless hospitality. As the captain of a

wrecked whaler from Cape Cod, where ho

was born and reared, Ibelieve, he landed

en the Hawaiian islands more than forty

yoars ago. The conditions pleased him,

and lie sent for his family and remained

there up to tin- time of his death. He took

delight in noting the wonderful growth of

the republic from bis far-off home in the

Paciti .and liis love of country seemed to

increase in full measure with the added

ypnrs of his absence from it, until the sentiment

in the end look the form of a blind

and satisfied idolatry.

galling in a mercantile business Honolulu, hi lie goon amassed a comfortable

fortune, which lipinvested in canefields on

the island of Hawaii. his plantation*

were near Ililo,and he erected a large and

commodious residence in that village,

which he occupied during the remainder of

his life and where be dispensed a hospitality

so lavish and general as to render the

Spencer mansion famous. But, for some

reason, tin; captain did not meet with success

as a sugar-maker. He lost the most

of his money invested in the business and

found it necessary to resume the occupation

of a merchant, which he did In a

small wav at Hilo.

He spoke the Hawaiian language fluently

nnd was a creat favorite with the

native.”. He was held in esteem by the

rulers, and his advice was frequently invited

p.Bd followed by them. Whenever

lie visited Honolulu a room was placed »t

his disposal in the royal palace, and in private lie always addressed the sovereigns

by their individual names. Many state

secrets were entrusted to him, ami he was

the last person who held in his hand the

heart if Kaniehamelia HIbefore, it was

thrown into the crater of Kiinu.a as an

offering to IY1«. He stoutly assisted in the

elevation of K&lakaua to the throne, declaring

that lie was a man i • Ibrains, and

by far ;ic most eligible candidate of royal

bloid on the islands ;infact, as lie casually

mentioned to the Knglish resident Commissioner,

he was “almost good enough to

be an American I”

Probably the most gratifying event In

the longlife of Uncle Tom Speaeer was

Ms appointment as United Slates Vice-

Consul at Hilo, a position from which

death alone removed him. The emolnmeuts

of t tie place were inconsiderable;

Inn that was of no consequence to Captain

‘Join. The appointment made him an

acknowledged representative of the great

republic, the laud of his love,and he asked

fur nothing more. Be had elaborate signs

painted both for his residence and place of

business, ami from the tallest staff on ail

tlie ten Hawaiian Islands threw to the

breeze the stars and stripes. He also procured

a bronze eagle, about twelve inches

in height, mounted on a pedestal, which lie

always carried with bun in his travels and

placed on the table before him while taking

liis meals. This, on one occasion, he

politely reauested the American Minister

to allow him to do whiln dining with him

at the lloval Hawaiian Hotel in Honolulu.

Ttie latter would have avoided the display

of course, but Captain Tom regarded ithas

perfectly proper, and the eagle was a silent

witness of the repast.

As before Intimated, the shelter of his

rnof and a seat at his table were freely

offered to all who crossed bis threshold,

and distinguished tourists landing at Hilo

were made bis guests without regard to

their nationality and entertained with a

display and prodigality Mccording to their

character and deserts. The officers of all

war vessels dropping anchor in the harbor

of ililu were Invited to his table and received

ai his door with a welcome so hearty

and a suavity so unique that they could

never forget the circumstance.

The visitto Hilo of the Duke of Kdinbiirgh

while he was making a tour of the

world ana learn navigation, many

years ago, was a notable event in the life

of Captain Tom. He promptly placed his

house and all itcontained at the service of

the young Duke and bit friends so long as.

they remained ashore, and they gladly

availed themselves of the hospitable

tender. They made the house a pandemonium

for a few days, and the captain

substantially assisted in the uproar. They

bad evidently learned something of the

character of their host, and the style in

which they were received at his doorsatlst.

e’i ‘iiithat they had made no mistake

ivaccepting his hospitality.

Taking the Duke by the hand the captain

bowed courteously and said: “Duke,

1greet and welcome you and your friends

to this huniblo habitation. Aloha nuil It

is yours as ling as you choose to honor it

with your presence. You will be safe

under its roof, foe it is protected by the Hag of the greatest nation on earth. Iwill

add the English flag if you will provide me with one. Do what. you please with

the bouse and its contents. Ionly ask that you will not set them on lire, unless you find it difficult to enjoy yourselves iv any otbet way, O.e of your great uncles Unite, lured a lot of Hessians to annoy some (I my ancestors a while back. But that has been forgiven long ago. Walk rißlit inand I’ll show you your quarters.”

«thm,\u25a0′”‘.'”.

,lmisampliog the captain’s stimulants two or three times, which put luJl\ J” a rollickl»« B^od Domor.Uw

a,nd”n”. ,VV?ne«s?’«orctecil rotoromugohn thtneegrhoouunsed floor contain!ng a sunken stone reservoir

the fr(tenth SQUare filled with water to of 6or 8 feet, which was kent f”rroVl>ltcf01 bY V” coi-sUntTai^e through itcf a rivolut of water inverted ‘»« « mounuin stream. T, B weather was hot and Bultry nud the great basin of cool water looked inviting ol .ba”thG’nfittlefmoreaDk.”inBg.aidHthise thcaeptaoinnly”here is the house that 1 piace in an. n«t asli^i, /of” ‘”

Lovely! exclaimed the Duke with en thusin.su,. “As it Is sometimes the < us-mn of hosts to first drink from a vessel b*r« offering It to their guests, ns a guarauten against poison.it would not be out of Mace, captain, for you to take the firs’ plunge. Then placing his hand on the huge shoulder of Ms host and turning to bis comrades, ho continued: “Ipropose lad*, that we all unite In givinghim a Brit’ tish baptism.”

The proposal was received with rollick- ing satisfaction, and four or live of the party advanced as if to seize and pitch the captain . Into the reservoir. The latter smiled grimly and politely said:

“Certainly, boys, ifit will amuse you in

the least, pick me right up and throw me

Inif you can. But as there would be no

fun in it.unless 1made a Hula friendly re- sistance, you had better include in tinscuffle

the 200 or 300 marines and sailor*

you’ve got aboard to make tbe game somewhat

nearer even.”

lioars of laughter followed and young

Beresford seized one of the captain’s arm*’

with the cry of, “Catch-as-you-can, lads.”

“Hold on a minute, boys,” exclaimed Captain Tom, witha twinkle In liis eve.

“1intend to throw you allin,one after an- other, and as I’ve always wanted to duck one of Vie’s boys I’ll commence with this

one. In the name of the great American

eagle, here goes!” with which he seized

ihe Duke under the arms am! flung him

into the reservoir. lie then started for tto others, but they laughingly scattered and

the frolic ended.

Trie Duke tout his involuntary plunge

in the utmost good humor, ami he and

Captain Tom become the joliiest of

friends. Nor did the Duke forget him

after leaving the island. lie sent him a

magnificent watch and other valuable

keei’Mikes from the nearest port at which they could be obtained, and in return received

a photograph of the bath in which

he hail been baptized in the name of the

.American eagle.

The following circumstance was related

to me by Captain Spencer himself, and is

therefore substantially correct. It occurred

immediately after the news of the

fall of VicksDnrg had reached the island?,

and when his heart was rent with crief at

an internal strife which threatened the

very life of the republic. He was on his

way from Honolulu to Ililo. Among

the passengers of the little steamer were

two Australian tourists. In the midst of

others on deck they talked of the rebellion

in the United States, nnd agreed in the

opinion that General Grant was a drunkard

who knew but little or nothing of

military strategy, and thnt whatever successes

he bad achieved were mainly ‘tun

to the cowardice of his opponents. The

conversation was carried on ina loud tone,

and Captain Tom could not. help but hear

the most of it as he walked the deck.

Unable to control himself he finally

stopped in front of the unending critics,

and politely said:

“Gentlemen, you have just been speakingof

General Grant in mi insultingmanner,

and Icould not help but overhear

yo;ir conversation.”

The persons addressed stared at the

speaker without replying, and the captain

continued:

“Yon have referred to General Grunt as

a military fraud and drunkard, and to the

people of a certain section of Hip American

republic as cowards. General Grant is \u25a0

countryman of. mine, and you must apologize.”

“And what ifwe refuse?” Inquired one

of them, defiantly. . “ilien Ishall throw both of you overboard,”

was the captain’s blunt reply;anrl,

draw ing out his watch, be added : “1will

give yon just fiveminutes to do it in.”

The tourists Pegan to crow uneasy.

There was something about the captain’s

bulk and demeanor that suggested trouble.

One of them stepped briskly to he purser’s

window, and, pointing to Captain

Tom, told him of the threat aeainst his

life, and inquired what kind of a man he

wan.

“He is Captain Tom Spencer,” was the reply, “and if he says he’ll throw you overboard

Iguess he’ll do it.”

“But is there no protection for passengers

on board?”

“Generally, res,” returned the purser,

who seemed to enjoy the discomfiture of

the tourist, “but rarely against the patriotic

freaks of Captain Spencer, He’s a

hard man to handle, and would set lire to

the steamer ifhe was interfered with. On

the last trip down he threw a man over- board, and hewed off the ears of two

others.” ”

1no tourist returned In trepidation to

Ins companion. There were a few whis- pered words between them, when captain

Tom announced that just mu> minute remained.

Watching the dill for•few seconds

longer, tip replaced the watch in his

  • “, lu,;=cnei! his shirt-collar and began

to remove bia coat.

“See here, stranger.” said the bolder of

the two, rising and throwing nis arm

around a deck pillar,”wedon’t want tohave

any difficulty with you, and since you

seem to bo so sensitive on ‘.lie subject, we are willing to admit that we spoke hastily

of General Grant, and that we belie v« tiln.

to b« ,111 «blo anil trustworthy leader.”

“And that there is no such thing as

cowardice on either side of Mason and

Dixon’a line?” ail.led the captain, reliev- ing himself still further of his coat. “Yes; we are even Trilling to admit that also, was the hasty response.

“‘Sow, one thing more,” concluded the captain, “if1 hear of either of you mentioning

the name of General Grant wiiiln on board this steamer without taking off

his hat I’llfeed yon both to the sharks!”

1 lie tourists were on their way to the

volcano of Kilanea, but learning that Captain

Tom resided at Ililo they ‘left the

steamer at Lalmina.

An account of the affair cot into the newspapers through some means, ami a

very friendly letter from General Grant

made Captain Tom the proudest man in

the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Thoroughly acquainted with his peculiarities,

his friends were in the habit of dropping remark- especially designed to

draw him out. Sitting on the veranda of.

the Royal -Hawaiian Hotel onn evening

with a party of friends, the subject of the

Southern rebellion was adroitly Intro- duced and the question asked :

‘”Uncle Tom, how large an army of European soldiers do you thing itwould

have taken to whip the 70,0f*men who

marched to the sea with Sherman?”

“That is not an intelligent question,” re- plied the captain, “for you ought to know

as well iiiido that Sherman’s army could

not have been whipped. IRave given the

subject some thought, however, and am

satisfied that itwould have taken all the

standing armies in Europe a week to kill

that 70,000 men in a pitched bailie. Ihave Cgure’l the thing down, and don’t believe there is any mistake in the calculation.”

i’auueefort. thy actor, mado the ac- quaintance of Captain Tom wlii visiting

the islands as a lecturer on Knglish authors.

He started with Dickens.

“Hold or!”roared the captain, who was a listener. “Not another wind about that

scoundrel who abused forty millions or God’s people!” and Dickens was skipped.

Atthe age of about 70 the captain was brought to Honolulu with the final and alinostonly illness of His life, and cared

for inone of the Hawaiian Hotel cottages.

Circulation ceasnd Inhis lower limbs and

could not be restored. lie win visited by

his old friends, including the members of

the royal family, and to the last was full

of quaint conceits and good humor. On a

stand at Ms bedside perched his bronze

eagle, and a small American flaghum; over

his door. The United States Minister

called frequently, very greatly to the captain

satisfaction, and a few hours before

his death asked him it h« hart any special

requests to make. He said he had but one,

and that was that his body might bo Wrapped In an American flag, with another

around the casket, when he was laid

away.

Ho was assured that his request would

be complied with to the letter, and that he

should bu sicken of as he deserved in the

announcement of his death to the fctate Department,

“God bless you!” aaid the captain, with emotion, extending bis great hand to the «*lnl*ter;

i.Dll,, “‘”\u25a0lag! d bless our country and Ishall now die happy.” thre^’L’n1? V,At””rican fl»K:t. with ‘WO or

breast t? X .y, li<‘

=°rnlions upon the

ceded by th. .’ V °,f £a»t» Tom. pre- lii'”I

yal UaWßili”> band and

life did not observe all ibe Cbristfan com ”

tbe religion of Cat.uin To , b ei\e” r v

tons’ .I’.iir it., dorotne.

\u25a0Holms M. IJAOOKTT.

*
*
*
*
Scotty Brewster look-alike (if Scotty had been around in the late 1800s)
On Jan 13, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Curt wrote:
Hi Nelson Okino:    Thanks for your great editing.    Proximity (neighborhoods/workplaces) and relationships are the age-old denominators in everything, including sports & politics.    Our American Dream/upward mobility incentives trigger socioeconomic stratification in places/proximity & people/relationships.
Baseball is a keyhole to places/people.   In this sense, baseball as a game means nothing to me.   Just a portal to the reality of our past/present/future.   Capitalism is the ignition to our history.
*
*
No  relation  to  Scotty’s
 Makaleka Robinson  —
Mikahala Robinson Foster, messiah to the Japanese immigrants in the Hawaiian Islands  — thanks to her along with racially inclusive White men like Charles N. Spencer (former cabinet leader in Hawaiian monarchy), we Japanese in Hawai’i enabled the defeated Imperial Japanese after WWII to trust the U.S. & become the U.S.’ greatest power player in Asia.    Scotty Brewster above is the great-grandson of sugar master and economic wheelhouse Tom Spencer, who was the mentor to baby brother Charles N. Spencer.    Beneficent power leaders all.    My dad was a Silver Star recipient rifleman with the all-Japanese famed 442nd “Go For Broke” regiment WWII.    I love my deceased dad, and I love the forebearers who made it possible for my dad and mom to be proud Americans.
*

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/09/22/features/story06.html

*

http://www.pressreader.com/

 

https://plus.google.com/+PeterTYoung/posts/R74nviiDQ4E

*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_Botanical_Garden

*

*

Strom Thurmond as Solomon’s great progeny    —

 *
*
 *
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

From Scotty Brewster ( Tom Spencer’s great-grandson)   —

*

Curtis,

Your knowledge and wisdom means so much to my research. I am blessed to have found you! I know some day we will be blessed to meet and share in good times. Thank you

Your Friend,

Scott Brewster

01 team Brewster

Scotty Brewster

From: Curtis

Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 5:48 PM
To: Scotty Brewster
Subject: Hawaiian curse

Per Hawaiian mythology, “theft” of luakini (human sacrifice) altar/temple (heiau) items is hewa (death curse) upon the “thief.”    Human sacrifice was the norm before Ka’ahumanu outlawed “pagan” rituals upon Kamehameha’s death in 1819.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapu#.CA.BBAi_Kapu

*

Hawaiian revisionists redux ancient curses to counter cultural genocide.     So what is worse, killing people (Makaoku heiau  http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn?e=d-0mahele–00-0-0–010—4—-dtx–0-0l–1en-Zz-1—20-intro-%22LCAw+803%22–00031-00010escapewin-00&cl=CL2.10&d=HASH016ed6e59551e8d373b8f1bf&x=1      —-         ——-    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luakini    )       or “stealing” stones? 

*

Obviously, killing people (heaiu purpose) is worse.     


From: Scotty Brewster

To: Curtis

Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 10:07 AM

Hi Curtis,

Hope my letter is finding you well. Captain Thomas Spencer’s boat landing was built partially with stones from an old heiau. I am finding that in the old Hawaiian way of thinking, that could have been the cause of many later misfortunes.

Can you elaborate on this at all, please.

Scotty B

(my daughter rear center and best friend of 47 years — my wife,  next to me)

01 team Brewster

Scotty Brewster

Life Member Masters Club

Centurion Producer Top 1%

Platinum Equator Certified

Council of Residential Specialist 204

Certified HAFA & REO Specialist

Certified Short Sale & Distressed Property Expert

Century 21 Select

DRE Lic# 01271946

01 Masters Club Logo 03-03-1001 Centurion Logo Small01 Equator Logo small

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Being loved (authentic bliss) vs. being used (conscripted to be someone’s slave)

*

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steven-kalas/managing-relationships-sometimes-necessary

*

I can be in a relationship with you. Or I can manage a relationship with you.

I much prefer to be in relationships. I enjoy relationships of many kinds — each with its own orbit, velocity and valence number. Some collegial. Some for pastimes. Some profound. Some airy, amusing and most entertaining. Some seen rarely. Some seen often.

A few in my inner circle. And only one one-and-only.

I like being in relationships. Forging, nurturing and growing trust, regard, advocacy, listening and sharing, loyalty, respect, and of course love. I like the teetering paradox of knowing and being known, yet also acknowledging the mystery of self and other which will always elude the “knowing.” No human being can ever be fully possessed by another’s head or heart.

For what other reason were we created than to be in relationship? Enjoying and respecting the intimacies, the delights, the dangers, the costs and benefits of being connected authentically to others!

I can be in a relationship with you. Or I can manage a relationship with you. I prefer to be in the relationship. But, if, over time, evidence suggests it unwise to be in relationship with you, and if our work, social circles or blood lines require us to sometimes or regularly be related (or at least in the same room) … then I will manage the relationship.

With a vengeance. I’m really good at it.

Now, let’s admit that, even in thriving, healthy, happy relationships, each of us learns over time some “management techniques.” Some artful politic that helps deflect, de-escalate, catch and redirect or duck and ignore that draining, maddening, never-gonna-change idiosyncrasy of your friend, relative or mate. I think of this as part of the work of love.

But, in some cases, we might have to consider the either/or. We might be faced with enough history of betrayal, inexplicable antipathy, ingratitude, selfishness, passive-aggression, disloyalty, envy, spite, etc., that we can no longer dodge the conclusion: This person isn’t my friend. Isn’t good for me. Messes with my serenity. Uses me. Belittles me.

You have a lot in common with Casper/ You both are really well-drawn cartoons/ Your animation is complete illusion/ Each frame is still, you only seem to move/ Neither of you is content with graveyards/ You both insist on always haunting me/ But one thing does distinguish you from Casper/ The difference is that Casper is friendly.

But we can’t just walk away. This person is a colleague. A boss. A relative. A co-worker. A member of your religious community. What to do?

We learn to manage the relationship, rather than be in the relationship. It’s merciful. To both parties. Quality relationship management shapes an insulating layer between you and your antagonist.

First, we surrender the expectation of thriving, mutual, reciprocal, respectful warm relationship. We lower the bar. We give up. We surrender. But we never announce this to the other party.

Second, we practice impeccable manners with this person. We initiate. We make eye contact. We make artful, inquiring small talk. Always take the high road.

Next, we greatly reduce or categorically stop revealing or sharing anything that really matters to us. We become opaque, but draped in such a well-mannered professionalism that we are experienced as warm, solicitous and engaging. But we stop asking for what we need, interpersonally speaking. We don’t initiate grievance procedures or reconciling dialogues.

We have learned that trying to talk about the difficulties in this relationship actually provoke those same difficulties.

Said another way, we have learned that “being authentic” in this relationship is contraindicated; it just makes it worse. So we shift our focus to being “authentically inauthentic.” Makes things more peaceful.

And, honestly, it helps me to ventilate my sadness. My resentment. When I have to manage a relationship, it always feels like a loss.

“But … but … that would make me phony! I’ve got to be honest in those relationships,” some might protest or insist.

Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But at least admit there is a cost/benefit equation here. What exactly do you expect to “make right” in the universe by confronting a doofwad with the fact that he/she is a doofwad? One of the diagnostic criterion for “doofwad” is “doesn’t take kindly to feedback about doofwadedness.”

Never use power you don’t have. Initiate difficult grievances and reconciling efforts only in relationships that you judge to have real potential, depth.

In other words, relationships that are really worth the effort.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Valentine’s Day    —

*

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steven-kalas/martyred-bishop-randy-birds-and-valentine-s-day

*

So, you’re a third-century bishop in Italy. Your name is Valentinus. You are an ardent Christian apologist and proselytizer. By hook, crook or persuasion, you comfort and free Roman citizens imprisoned for “being Christians.” You even convert some of your jailers. Legend has it that, after healing the blind daughter of one of those jailers, you leave the joyful parent a note signed, “Your Valentinus.”

Later you decide it’s a good idea to proselytize Emperor Claudius who, not surprisingly, says “no, thank you” to your invitation that he become a Christian. Well, he doesn’t so much say “no, thank you” as he does order your head to be cut off. You are martyred on Feb. 14, 269.

More than 1,000 years later, English poet and author Geoffrey Chaucer (famous for untoward satire and cheeky horn-doggedness) wrote a poem about two hot-to-trot love birds, saying: For this was on St. Valentine’s Day/ When every bird cometh there to choose his mate.

Meanwhile, back in Rome, there was observed on Feb. 13-15 a spring cleansing ritual called Lupercalia, believed to bring health and fertility. Lupercalia had subsumed an even more ancient festival called Februa (from whence we named the month of February). Februa included Pan, this goat-boy creature associated with erotic powers. When Pan played the flute … well, hubba hubba!

So, let’s review: Third-century Christian bishop gets his head cut off on 2/14. Geoffrey Chaucer writes a poem about randy birds who get it on, by sheer coincidence, on the day the Roman Catholic Church remembers the headless bishop. In 18th-century England (ah, now we’re talking my ancestors), the martyred bishop and the liturgical feast day and the shameless birds somehow evolve into the tradition of lovers exchanging flowers, confection and greeting cards called “Valentine’s.”

From a dead bishop to the celebration of sex and romance — that is one circuitous journey!

But, however unlikely, that’s how we got Hallmark cards. And white chocolate. And Victoria’s Secret. And chick flicks. St. Valentine holds the distinction for being the only venerated saint whose liturgical legacy has absolutely nothing to do with his cultural legacy.

Romance. Courtly love. Noble love. Erotic love. The chalice (anima) meets the blade (animus). No matter how adamantly, how desperately we pretend to be cynical, bitter and “too enlightened” for such things, the human heart continues to seek them, long for them, and to find sublime delight and ecstasy when they are found.

Ecstasy, say, like this …

The radio says that it’s time to rise/ Says we both have things to do/ But we tell ourselves in each other’s arms/ That we’ll lie here a moment or two/ Perhaps we should kiss just once or twice/ Is there time for a gentle caress/ Then I look at you, and you look at me/ And we both know what happens next.

*

We’re gonna be late for work/ We’re gonna be careless with time/ I see that smile, see that look in your eye/ Let the morning wait impatient by the window.

So off you go, put your feet on the floor/ We simply must start our day/ Let the shower warm, I will break my fast/ Bring you coffee if I may/ In a happy glow, I come to you/ With a cup of morning zest/ Some soft words pass and I tarry there/ Even though we try our best.

We’re gonna be late for work.

This is just crazy/ Why can’t we let go/ The bills must be paid/ And the bank doesn’t care if I love you so.

Have you ever lived those lyrics? If so, that’s a good thing. You are rich beyond measure. Guard the treasure of this memory. And never become “so cool” as to think this energy couldn’t or shouldn’t regularly re-emerge, orbiting gladly through the journey of great love.

It’s simply not true that romance and great sex must “wear off.” That’s a convenient lie protecting and justifying a peculiar form of spiritual and emotional laziness and cowardice otherwise known as “cynicism.” Cynicism passes itself as intellectual. But don’t be fooled.

Is Valentine’s Day a great day for everybody? Not even close. There are four things that can happen on Valentine’s Day, and three of them are bad. Either you’re recently heartbroken, or you’re alone and wish you weren’t, or you’re in an empty marriage … or, yesterday, you were celebrating. With joy and gladness.

I invite you to be glad for the lucky folks who were celebrating. To be inspired by them. To listen carefully to your heart’s longing for love.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

In praise of Pastor Mark Kaili    —

*

Pastor Mark Kaili look-alike

*

Pastor Mark Kaili demonstrates the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding which Jesus indwells in rare overcomers (of the world/flesh) like Pastor Mark.    Pastor Mark is the reality and the truth of Jesus, unlike the Elmer Gantry false prophets of the world.

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry

Elmer Gantry is a novel written by Sinclair Lewis in 1926 that satirically represents aspects of the religious activity of America within fundamentalist and evangelistic circles and the attitudes of the public toward it. This ferocious satire by Sinclair deals with fanatical religiosity and hypocrisy in the United States by presenting a skeevy preacher (the Reverend Dr. Elmer Gantry) as a protagonist who prefers easy money, booze, and “enticing young girls” over saving souls, all while converting a traveling tent revival crusade into a hugely profitable and permanent evangelical church and radio empire for his employers.

*

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-23.htm

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (false prophets).

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_and_Wonders

*

*

Pastor Mark’s fullness of faith in his sanctified state reminds us all that the law actually brings us to Jesus   — or more precisely, our inherent Adam-sin nature’s violation of God’s covenant (for us to obey God in the Old Testament) — brings us to Jesus    — that we are to love God completely and to love one another completely, as revealed to us in the New Testament.

*

More specifically, as apostle Paul said, to obey Mosaic law is to fall from grace.   Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18
Sadly, the fusion of law and grace brings a “confusion” which results in sterile legalism.     In Romans 6:14, Paul gives us a fundamental principle as it relates to the Christian’s understanding and the place of the Law in a believer’s life. “For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.” (emphasis mine).            https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
In reference to    “How Is Man Responsible?”            http://www.churchinmarlboro.org/christdigest/Classical%20Writings/history_content.html

How Is Man Responsible?

But where, it may be asked, and in what way does man’s responsibility come in? Surely man is responsible to own that God is true, and to accept as just, however humiliating, His judgment of his nature and character. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.” Take up the dark picture which God has drawn of man, and say, That is myself, that is what I have done and what I am. Salvation is by faith; not by willing, choosing, doing, but by believing. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved…. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:16-19.)
Who can fail to see that a responsibility is created by this display of divine goodness in Christ, and that of the most obvious, solemn, and weighty character? So much so indeed, that the evidence is decisive and final, and the unbeliever judged before God. It is not a question, observe, of their not finding forgiveness, but of their preferring darkness to light, that they may continue in sin. This is what God lays to their charge, and could there be a more just or reasonable ground of condemnation? Impossible. May it be the happy lot of all who read these pages to bow to the humiliating sentence of scripture upon our nature, and to take the ground of lost sinners in the sight of God. So shall an all-merciful and gracious God meet us in the greatness of His love, and bless us with all that is due to Christ as the Savior of mankind.

*

*

Yes, we have the freedom to choose between good and evil   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus#Free_will      –let’s just not play God  — but instead simply speak Truth, as Jesus intones.    Anything more complicated than the choice between light and darkness confuses us to become disembodied beings perfect for Satan’s picking   — Satan is the consummate grave robber who loves death over life (in Jesus).     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothman

*

As Pastor Mark says, The root of psychological and biological disease is spiritual.     http://www.henrywwright.com/henry-wright.html

http://www.c-f-p.com/category_s/1820.htm

*

Many a time has Jesus shown Pastor Mark the path of Salvation    — such as when Pastor Mark fell off a cliff in North Kohala and Jesus cupped Pastor Mark in Jesus’ hand and put Pastor Mark back onto the cliff for a safe exit   — and such as when Pastor Mark ran off the roadway and incredulously was spared death  — and such as when precocious prodigious Pastor Mark chose Jesus over damnation after Pastor Mark lost everything Pastor Mark ever had.      Matthew 6:19
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.”

 *
*
Pastor Mark Kaili’s forebearer, scholar Desiderius Erasmus

Erasmus by Holbein

Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536) in a 1523 portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger.

 *
 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Charles H Spurgeon

Exposition of Psalm 23 from The Treasury of David.

Verse 6

*
“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life.” This is a fact as indisputable as it is encouraging, and therefore a heavenly verily, or “surely” is set as a seal upon it. This sentence may be read, “only goodness and mercy,” for there shall be unmingled mercy in our history.
*
*

These twin guardian angels will always be with me at my back and my beck. Just as when great princes go abroad they must not go unattended, so it is with the believer.

*
*
*
*

Carl (wife Jane) Evans of upper Puna, Hawai’i posits the 3rd coming of Jesus  to gain center stage.    Is Carl on the money/accurate about the 3rd coming?

*

All prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 in the day of God’s wrath, just as Jesus said it would be. Any ideas of a” third coming” are truly speculation and have no shred of biblical backing. There is only one parousia talked about in the New Testament. That is the parousia that took place in the fall of Jerusalem. The parousia that brought about the fulfillment of all of the promises that God made to the fathers of Israel.

Where does the New Testament differentiate between two comings? Where is the New Testament passage that states that the AD 70 event is but a type of something yet to come? Why is there needed yet a future coming to bring about an end to something which was designed by God to be eternal (Hebrews 13:20-21)?

*
*
*
*
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Typology — representation of Jesus in the Old Testament

  1. From my dear friend and contrarian Bruno Curfs:

    Dear Curtis,

    How are you? Have been thinking about you today and wondered what you’ve been up to. I noticed you posted more on your blog. The “typology of Jesus” was a new term, but when I read the article, I realized that it was what drove me deeper into Christianity, and to exclaim that “God is logic,” when one “sees” Jesus at every corner, in every action and in every person in the Old Testament. This epiphany actually gave me a set-back of 17 years.

    I start to see now that to read this into a text that was nowhere close to the realization of Jesus’ life during Roman occupation, is to be totally devoid of historical perspective. As I am reading different books on the Old Testament and the Gospels, it becomes increasingly clear that Christian theology is more a dream than anything related to the understanding of Jewish Scripture, or even the Gospels.

    First of all, from Gary Greenberg’s book “101 Myths of the Bible” (see http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Christianity/101%20Myths%20of%20the%20Bible.pdf) I discovered that the Bible is an amalgamation of stories that had been circling in the Middle East for a while and the Biblical account contains discrepancies which can be easily explained by understanding the original stories they were modeled after.

    Second, from the same author I am reading “The Judas Brief” and on the same subject a book by Leon Zitzer “True Jew”, which have very important evidence, both from the historical context and the Gospel narratives themselves that Judas did not betray Jesus (and so the typology of Joseph can not have the parallel of betrayal).

    Yes, Jesus died as a consequence of trying to save a life of an innocent man. Do you have any idea whom I am talking about? This one man was released when Jesus gave himself up to the Romans and asked help of the Jewish council to intercede for him in order to prevent riots.

    He may have hoped that through diplomatic efforts of the Jewish council, he might have been saved as well. But it turned out that the worst happened and he died on a Roman cross. He did not die to save us, but to save one man, who was arrested in his stead, namely: Barabbas. In fact, this guy had a first name (I always assumed it was his first name), and it is Jesus. The Romans arrested Jesus Barabbas, his name meaning “Jesus, Son of the Father,” which actually may have sounded like Jesus the Rabbi, and so the Romans arrested the wrong man in a case of mistaken identity. Can you imagine how Mar 27:17 sounds to the present Jews with the appropriate substitutions? “. . . Yoshua (the savior), Son of the Father, or Yoshua (the savior) Anointed to be King”. Of course, they would shout Barabbas! Barabbas! For that was the whole reason they were there to free Barabbas who had been wrongly arrested! It also proved to Pilate that Barabbas was innocent compared to Jesus!

    I read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas#Name) that the name Jesus was erased from the Gospels because Origen, a church father, thought that “it was impossible [that] he [Barabbas] could have had such a holy name”. It is theology that is interfering with the truth! Barabbas was not a criminal, but “arrested among them” (as if he were). Luke and Jhn do not mention anything concerning Barabbas besides the exchange with Jesus. As an introduction, Mat 27:16 calls Barabbas “notable,” but the Greek could be stronger, but equally ambiguous, translated with “marked”: it can mean “illustrious” (positive) or “notorious” (negative). Mar 15:7 has him described as “who committed murder with them”, but the correct translation runs like this:

    Mar 15:7 “And there was one called [Jesus] Barabbas, bound (as) among all those fellow rioters who had committed murder in the insurrection.

    Note. the phrase “all those . . . who” is a plural form, expressed in one word in Greek hoitines. See http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/15-7.htm which calls it “RelPro NMP” (hover over it to see that it is plural). Compare the KJV which translates this in such a way that it appears that it was Barabbas “who committed murder in the insurrection”, a wrong way of putting the Greek correctly into English. A case of theology again? Beware of the Bible’s translations!

    So, Jesus saved Barabbas (I did not completely outline the evidence here, for lack of space, please read Leon Zitzer’s book or find him on YouTube on Judas), and not “us.” The confusion and frustration among Jesus’s followers is understandable, and must have felt as the wrong choice. But the fact that the mob shouted to free Barabbas, and Pilate freed him even though he did not need an excuse to get rid of him, it becomes very understandable: Barabbas was indeed innocent, and Pilate used the event to extract some goodwill from the Jews (his reputation according to historical record was NOT good).

    Even if to some degree, Jesus was a savior, the scale of his rescue embellished exactly one other Jew, while Joseph saved his whole family (and the Jews multiplied in Egypt). Nevertheless, we can say that Jesus saved a fellow Jew from false accusations that were aimed at him. Their bond as Jews was apparently strong enough for Jesus to act upon a false arrest!


    As far as the typology to compare Jesus with Moses, where both are laid in a manger. First of all, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, where this manger would be, but in Nazareth. The Gospel writer goes to great length to convince us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, apparently because of a decree to register as taxpayer in the town you were born. Nonsense according to historical records; this never happened, and it would have been an impossible strain on the country to have everybody drop what they were doing and move across the country. Everybody registered in the town they lived.

    Rather it is more likely that Joseph was a type of the Joseph of Egypt, invented to make certain theological points and to minimize the scandal of Mary giving birth out of wedlock. (It is never recorded that Mary and Joseph actually married). The strange acrobatics to place Jesus in Bethlehem have the aim of “proving” that Jesus has a claim on David’s throne as a true Jewish king, as Joseph is called “son of David” in Mat 1:20, and was allegedly born in the City of David. But since the Gospels clearly state that Joseph is not Jesus’s father, it is a far stretch to convince anybody that Jesus himself is of David’s lineage through his “father”. Nevertheless, Jesus’s claim that he was a king of “the Kingdom of God”, was considered sedition under Roman rule, punishable by death (which eventually caught up with him, remember the Roman plaque “INRI”, meaning “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum”, Latin for “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews”, meant to abbreviate the cause of his conviction, i.e., sedition against Rome.)


    Also, Joseph goes “to Egypt” and just as Joseph in the OT is forgotten by the time Moses arrives, Joseph in the NT is forgotten at the time Jesus arrives (in his ministry). He is even called “son of Mary” in Mar 6:3, an indication that he was NOT known as Jesus son of Joseph, which you would expect if Joseph had played any significant role in Jesus’s life, even if he had died. Another indicator would be Jhn 8:41, where the defense of the Pharisees may be read as an accusation against Jesus. To counter this, Mat makes the theological points that Jesus comes out of Egypt, as did Moses, and is a prophet bringing a new law, just like Moses. This is not typology, because the birth story was invented to give the appearance of typology. It was invented for its theological implications. I read in it the desperate of the Gospel writer for rehabilitation of a Rabbi whose teaching touched many lives, and apparently, his own. These “wonders” in the Gospel are more often than not a spin to suppress the humanity of Jesus and gloss over many of the embarrassing truths about Jesus. These embarrassing truths are only embarrassing if theology has suppressed the quest for truth. To have the courage to recognize the truth, must counter the embarrassment of having suppressed it in the past.

    I could try and find arguments to reduce the importance of other so called typologies. I believe it is all theology, but nothing is concretely related to any of the events recorded in either the OT or the NT. Therefore, I would caution anybody to be convinced by these typologies, and investigate the details surrounding each to find contortionist mind gymnastics to make it fit the Christian theology. This is definitely NOT what good scholarship should do.

    Forgive my brief formulations. I give a good summary, even if I miss some steps or points here and there. It could be a lot to take in. But I am determined to show that there is hope for those who can restore some sense of reason into this story of Jesus.

    Also, if you’ve read this far, please consider reading my new blog post, shedding another light on Christmas, related to the story of “Adam and Eve” in Genesis.

    Mele Kalikimaka me ka hou’oli makahiki hou!

    Yours,
    Bruno.

  2. Bruno Curfs says:

    Thank you Curtis, for publishing my response on your blog.

    The article on my blog can be found at http://TheEndOfReligion.weebly.com/blog/my-ministry.
    The irony of the word “contrarian” is that I am only after one thing, to know the truth about what happened. If I be called a contrarian for trying to unearth the truth from a pile of 2000 years of theology, so be it. But it is must be said that the pile of theology is just as contrary to the truth, as I am contrary to theology. It is the truth that is buried. For the life of me I can’t let that go.

    Bruno.

  3. Here is my dear friend and truth-teller Bruno Curfs:

    http://TheEndOfReligion.weebly.com/blog/my-ministry.

    I was invited to share something at a friend’s. He introduced me to his assembly of pastors, reverends, and evangelists. He said I had a ministry of my own, namely “Hebrew”. Among these veterans I stood up and dared venture into uncharted territory. I introduced myself as not being a Christian, but that I can not let the Bible go, because I believe it contains the answer to our inner transformation. Even if the Bible has been used as a religious book, now for more than 2000 years among Christians, in addition to Jews, it is an altogether different book, according to me. It is a scientific book with specific knowledge encapsulated in the Hebrew language, more specifically in the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. That I have never encountered a person in my life knowing anything about Hebrew, not among my family, my friends, my schoolmates, my colleagues, or even my fellow Christians, neither on the radio, on television or in magazines puzzles me until this day. I was astounded to find out that without the knowledge of Hebrew, specifically the knowledge of the Hebrew Alphabet, the Bible will stay a closed book. Its revelation is hardly expressible in words. Consider the problem of translating the fifth symphony of Beethoven into English. Impossible, exactly! My book takes up on the assumption that the Hebrew Letters are comparable to musical notation. Where musical notation encodes music, which can only be “understood” by having a capable musician play an instrument, or multiple musicians play multiple instruments, so it is with Hebrew. Where musical notation projects music, not English, Hebrew Letters project life and existence, not ideas. It’s only through the “understanding”/”experiencing” of Hebrew words that it’s Revelation can come to us. It is therefore a matter of starting at the beginning and learning the basic meaning of the Hebrew Letters. After that, it’s practice, experiment, practice, experiment, until the Revelation comes.

    I continued sharing that Adam was originally created, according to Genesis, as male and female (Gen 1:27, repeated in Gen 5:2, and referred to in Mat 19:4 and Mar 10:6). In fact, in the KJV it says that God created “man” in “his image” although in vs. 26 God said “Let us create man in our image”. It seems there is a confusion about God’s singularity. The Hebrew does not leave room for fancy options such as a majestic plural. A plural is a plural, period. Elohiym is a plural word, translated in English with a singular “God”. Confusion. Also, in Hebrew, there is no word used here that means “man”. The word used is “Adam” (Aleph-Dallet-Mem). So, “Let us create Adam in our image.” We can note that the word dam (Dallet-Mem) means “blood”, and that Aleph is the creative power from which both Adam and Elohiym (both written with an initial Aleph) stem. Adam is “created” in the “image of Elohiym”, in other words with the same beginning letter. The Aleph is what characterizes both Elohiym and Adam. If Elohiym is the force that bestows life, Adam is the receptor of this force and has life. See the similarities between “bestow” and “having”. How can you bestow something without having it, or how can you have something without being able to bestow? It is said later “multiply”, a meaning of the ending letter Mem of Adam and Elohiym. When Adam realizes their potential, the Aleph is being multiplied.

    Again, Adam is the name for both male and female (Gen 1:27). There is no Eve here, until Adam calls his wife Eve AFTER THEY ALREADY ATE OF THE TREE. (Gen 3:20).

    More importantly, I argued, that both the male and female are parts of EVERY human, be they a man or a woman. Genesis describes an allegory that tries to teach us how these parts interact. When the parts are together and not distinguished, Adam is unconscious and asleep (Gen 2:21). When these parts are distinguished, they are called man (ish) and woman (eshah), where the word eshah (Aleph-Shiyn-Hah), meaning woman, is formed by taking the outer letters–allegorically the ribs–of the word ish (Aleph-Yuwd-Shiyn), meaning man. So, the woman has life (Hah) and the man has existence (Yuwd). Together they are existence AND life.

    Once the woman is “alive” (note that her name eshah contains a letter Hah at the end, which by itself means life or breath), she goes to the tree. Then we have the interaction between the woman and the snake and she eats from the tree and gives the man of the tree also. Then it is important to read “and the eyes of both of them were opened” (Gen 3:7). We are talking about an awakening beyond being awake. Of course, the man wasn’t sleepwalking, and he wasn’t asking “where are you?”. The fact that their eyes were opened is meant allegorically. It is the opening of their understanding, with which they can “see” the world in a different, enlightened, perspective. The man and the woman are now conscious of themselves and conscious of each other. That is why they are “ashamed”, because becoming conscious of yourself implies that you realize that you haven’t been conscious of yourself before. (How could I not have been this; this awareness, my consciousness?) You realize that you have been asleep for most part of your life and now you know the difference. The allegory refers also to a sexual awakening, but this is only secondary. There is no sin here. There is only the realization of becoming aware of oneself, male and female, together.

    Gods command not to eat from the tree was not to test their obedience. This is the traditional take. But then, please, note that the snake actually did not lie. It is the woman who does not yet understand completely her role. The woman and man would indeed NOT die. The reason is that they are now awakening and ready to eat from the tree. It was Adam in their unconscious state who could not survive eating from the tree. Also note that the snake, which in Christian theology has been identified as Satan, is nothing more than a catalyst for the awakening of Adam. It was necessary that the operation of distinguishing the male and female part in Adam occurred before eating from this tree. It was therefore a protection for Adam until they would be strong enough to distinguish their male and female parts (in the allegory: their genitals) in order to be whole and conscious and “awakened” (i.e., enlightened).

    Therefore, the Genesis story that we have considered here is one of the spiritual awakening of Adam (a human being, consisting of a male and a female part). The snake is telling the truth, and God did not (at least not all of it), because the man and woman did not die “in the day that thou eatest from it” (Gen 2:17).

    It is the female part which assists the male part to awaken–this is her importance, that she is stronger than the male part–and to form an enlightened human being. After this realization, the woman receives her rightful name “Eve” or “Mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20) as she assists in the awakening of the true life, or rebirth, of Adam, cf. Jesus’s instruction to Nicodemus, to be reborn (Jhn 3:3).

    The controversial tone of my exegesis is only caused by insisting on a wrong translation of a text with many layers we have only scratched the surface of. This wrongful translation is motivated by a fear of knowing oneself. The fear is that God might be dethroned, and His righteousness questioned. But when one awakens, one discovers that the name of God (Yuwd-Hah-Vav-Hah) is re-installed as the realization of who you are! The fertile interaction (Vav) of two lives, male (the first Hah) and female (the second Hah), in existence (Yuwd). What can never be expressed with “LORD” is that the meaning of YHVH is expressed in the lives of the man and the woman, together called Adam.

    “Merry Christmas” is what we hear every year at the same time, as a reminder of the rebirth of “Christ in our midst” (the meaning of Immanuel, God among us), i.e., within us, as an eternal lingering possibility: “And on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luk 2:14), because what else is there that gives peace than to realize our awakening, and being told it is never too late (good will)?

    Bruno’s earlier thoughts:

    Aloha Curtis,

    I’m glad you liked it.

    I realized today that on the face of it, there are two more elements that link the Joseph in the Gospels to the Joseph in the OT.

    Both had (a god-given gift of) dreams and both saved their family from certain death (one of famine and one of persecution).

    Although in the case of the persecution, apparently by Herod, another story of the OT is used to make a theological point. Even though in reality, the massacre of the children never took place during Jesus’s time, it alludes to the cruel character of Herod the Great, who killed his mother-in-law, his brother-in-law, his second wife and his three sons by her. He also a number of pharisees executed who had prophesied that he would lose his throne! (See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/08/The-Slaughter-of-the-Innocents-Historical-Fact-or-Legendary-Fiction.aspx#Article with historical references). Apparently, he was not only a paranoid schizophrenic, but extremely superstitious.

    Christian theology takes over when the above article asks: “Is it any wonder Herod wanted to eliminate Jesus when the wise men revealed the new “king of the Jews” had been born (Matt. 2:1-2)?” The imagination takes over.

    Remember, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, strongly suggested by the fact that only Mat recounts this and the contrary historical context. As we have seen before, The author of Mattew has some theological points to make. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, then there can not have been wise men that said he was born there and/or found him there. Consequently, there was no slaughter of babies in Bethlehem, because Herod would not have had any reason to do that.

    Rather, it is more plausible that because Herod killed his own sons (and he was dead by the time the gospels were written, so it was safe to slander him), that everybody could imagine that he would do something like that. Nevertheless, as Joseph’s story was implemented to make certain theological points, including the move to Bethlehem to prove Jesus’s claim to the throne, this point is taken to the next level by using some of the freshly recorded acts of Herod (died in 4 BC). In the gospel we are told that he has been visited by magi from the east. His superstition would undoubtedly have gotten the best of him, believing whatever anybody rumored about somebody being after his throne. Instead, Matthew turns this into a strengthening of his theological point that Jesus is indeed the heir to the throne, not only because of his smart invention of Joseph’s heritage, but because Herod himself supposedly believed it! And so that’s the reason why he killed his own sons, because of the speculation of some Pharisees. It must have appealed to the Jewish audience, who had only recently heard of Herod’s crimes and the stretch to the “wise men of the East” may not be too far.

    The similitude with the OT story of the Pharaoh can not be missed, who was also afraid of the Jews taking over the country (see next paragraph). But now we know that Herod didn’t know about Jesus at all. So, the similitude to the threat to the Pharaoh goes only so far, namely that it was invented for theological purposes, as well as the whole claim as heir to the throne! The tragedy is therefore the greater, that it ended sour for Jesus. If it was his intention to preach a different kingdom, it could not have been misunderstood by the Romans; according to them it was sedition all the same, if their own place was not secured by this “future or spiritual kingdom” of whom Jesus claimed to be king.

    When Moses was laid in a manger (in the river), it was because the Pharaoh had decreed the killing of all newborn sons, in order to downsize the Jewish population. Similarly, Herod was known for killing his own sons. In the same way, Jesus was laid in a manger, because “there was no room in the inn” (Luk 2:7) Apart from the suggested threat of Herod, the circumstances also resemble the strange passage about Moses relating an inn (Exo 4:24): “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him [Moses], and sought to kill him.” The theological point is again that Jesus is the new Moses and that he is tested as Moses by threat of death, that he is the heir to the throne and will rule the Jews.

    Anyway, I also forgot to include the link to my blog post: http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/blog/my-ministry

    Yours,

    Bruno.

  4. Pingback: Modern society’s devolution and self-absorption — we need symbols which participate in the things they represent | Curtis Narimatsu

  5. Pingback: Depressive symptoms: Crisis of meaning and self-absorption | Curtis Narimatsu

  6. Pingback: Music: A bridge from abandonment and brokenness to wholeness and freedom | Curtis Narimatsu

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s