Acoustic Folk and Classical March 6

Free and open to the public.
7:00 pm

St. Luke's Episcopal Church, 77 Country Corner Lane, Fairport, NY

The wind over the waters

A wind from God swept over the face of the waters...

For the last few years I had been a "mostly immanent" believer. Immanence refers to the nearness of the divine. In other words, being "mostly immanent" means to me that God is us, we are God, and we can look to God for micro-guidance as we plod through our days. On most days, this is fine. As I try to figure out my health insurance drug formulary, do I really need to know how creation happened 5 billion years ago (or, as some would estimate, 5000 years ago)? I'll save the "age of the earth" debate for some other time. For now, let's talk about transcendence.

My mostly-immanent self recently read Genesis 1 more carefully. The caption of my watery image above comes from Genesis 1:2. In my preferred Bible translation (NRSV), "wind from God" has a footnote for an alternate translation, which is, "spirit of God".

It occurred to me that this "spirit of God" makes many appearances in the Bible. For now, consider Luke 1:34-35: "Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?' The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'"

Aside from the fact that Mary just interrupted an angel of the Lord to explain the facts of life, we see that spirit again (this time called the Holy Spirit, but yeah, same spirit as in Genesis). The virgin birth narrative is a fulfillment of the creation narrative. This spirit is that of a transcendent God, existing beyond us and our universe. This is not to say that I need to define God as a supernatural being from a supernatural place called heaven, and indeed, there is no human who could know that it was a supernatural being that created the heavens and the earth. I don't have a succinct definition for a God that gives us both Genesis and Luke.

But, the recognition of the transcendence of God reminds me that my drug formulary is not a "micro" thing. The earth provided the raw materials and a whole lot of people worked out such a thing. Truly, now and forever, immanent and transcendent, amen.

Recent ponderings 2

This is an adjustment to my ponderings in my previous post. I hope to address my ponderings in detailed posts, but hey, it's complicated, right?

I had wondered how it was possible for Paul and the Gospel authors to use such similar technical language, such as "new covenant" in 1 Cor 14:24, a decade before the Gospels were written. In this particular case, ancient Scripture mentions the "covenant" with God repeatedly, then Jesus comes along and reworks the human understanding of a relationship with God. It was almost obvious to refer to this as a new covenant, to the extent that different writers might have invented the phrase independently.

For other phrases, there is an additional consideration. The authorship of the letters and epistles attributed to Paul is heavily debated. Without listing books here (easy enough to find even on Wikipedia), modern scholars agree that seven books were written or dictated by Paul himself, but the authorship and dating of the other six is heavily debated. If a follower of Paul actually wrote a letter and claimed it was from Paul, even in good faith, and if the letter was written a decade or two after Paul's undisputed letters, then the later authors would have been writing at the same time as the Gospel authors. If that's the case, the similar phraseology is more easily explained. To be clear, few modern scholars would claim that Paul himself unquestionably wrote all 13 letters.

This issue also raises a question of interpretation. Is an undisputed Pauline letter more authoritative than a disputed Pauline letter? In my opinion, yes. In particular, passages about women remaining silent are all disputed as to authorship. They were either written by someone else, or were intended to refer to common cultural practice and not to Paul's recommended practice.

Recent ponderings 1

Here are some questions I have been pondering recently, which I hope to address over the coming months. If you have any ideas or pointers for research, let me know!

- Acts 18:12 - When Paul was brought before the Roman tribunal in Corinth, who stood on the "bema" (the Greek word for the stone platform used during tribunal interrogations)? Was it the Roman officials looking down on Paul being questioned, or was Paul exposed on the platform for all to see? What officials would have been involved, if not just the proconsul Gallio? I addressed this in my personal blog, but I hope to come to a more definitive conclusion.

- Assuming (as scholars believe) Paul wrote 1 Cor 14:24 a decade before the Gospels were written, who coined the phrase "new covenant"? Did Paul plagiarize Mark, or did Mark plagiarize Paul, or was there some sort of collaboration in, say, Jerusalem? Scholars surmise the Gospels used information from eyewitnesses, of course, but also from unknown sources, now lost. Those lost sources are lumped together as the mysterious "Q" source. Is Paul part of the Q source, having been directly informed by the risen Jesus?

- "Called" versus "Commissioned": Let's say Paul did not internally feel called to go on his missionary journeys, but instead was (as the canon explains) commissioned by an external force (Acts 9:5). The commissioning was so sudden and shocking that Paul was temporarily struck blind. But if this was totally external, what does that say about God's immanence (and transcendence)? When Donald Trump says he was saved from an assassin's bullet directly by God so that he (Trump) could enact policies (assuming Mr. Trump is sincere and not just making it up), shouldn't God's intervention be described as a de facto commission (God saved Trump for something, therefore Trump must do it)? Similarly, do I (Gary) feel called to write this, or is this a divine commission?

- How do we respond to harsh comments about current world events? For example, since it's true that Hamas perpetrated a horrific surprise attack on civilians on Oct 7 2023 and hid in hospitals with "human shields", is collateral damage acceptable when Israel fights back? In other words, is the need to kill Hamas in self defense so fundamental that it's OK to kill nearby babies? Is it OK to starve a million people in order to get at a few thousand combatants? Even if such actions are justified, can Israel drop a bomb and reject accountability and claim that it's actually Hamas' fault that babies and other innocents were bombed? Is the killing of neutral aid workers simply "collateral", or a war crime? Does Hamas commit a war crime by waging war when aid workers are nearby, thereby endangering the aid workers, or are the shooters (Israel) also (or solely) guilty? Is Scripture (Hebrew / Christian / Islamic) relevant?

Weather and astronomy on gocek.org

My USA Weather Page is packed with information, but I made the choice to include the kitchen sink at the expense of a quick glance at highs and lows.

A 7-day forecast can be generated for any location in the 50 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Locations can be selected by town name, zip code or latitude/longitude. Many points of interest can be selected as well. For example, a forecast can be produced for the Washington Monument in Washington, CD, or Ala Wai Boat Harbor in Hawaii (that's the marina seen in the opening credits of the Gilligan's Island TV show).

Current weather observations are also shown, including weather maps and notes about the closest and strongest earthquakes within 200 miles during the previous 24 hours. Forecasts and current conditions include EPA air quality indexes.

Forecasts show predictions for every hour of the 7-day period. This includes temperatures, rain and snow amounts, wind speeds, wave heights when appropriate, and visibility. For example, visibility will be lower on a foggy day than on a clear day.

But that's not all! The sunrise and sunset times are shown along with the phase of the moon. When appropriate, the forecast will show expected equinoxes, solstices, lunar and solar eclipses, and whether a meteor shower is at its peak. For solar eclipses, the visibility of the eclipse will be partial or total or annular depending on the location of the forecast.

Data originate mainly with US government sources such as the national weather service. See the acknowledgments at the end of your forecast!

Interestingly, celestial events such as eclipses or equinoxes cannot be exactly calculated. Consider a "full moon". When looking at the moon, what we see is the illumination of the moon's surface by the sun. As the moon rotates around the earth, the part of the moon facing the earth is different than the part of the moon facing the sun. An observer on the sun would always see a full moon (except when the earth gets in the way). But an observer on the earth is looking at the moon from a different angle; part of what we see is illuminated by the sun, and part is not, so we see a crescent, or a circle, or nothing at all. A "full moon" occurs when the sun shines past the earth and illuminates the who visible portion of the moon, and the times when this occurs can be predicted. By the way, the sun is big enough that the shadow of the earth usually does not fall on the moon, but once in a while, the moon is eclipsed by the earth's shadow.

My point in the previous paragraph is that the earth and moon are constantly in motion, relative to the sun. The maximum illumination of the moon each lunar cycle only lasts for an instant. We can predict that instant, but minor perturbations in orbits and revolutions and gravity and light waves can cause our calculations to be "off" by a fraction of a second. In addition, any arithmetic measurement is finite, but that instant of max illumination is infinitely short, then the moon moves. In other words, we can only "predict" a phase of the moon. We can be accurate enough that humans can't "see" the tiny errors in our calculations or the tiny changes in illumination as time progresses.

Another perspective on miracles

In The Acts of the Apostles, why could Peter and Paul and others heal and cure? A few people (then and now) acquire that much faith. Peter and Paul developed a spiritual maturity that allowed them to perform marvelous acts and nurture a religion that spread to multiple countries in their lifetimes, at a time when traveling long distances was very risky. The apostles and Paul and other leaders performed miracles and signs in Acts (the Gospels use only the word "signs"), and it occurs to me that any adult's faith needs signs once the lessons of Sunday School become insufficient. This need for signs is not a weakness; it is canonical. The shepherds and magi did not accidentally stumble on the manger; they were led by the proclamations of angels and a guiding star.

The signs are critical to the founding of Christianity. In John 20:29, "Jesus said to [Thomas], 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.'" It is easy to feel sorry for Thomas, to have been scolded by Jesus in that way. But, what of "those who had not seen [the risen Jesus]". Those others saw something, at some earlier time: the lame man walked, Lazarus rose from the dead, and Jesus' tomb was empty. Those who had not seen the risen Jesus saw those prior signs and came to believe. On a number of occasions in the Gospels, Jesus wondered how many more signs the apostles and Pharisees needed, before they would finally understand. Thomas was just one more doubter in a long line of doubters.

Yes, my faith is sometimes strengthened by a sunrise or a kind word, and that's nice. But, Jesus would be wondering why I needed to see the sun rise and why Thomas insisted he needed to touch the nail wounds. The empty tomb should have been enough for me and Tom. Even though I only see the signs through reading the Bible, it should be enough. Peter and Paul performed miracles and people believed.

Strong versus weak, tactics and strategy

Most of us, including me, are not experts at playing chess. We see a game in progress as a bunch of pieces positioned around the board. The beginner looks at the various moves each piece can make, and guesses at the ways the opponent will respond. The beginner looks a few moves ahead, but usually can't see as far as the end. I refer to this as a tactical approach. The beginner pokes away until the opponent can't hurt the beginner any more.

An expert at playing chess uses a strategic approach. An expert sees the positions of the pieces on the board in a high-level, abstract way. The expert's goal is to nudge the board into different states, eventually resulting in a state in which the opponent realizes the end is near. Physically, the beginner and the expert move one piece at a time, but the expert doesn't focus on the individual pieces. When one or the other expert loses a piece, a new high-level view results.

Hold on to these thoughts about short term tactics and long term strategies...

In 1956, Elie Wiesel wrote a memoir, "Un di Velt Hot Geshvign" (Yiddish for "And the World Remained Silent"), eventually resulting in an English translation entitled "Night". The memoir contains a passage that begins, "Never Shall I Forget". Wiesel would focus on this "never forget" theme for decades, and the phrase is now (2024) practically synonymous with activism against anti-Semitism.

There are pros and cons to the use of this phrase. It certainly is straightforward, and I agree we need to remember history when addressing new problems, especially broad issues such as genocide. The exhortation to "never forget" is easy to implement. Just do it. However, it is a tactic, rather than a strategy. Wiesel is moving a chess piece, but there is no high-level view of an end game.

Remembering the Holocaust does not proactively avoid future bad things. Also, there is no reason to interpret "Night" as a general treatise against bad behavior. It is a treatise about one bad behavior inflicted on Wiesel and Jews. For reasons that Wiesel could not have predicted, the phrase went viral, but "Night" is a memoir; it's all about Wiesel. It's OK to write a memoir, but memoirs have their limitations.

Consider Howard Thurman's 1949 book, "Jesus and the Disinherited". Thurman wrote as an African American living during a time when lynchings still occurred and Jim Crow laws were still on the books. Thurman explains that victims of extreme persecution (the disinherited) usually fear their situation, but also that the oppressors fear what would happen if they lost their power. The strong pretend that the weak need to be helped even while the strong abuse the weak, and the disinherited struggle within their own communities with domestic violence and substance abuse and more. The persecuted learn to hate their oppressors, and the oppressors develop a hatred for their victims because anything else would make them seem weak.

Thurman does not ask us never to forget what the strong did to the weak. Jesus and his followers were undoubtedly persecuted by the Romans, but the Gospels don't mention it. Jesus only talked about love and humility. Thurman asks the weak and strong to reset their relationship and end their segregation in order to build trust. Have faith that even the weak and the strong, the disinherited and the privileged, the good and the bad, can love each other and accept love from the other.

The gocek.org Youtube WFH playlist!

The gocek.org Youtube WFH playlist!

Acoustic, folk, pop/rock, standards, to play while working from home. No death metal. Hopefully a surprise or two! Alphabetical by song name. Occasional profanity.

To prove a dogmatic miracle

In my previous post, I justified belief in "miracles", but what I meant are the "ministry miracles" found in the Gospels prior to the passion stories. A person is afflicted, the person meets Jesus, and the person is cured or healed. This is a historical, eyewitness account of a public event.

There is another sort of miracle in the Gospels, which I will refer to as the "dogmatic miracles". Here are three examples from Mark.

* "And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Mk 1:11)
* "Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them," (Mk 9:2)
* "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19)

Compare this to a typical ministry miracle passage, also from Mark:

* "When Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'You spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!' After crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, 'He is dead.' But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he was able to stand." (Mk 9:25-27)

All miracles are divinely enacted, but in my opinion, there are two notable differences between dogmatic miracles and ministry miracles. First, the two types of miracles have different beneficiaries. The dogmatic miracles are for God or for Jesus; Jesus is beloved, Jesus was transfigured, Jesus ascended. That's all well and good, but it is a mystery how my life would be affected by such miracles. Ministry miracles, on the other hand, were for humans. A boy was cleansed, a blind man's site was restored, and I can be healed through repentance and faith.

Second, the two types of Gospel miracles were witnessed differently. The dogmatic miracles were witnessed by people already known to be faithful, such as people being baptized or the closest followers of Jesus. The ministry miracles, on the other hand , were witnessed by crowds of everyday people, usually poor and oppressed, going about their everyday drudgery. The Gospel stories of ministry miracles are the first century version of a viral cell-phone video, in public and for all to see.

The dogmatic witnesses are more like the witnesses of UFO abductions or Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni. There are just a few people, probably drinking buddies, who are biased toward believing the vision. Just like the smelly fishermen from Galilee,

I am not saying the dogmatic miracles didn't happen or that the ministry miracles are more believable. But I would say, if you are hoping for a miracles in your own life, it won't help you much that Jesus was transfigured on some hill. But, for the sake of your own afflictions, you'd better believe that Lazarus was actually dead and actually walked out of that tomb.

To prove a miracle

It's hard for us modern thinkers, even theologians, to resolve the mystery inherent in "miracle" stories. Actually, the word "miracle" does not appear in the NRSV translation of the Gospels.

Many believers don't give it much thought. The stories say what they say, but deep down, the ways in which Jesus cures "the lame, the maimed, the blind, the mute" (Mat 15:30) are simply vague. From a practical standpoint, the Gospels were written decades after the crucifixion and the eyewitnesses available to the authors may have forgotten a few details.

To the determined unbeliever, the stories are scientific impossibilities, or fabrications. Even John 9's story of the man known to be blind from birth, with corroborating parents and a clearly witnessed cure, is denied. Unbelievers want proof.

The Gospels are the proof. Although we don't have the original, handwritten, first-century texts, we have copies believed to be legitimate copies from the next couple of centuries. The Gospels are largely eyewitness accounts, written some decades after the formation of the first Christian communities. Scholars debate the sources available to the Gospel authors. For example, consider how the authors knew details of the private interrogation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Well, Romans were good recorders of history, and there may have been a housekeeper who overheard the events. If my hypothesis is that John 9 is true, my evidence is the Gospel, an eyewitness account of the blindness and the cure.

The non-believer can't deny the Gospels out of hand. No matter how unscientific the texts may be, there is evidence of the events copied from to the first century CE accounts, and little or no comparable evidence to the contrary. Even presuming inaccuracies due to the passage of time before the Gospels were written and due to the messiness of oral accounts, the stories aren't complicated. A blind guy encountered Jesus and was cured. There are dozens of examples and verses claiming that hundreds more occurred.

It is not the responsibility of the believer to provide more proof beyond the eyewitness accounts. Canonical miracles do not need to be explained, although they are mysterious. It's OK that miracles are mysterious, but the stories say what they say. The man was blind and his blindness was cured.

UPDATE 18 November 2024 - it has occurred to me that there are two kinds of miracles. Above, I reflected on the ministry miracles; Jesus heals a person in front of a crowd. But there are also the dogmatic miracles; Jesus is transfigured, or Jesus ascends to heaven and takes a seat at the right hand of God. We recite creeds regularly to show our belief in this dogma. Typically, there is no crowd, just the close followers of Jesus. I am working on a new post on the topic of dogmatic miracles.

Evolution from Judaism to Christianity

I am in my second year of a four-year program studying the Bible, its underlying history and theological reflection ("think theologically"). Recently, we have discussed the historical, Biblical, philosophical and theological events surrounding the emergence of Christianity, including a discussion around the differences between Judaism and Christianity. The Old Testament contains the various Hebrew texts that are canonical for us Christians. The O.T. is foundational for Christians, so, what was it that needed to change in a way that required a new religion? The Torah already tells us to help the poor, so what's the big deal about Jesus? Seems like we need more than just another prophet, so I will poke at a few notions here.

Did Jesus believe all people are equal? Is justice the same as equality? I don't think so. Paul's analogy in 1 Cor 12 is that we are all different parts of a body, all necessary, but with different abilities (gifts) with which we can fulfill different purposes. For the moment, I am assuming 1 Cor 12 is consistent with Jesus' teachings. In a few weeks I will dig deeper into Paul's epistles and may have more to say.

Mosaic Law (Lev 23:22) states, "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien: I am the Lord your God." But, I claim, followers of the Law would typically distance themselves from the poor and aliens at "the edges". A follower of Torahic purity guidelines would likely consider those poor people to be shameful (see "Introducing the New Testament" by Mark Allan Powell). Jesus, on the other hand, says we must love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31, etc.); Jesus pushes Lev 23:22 beyond the generosity a subsistence community would normally practice. Jesus was born into the poorest of the poor and knew (as stated by Powell and Hillary Clinton), that survival in first century Galilee "took a village", but the village of Mary and Joseph was an extension of individual self-preservation (not the same as universal salvation). Judaism does not preclude Jesus' teachings, but Jesus' dedication to service and humility radically ignores the notions of honor and shame that were important to first century peasants under Roman rule. Today, we are not shocked at the idea of service and humility, but it was indeed radical at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Jews widely believed in resurrection (except for the Sadducees), although the canonical evidence in the Old Testament seems more abstract than in the New Testament. Jesus seems to have broadly developed the theology of resurrection in terms of whether one deserves resurrection or what salvation means to us during our earthly lives. Hebrew philosophers interacted with the Greeks and Persians and Romans and Egyptians and others; see especially the O.T. book of Daniel. However, it's not clear to me that any first century synagogue focused on eternity. One imagines Jesus' frustration with a holiday like Purim, which outwardly celebrates the cancelation of an edict to kill all Jews (Esther), but cannot be disassociated from the slaughter of tens of thousands of gentiles for almost no reason.

Jesus didn't invent any theology; resurrection and aid to the poor were well understood. Previous leaders claimed to be the son of one god or another, but the sacrifice of the divine Jesus (in fulfillment of the non-sacrifice of Isaac) provides the theology of a god who physically understands humans.

The church as a "system"

We church people can learn from Andreea Danielescu's essay, "The Many Shapes of a Computer Science Career", published in Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (CACM), November, 2022. Andreea writes:

The Key things I learned as a computer scientist were how to break down problems into smaller chunks, how to think at the systems level and how systems work - whether they be software systems or systems of people. People are never boxes; they are puzzle pieces that can fit together in more than one way.

My career has taught me it's BETTER not to try to fit in a box. Throw it out. Be a cloud, or a polyhedron, if you like corners and edges. Embrace breadth AND depth as they are not mutually exclusive. Learning how things fit together is a skill that can make you successful - no matter which puzzles you find yourself in along the way.

My (this blog's author) response is to ask, what is a Christian system? I suggest that a mainline denomination, such as "Episcopalian", is a system. The parts are the Bible, the liturgy, the music, and of course, the faithful people including lay and clergy. (And more, but you get my point.) Some of it is hardware: churches, organs, coffee, bread and wine. Some of it is software: Bibles, prayer books (and prayer), budgets, theology.

Maybe my priest/minister is a cloud (Danielescu's term), leading her flock and infiltrating all the goings-on. But I should watch my system for the polyhedron, like the guy who never brings food to a potluck but stays late to do the dishes.

Consider the breadth: Christianity as a whole, outreach to the larger community. Consider the depth: the early service versus the late service, the annual garage sale, the weekday Bible study.

My general point is to apply academic notions to your church life. Many smart people have spent centuries thinking about how to run organizations. We church people just need to squeeze in God. 😊

The wind over the waters REVISITED

Back in my first blog post I noted that my NRSV translation of Genesis 1:2 provides an alternative translation for "wind from God" which is, "spirit of God". I then went on to describe how this spirit in Genesis is the same spirit that comes upon Mary in Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you...".

But recently I have been using "The CEB Study Bible", that is, the Common English Bible, an annotated translation. CEB states that the alternate translation for "God's wind" is "God's breath". Then, CEB's note on Gen 1:2 says the author of Genesis is not referring to "the third member of the Trinity."

Is CEB saying that that the spirit (or breath) that swept over the waters is something different than what came over Mary to enable her to conceive the child? I don't think so.

In John 20:22, NRSV and CEB both provide the translation that Jesus "breathed" on the disciples so they would receive the Holy Spirit. I still believe it's the same spirit in all three spots.

CEB's note on Gen 1:2 reminds us that the author of Genesis would not have had a notion of a triadic unity that is a monotheistic God in three persons. For now, I am sticking to my story that there is no contradiction between "wind", "spirit" and "breath".

Educational settings, plus the hedgehog and the fox

In this article, I will adapt scholarly items from outside theological contexts.

----------

My first item is adapted from adapted from "Exploring Questions and Answers in Computer Science Education" by Sally Fincher & Kathi Fisler, published in Communications of the ACM, July, 2022.

No matter where you worship, or what your role is, education is important; important not only in WHAT is taught, but also HOW it is taught and WHO is taught. For example, what is known about how different groups of people learn Christianity? How does learning in a house of worship differ from formal education settings? What techniques have been shown effective for teaching or probing learners' knowledge about Christianity? What traditional approaches fail for modern Americans? Depending on different contexts, these questions will have different answers. Investigating those answers requires us to think (as individuals and as a community) about the methods that are appropriate for studying educational questions and, crucially, what problems do we most need to think about so that our education and training keeps pace with developments in Christian practice?

----------

Next, I will apply ideas from "The Hedgehog and the Fox" by Isaiah Berlin. This book expounds on the ancient Greek proverb, "A fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing". The fox uses many tactics to catch the hedgehog, but the hedgehog finally escapes by using its simple, prickly defenses. That's not to say that a simple approach always wins, just that we should be prepared to utilize the right tactic at the right time.

Consider a talent show in which the contestants are songwriters. A person trying to predict the winner might listen to the songs and pick the song that "sounds the best". That person is the hedgehog; it all boils down to one variable, catchiness. But another person might do some research: is any songwriter of the same ethnicity of any of the judges? Has any songwriter competed before? Do bagpipe songs always lose?

In other words, the fox looks at a range of objective variables instead of one abstract variable.

With respect to Christianity, are you a hedgehog or a fox? Do you attend your church because it focuses on the Immaculate Conception, feeling like that's the most important thing? Or, do you enjoy trying to figure out how Jesus fulfills the parting of the sea while also typing the weekly bulletin and also repairing the church boiler?

Neither the hedgehog or fox is "right" or "wrong", at church. Your God given purpose is not the same as mine. My example is simplistic, so it's safe to suggest you hedgehogs should not be too focused. I at least feel that I should always be on the lookout for new ways to mature, spiritually.

United Airlines employee racism in Athens

Susan and I flew United Airlines flight 423 from Athens to Chicago on June 17. Ahead of us in the baggage check-in line was a group of 25 teenagers and chaperones (coincidentally booked on UA423). UA averaged five minutes per teen to scan a passport and check a bag. No others were scrutinized to this extent; when Susan and I reached the counter, it took us only a minute. The delay with the teens bogged down baggage check-in for 40 minutes, causing some customers to be late enough that they may have missed their flights. Later, the departure seating area had an additional passport check and security desk. Most customers were passed in easily, but not those unfortunate teens. Their carry-ons were opened and their bodies were scanned with security wands. This scrutiny was performed by uniformed United Airlines personnel, not the police. This scrutiny was undoubtedly due to the brown color of the skin of most of the teens. The teens behaved impeccably; they endured demeaning and unnecessary bureaucratic and physical mistreatment, then moved along with straight faces to the next racist UA employee.

UA owes an apology to the teen group and a mitigation plan to avoid employee racism worldwide.

Santorini, Greece wrapup

June 15, Santorini, Greece.

We finally got to see the perfect sunset, right from the walkway outside our room.

We have another day to have dinner in the village of Oia, then flying back home on June 17.

The islands are nice with good food and great views, but you can't really walk anywhere unless you get a room in a village. But in most cases, the resort class properties with views or beaches are not in the villages, so you have to find transportation to get anywhere. There is public transportation, which we have not tried, but the crowds and traffic can be very heavy, so it's a lot easier to get a driver. Uber seems to be available from our hotel, but we have used pre-booked drivers on Santorini or a service booked by our hotel.

Here is a view from the Santo winery near Pyrgos. This is supposedly the premier winery in Greece. I bought six bottles with shipping to the USA, about 200 euros.

Clouds? What clouds?

June 13, we are on the island of Santorini. Back on Mykonos, there's Susan with the moon. We have not seen a cloud since arriving in Greece, day or night. Our sunset cruise was very nice, but the horizon was very hazy. This is usually due to African dust across the Mediterranean. As far as I know, pollution is low, even in Athens.

However, the Greeks do like to drive, even at 2 euros per liter on the islands, i.e., $8 per gallon. A lot of that is tourism-related, but still, that's expensive.

Tomorrow we will visit some of the sites of Santorini. Everyone keeps telling us that the sunsets are the best on Santorini, but with the haze, I don't think we will try to get on the water for a sunset.

Yesterday's ferry ride from Mykonos was very exciting. The boat was to stop at Naxos first, but there was some sort of mechanical problem and all passengers had to disembark. On the ferries, customers drag in their luggage and dump it off in a common cargo area. When disembarking, you hope you can find you luggage again. We were dropped off at the Naxos port in the blazing sun for two hours until the replacement boat arrived.

The seating areas on the ferries are very nice, and this sort of mass public transportation is efficient and relatively inexpensive, but it is physically demanding and chaotic to board and exit with suitcases and carry-ons. Our hotel transfers to and from the ports have been pre-arranged (relatively expensive, but better than trying to get a bus or taxi on the spot).

Here is the Naxos port and Santorini:

gocekBlogGary: In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece

gocekBlogGary: In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece: Thursday, June 6 - CORINTH!  Today provided me with a meaningful historical and spiritual experience. Susan and I visited Corinth, just west...

Please see my personal blog in which I recount a visit to ancient Corinth, where I stepped on the bema used by Roman tribunals. Paul came before the tribunal in Acts 18:12.

Now THAT'S a view!

June 7 - we spent our last full day in Athens walking around the shopping districts, and then took a Greek cooking class.

Jube 8 - we have arrived on Mykonos. This is the balcony of our hotel room.

In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece

Thursday, June 6 - CORINTH! Today provided me with a meaningful historical and spiritual experience. Susan and I visited Corinth, just west of Athens.

The Bible is full of events that should be historically verifiable through independent research, but the Bible stories often don't hold up to that scrutiny. However, some stories do match the independently known historical context. Whether one objectively believes the story of the crucifixion of Jesus, we can date it to the time Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea, up to about 37 CE. Following that event, the Bible provides stories of Paul (author of much of the New Testament). Paul traveled the known civilized world to gain followers of a died and risen Jesus.

There is little doubt that Paul existed as a real person. The Romans kept good records, and Paul was born a Roman citizen to wealthy parents. Many details of Paul's life cannot be verified, and there are discrepancies between the Bible and the historical record, but this is true for almost any major ancient figure, including those with no connection to the Bible.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 18, verse 12 (Acts 18:12), it is written, "But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal." (NRSV)

We independently know that Gallio served as proconsul 51-52 CE. At that time in Corinth, when a person was brought before the tribunal, that person was brought to a specific, centralized spot in the business district referred to as a "bema", which is a stone platform used by orators (top photo where the white stones are sticking up, right of center). The person being questioned would stand on the bema where citizens could watch from all sides.

Paul's mission was to spread the story of Jesus, and Paul (according to the Bible) was handed a monumental opportunity to do that, on a platform in the middle of town with the leaders in attendance. When questioned by the Roman authorities, Paul preached his little heart out. The Romans took no further action since Paul was not advocating insurrection against Roman authority.

Today, this bema is now ruined but partially visible. The ancient Corinthian ruins are surprisingly open to foot traffic within an enclosed area of a museum property, and I was able to stand on the bema, on the ancient platform where Paul would have stood. This was even cooler than standing in Sun Studio on the spot where Elvis recorded for the first time.

June 15 - In 2 Cor 5:10, Paul writes, "For all of us must appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil."

Some people read this in a way that suggests it was Gallio the Roman proconsul who stood on the bema in order to judge someone brought before him. The bema is rectangular, so it makes sense that Gallio and his advisors would be on the bema, judging someone standing just below them. Many commentators equate "bema" with "tribunal". However, I think this is quite incorrect; the bema is the stone platform, and Acts 18:12 does not say where the human judges who comprised the tribunal stood or sat, only that Paul was brought before the tribunal.

Adjustments 19 Aug 2024:
Acts 18:12 - "...the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal."
2 Cor 5:10 - "For all of us must appear before the judgement seat of Christ..."

OK, let' get into the weeds. Both verses use the Greek word βῆμα , anglicized as Bema. In most Biblical usages, this refers to a judgement seat used by a local leader or ultimately by Jesus. However, various commentaries (see biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/18-12.htm and biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/5-10.htm) note that classical Greek uses this to refer to an orator's pulpit. Did I stand on a platform from which the Corinthian tribunal questioned Paul (who would have been standing on the ground in front of and below the platform), or did I stand on the pulpit from which Paul preached during his months in Corinth?  Was Paul placed on a high platform to be questioned, where Paul would be exposed to, say, stones thrown by a mob?

The typical interpretation of Acts 18 is that the tribunal did not begin the questioning with a negative view of Paul. Paul was not on trial. The tribunal was acting on complaints from townsfolk, but the Roman leaders were aware Paul was, in fact, an educated Roman citizen, although Jewish and potentially against Roman occupation. One can easily believe Paul was brought forth casually in front of the tribunal with little concern for a violent outcome or criminal conviction. It is unlikely the tribunal was setting Paul up for mob justice, and the tribunal found no official fault in Paul's actions or speech.

However, one can also believe that over the course of Paul's time in Corinth, he preached from the platform. That would explain the use of that particular Greek word, bema. It would be just like the Bible to present such a paradox: Paul was questioned in front of his own pulpit.

The Gospels often describe scenes in which Pharisees and others begin to question Jesus in an adversarial way, but Jesus shows the fault in the others' logic. The Gospel texts were written after Paul's visit to Corinth, but Paul would likely have heard such stories from Peter and other disciples.