Took a trip to Starved Rock Park about 1 and half hours away. So what happen here is the Indians had a fort on the rock. Then they kena got war lor. Then they retreat to the top of the rock to defend themselves. But then, the enemy surround them and basically they cannot get supplies to eat or anything. So slowly all of them die. I think they dig up about a hundred bodies. Ok, not say the bad part, the park itself is quite good lah. Got canyons and got bluffs. I never bluff you. They is got many bluffs. Is not bluffing. Then the waterfalls in the winter they turn into ice. But then ah, you know lor, this winter is very the gu-niang one, so not cold enough. The waterfall still falling water. Not complain lah. Is still quite chioh looking. Then got nice pub there to get a beer after a long hike. I recommend you to go lah. Oh by the way, entrance is free. Check out my movie and my latest photo album.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Winter Trip to Starved Rock
Took a trip to Starved Rock Park about 1 and half hours away. So what happen here is the Indians had a fort on the rock. Then they kena got war lor. Then they retreat to the top of the rock to defend themselves. But then, the enemy surround them and basically they cannot get supplies to eat or anything. So slowly all of them die. I think they dig up about a hundred bodies. Ok, not say the bad part, the park itself is quite good lah. Got canyons and got bluffs. I never bluff you. They is got many bluffs. Is not bluffing. Then the waterfalls in the winter they turn into ice. But then ah, you know lor, this winter is very the gu-niang one, so not cold enough. The waterfall still falling water. Not complain lah. Is still quite chioh looking. Then got nice pub there to get a beer after a long hike. I recommend you to go lah. Oh by the way, entrance is free. Check out my movie and my latest photo album.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Parklab Singapore Trip
Ok ok, so I know this all look like we do nothing but eat and eat, but then, you have to understand lah. Singapore is small country, don't eat then do what? We got work also lah. Anyway, we go Sentosa to relax a bit on the beach, then eat then work then eat and work again. In this movie, you will see the lab people eating various Singapore cuisine. We had sushi at Sushi Tei (Far East Plaza, 5th floor), Frog Legs Porridge (Geylang Lor 3), Tow Huay and You Tiao (Geylang Lor 9), Durian (Geylang between Lor 3 and a bit off), Thai food at Sukothai (Boat Quay), Zhi Cha at corner coffeeshop (off Cantonment Rd), Bak Kut Teh at Ah Hua Rou Gu Cha (Tanjong Pagar). Don't worry, its all good for your brain. All very healthy, cooling and heaty in the right places and in the right amount.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
John 2:1-12
"On the third day... Cana of Galilee..."
The actual location of Cana is not certain, however, we do know that it is situated somewhere around Galilee. Possibly a few kilometers north of Nazereth, Jesus' hometown. Cana is also Nathanael's hometown (John 21:2). In any case, Jesus, His disciples and Mary, His mother, were guests at this wedding, so they must have been at least acquaintences with the wedding party. This event happened the day after Jesus met Philip and Nathanael. So they had made the trip since then.
This is the first miracle sign in John's gospel revealing the divinity of the Christ. The exchange is interesting, almost telling of the relationship between Jesus and Mary as one in which the mother is conversing with her Lord, both familiar and at the same time not. The miracle itself was not made public during the wedding, and unlike other miracles, it was not about healing or a demonstration of authority of nature. Rather, it was simply about providing wine to a party that had run out of it. But this description is still included as a sign that manifested His glory, and that led to belief in the disciples. Perhaps this is related to what Jesus told Nathanael the day before since he is from Cana? Nevertheless, this sign serves as a buttress to testimonials of the identity of Christ.
We are not told what the significance of the six waterpots of stone according to purification manner means. However, John the author states this for the purpose of informing his non-Jewish readers.
Following this wedding, Jesus and His troupe went to Capernaum, a city by the north-west coast of the Sea of Galilee. Interestingly, this was the city of Peter, James, and Andrew (see other gospels), rather than Bethsaida. However, it could be that they moved from place to place around the coast, as these cities were quite close to each other along the northern coast of the sea. Capernaum was the center of Jesus' ministry subsequently, but later on, they rejected Him and He uttered a curse on the city. Note that this city was cursed later, despite the miracle that was done. Consider this for yourself, how quick we are to blind ourselves to what God does right before our eyes.
The actual location of Cana is not certain, however, we do know that it is situated somewhere around Galilee. Possibly a few kilometers north of Nazereth, Jesus' hometown. Cana is also Nathanael's hometown (John 21:2). In any case, Jesus, His disciples and Mary, His mother, were guests at this wedding, so they must have been at least acquaintences with the wedding party. This event happened the day after Jesus met Philip and Nathanael. So they had made the trip since then.
This is the first miracle sign in John's gospel revealing the divinity of the Christ. The exchange is interesting, almost telling of the relationship between Jesus and Mary as one in which the mother is conversing with her Lord, both familiar and at the same time not. The miracle itself was not made public during the wedding, and unlike other miracles, it was not about healing or a demonstration of authority of nature. Rather, it was simply about providing wine to a party that had run out of it. But this description is still included as a sign that manifested His glory, and that led to belief in the disciples. Perhaps this is related to what Jesus told Nathanael the day before since he is from Cana? Nevertheless, this sign serves as a buttress to testimonials of the identity of Christ.
We are not told what the significance of the six waterpots of stone according to purification manner means. However, John the author states this for the purpose of informing his non-Jewish readers.
Following this wedding, Jesus and His troupe went to Capernaum, a city by the north-west coast of the Sea of Galilee. Interestingly, this was the city of Peter, James, and Andrew (see other gospels), rather than Bethsaida. However, it could be that they moved from place to place around the coast, as these cities were quite close to each other along the northern coast of the sea. Capernaum was the center of Jesus' ministry subsequently, but later on, they rejected Him and He uttered a curse on the city. Note that this city was cursed later, despite the miracle that was done. Consider this for yourself, how quick we are to blind ourselves to what God does right before our eyes.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Noise Cancellation Earpieces
Here's another idea. I think BOSE already made it, but I don't know how theirs work. My idea though is simple. We simply have a earpiece that takes in sound from the current environment, and reverses it, and play it back into the earpiece. Then because the two sounds will cancel out, we will hear nothing.
Quality of representation: PhD Proposal
Here is an idea that I am toying with for my PhD research.
In aging, the idea is that neural representations change in several ways. Right now, we know there are changes, but we don't know what they are exactly, or why they happen the way they do. One obvious objective change we are pretty certain of is that, with age, processing speed slows down.
Now, is this a result of nerve conduction changes? Or is this more to do with changes in the processes themselves. That is, neuronal connectivity is changing, so the process computation changes as well, and changes in a way that results in slowing of the process. In addition, connectivity may also be changing in terms of a reduction in neural plasticity, the ability of neurons to form (or prune) connections based on experience.
One test I propose is related to ascertaining if the observations about neural changes with age relate to changes in processes vis a vis changes in connectivity. If neural representations are poorer with age, then it also means that they are less able to dissociate between similar representations. That is, aging reduces distinctiveness between neural representations. We should be able to measure this using the adaptation paradigm. In theory, if two representations are similar, the adaptation should be greater. To the extent that two representations are distinct, there will be less adaptation. Thus, with younger adults, there should be less adaptation to similar but different stimuli, or, there should be adaptation only when stimuli are very similar. In older adults, adaptation should happen at a lower threshold of similarity, for stimuli that are in fact quite distinct compared to that for the young.
In addition, since the neural representational quality in the lower perceptual areas feeds the cognitive processes that operate on them downstream (e.g. perceptual matching, target identification, memory, attention, decision-making etc) then it stands that if the neural representation is poorer, the cortex involved in working on these representations will either work harder to produce the same result, or be incapable of producing the same result if the representations were clearer. So, this could be measured as a correlation of frontal cortex activity with the degree of adaptation in the posterior, more perceptual areas.
In aging, the idea is that neural representations change in several ways. Right now, we know there are changes, but we don't know what they are exactly, or why they happen the way they do. One obvious objective change we are pretty certain of is that, with age, processing speed slows down.
Now, is this a result of nerve conduction changes? Or is this more to do with changes in the processes themselves. That is, neuronal connectivity is changing, so the process computation changes as well, and changes in a way that results in slowing of the process. In addition, connectivity may also be changing in terms of a reduction in neural plasticity, the ability of neurons to form (or prune) connections based on experience.
One test I propose is related to ascertaining if the observations about neural changes with age relate to changes in processes vis a vis changes in connectivity. If neural representations are poorer with age, then it also means that they are less able to dissociate between similar representations. That is, aging reduces distinctiveness between neural representations. We should be able to measure this using the adaptation paradigm. In theory, if two representations are similar, the adaptation should be greater. To the extent that two representations are distinct, there will be less adaptation. Thus, with younger adults, there should be less adaptation to similar but different stimuli, or, there should be adaptation only when stimuli are very similar. In older adults, adaptation should happen at a lower threshold of similarity, for stimuli that are in fact quite distinct compared to that for the young.
In addition, since the neural representational quality in the lower perceptual areas feeds the cognitive processes that operate on them downstream (e.g. perceptual matching, target identification, memory, attention, decision-making etc) then it stands that if the neural representation is poorer, the cortex involved in working on these representations will either work harder to produce the same result, or be incapable of producing the same result if the representations were clearer. So, this could be measured as a correlation of frontal cortex activity with the degree of adaptation in the posterior, more perceptual areas.
The Nativity Story
This is a brilliant movie. It is well done, and the dramatization does not compromise scriptural integrity. The acting is moving. The script is delightful and thoughtful, every word has weight. And the cinematography captures the holy land in all its facets. A must see. I am making this a family tradition, to screen this every Christmas.
Movie website, IMDB website
John 1:35-51
The Calling of the Disciples
Note that all these events in these few chapters occur around Bethany. Bethany is reputedly in the south east area (3 miles away) from the Mount of Olives, which is to the east of Jerusalem (check out Google Earth around the Jerusalem area with the "relief" option on to get an idea of the topography and geography). So John was baptizing in this area, Jesus had come to this area too from His home town of Nazereth, and the disciples he gathered here, Andrew, Simon Peter his brother, Nathanael, and Philip, and one other unnamed were staying in this area currently with John the Baptist. However, Andrew, Peter and Philip were from Bethsaida, a city by the north-east coast of Galilee. Two of them, Andrew and the unnamed disciple were followers of John the baptist, up to this point. Note also that these events occured in a matter of days. It appears that first, Jesus came to the area where John was baptizing, and He had lodgings there. On the day John baptize Jesus (from the gospels), John saw the vision of the dove descending on Him and identified Him as the Messiah (but we also know that John was aware of Jesus' identity for before He was baptized and John saw the vision, John already expressed humility in that he was hesitant to baptize Jesus because of his knowledge of His divinity). Note also that John adds translations of Hebrew words into Greek, perhaps being aware that his audience may not be fully Jewish.
Thus the two followers of John must have heard from John himself talk about the coming Messiah. It is therefore no surprise that when John identified Jesus as the Messiah, the two would follow Him. It also appears then, that Jesus did not just arrive on the scene out of nowhere, but that people had already a fair knowledge of His background, who He was as a person, being from Nazereth, and perhaps, He had already showed a little of His thinking in His conversations. For John was "looking at Jesus as He walked". Consider this for yourself, what are you looking at in life?
Perhaps, this event occured over a few hours, where as the two followers were with John, John talked about Jesus, and they considered what John was saying, and then decided to follow Jesus themselves. Regardless, the followers were rewarded by Jesus turning and asking "What do you seek?" This is perhaps a very difficult question for some. What do you seek in life? Some have no aim, or seek nothing. Some seek something that is material, some even seek after something that is spiritual. But perhaps, as long as that which we seek is not God, they all fall short of the ultimate desire. How interesting then, that the disciples' reply was to first acknowledge Him as teacher, and then apparently stating that they seeked to know where He stayed. But even that is enough. To know where the Divine stays. And they saw and stayed with Him. We can only guess the wonderful conversations they must have had during this time in the evening, for it was the tenth hour from sunrise.
The first response from this interaction for Andrew, was to find Simon, and to inform him that he had found the Messiah. Note again, everyone at that time was probably teetering on their toes looking for the Messiah, so this claim from his brother must have caught Simon's attention in some way. To his credit, Simon followed and was immediately declared prophetically by Jesus to be Cephas, or Peter, the rock.
Following this, Jesus wanted to return to Galilee, nearer His hometown. He had apparently come down south for certain reasons, perhaps the baptism, but had completed His purpose here for the moment. We are not told when the 40 days of temptation fit in, but presumably it was after the baptism and before He went back to Galilee. But prior to returning, He found Philip, who was from the same city as Andrew and Peter. So it appears these disciples were not random people, but people who had interacted with Jesus on various other occasions, and were chosen probably partly based on these interactions.
Philip's call to Nathanael again centers around Jesus being the Messiah. And Nathanael's response reveals the attitudes present towards Nazereth, and the inconsistency of a Messiah coming from there, since the Messiah is supposedly good.
The interaction between Jesus and Nathanael is somewhat a mystery, because it seems to be specific to Nathanael's experience. Nevertheless, John the author placed this section here, perhaps to emphasis how the disciples were convinced of Jesus' identity, and how Jesus revealed Himself to them. In Nathanael's case, it was through Jesus revealing His divine knowledge about him in a prophetic manner. Did Nathanael see something under the fig tree? Was he asking about something then? We are not told. But we are told that Jesus promised that he would see even greater things that this simple revelation of the Messiah through a prophetic word. He would see the Messiah Himself in His reconciliatory role (the angels of God ascending and descending are reminiscent of Jacob's vision of the ladder) and in glory.
Note that all these events in these few chapters occur around Bethany. Bethany is reputedly in the south east area (3 miles away) from the Mount of Olives, which is to the east of Jerusalem (check out Google Earth around the Jerusalem area with the "relief" option on to get an idea of the topography and geography). So John was baptizing in this area, Jesus had come to this area too from His home town of Nazereth, and the disciples he gathered here, Andrew, Simon Peter his brother, Nathanael, and Philip, and one other unnamed were staying in this area currently with John the Baptist. However, Andrew, Peter and Philip were from Bethsaida, a city by the north-east coast of Galilee. Two of them, Andrew and the unnamed disciple were followers of John the baptist, up to this point. Note also that these events occured in a matter of days. It appears that first, Jesus came to the area where John was baptizing, and He had lodgings there. On the day John baptize Jesus (from the gospels), John saw the vision of the dove descending on Him and identified Him as the Messiah (but we also know that John was aware of Jesus' identity for before He was baptized and John saw the vision, John already expressed humility in that he was hesitant to baptize Jesus because of his knowledge of His divinity). Note also that John adds translations of Hebrew words into Greek, perhaps being aware that his audience may not be fully Jewish.
Thus the two followers of John must have heard from John himself talk about the coming Messiah. It is therefore no surprise that when John identified Jesus as the Messiah, the two would follow Him. It also appears then, that Jesus did not just arrive on the scene out of nowhere, but that people had already a fair knowledge of His background, who He was as a person, being from Nazereth, and perhaps, He had already showed a little of His thinking in His conversations. For John was "looking at Jesus as He walked". Consider this for yourself, what are you looking at in life?
Perhaps, this event occured over a few hours, where as the two followers were with John, John talked about Jesus, and they considered what John was saying, and then decided to follow Jesus themselves. Regardless, the followers were rewarded by Jesus turning and asking "What do you seek?" This is perhaps a very difficult question for some. What do you seek in life? Some have no aim, or seek nothing. Some seek something that is material, some even seek after something that is spiritual. But perhaps, as long as that which we seek is not God, they all fall short of the ultimate desire. How interesting then, that the disciples' reply was to first acknowledge Him as teacher, and then apparently stating that they seeked to know where He stayed. But even that is enough. To know where the Divine stays. And they saw and stayed with Him. We can only guess the wonderful conversations they must have had during this time in the evening, for it was the tenth hour from sunrise.
The first response from this interaction for Andrew, was to find Simon, and to inform him that he had found the Messiah. Note again, everyone at that time was probably teetering on their toes looking for the Messiah, so this claim from his brother must have caught Simon's attention in some way. To his credit, Simon followed and was immediately declared prophetically by Jesus to be Cephas, or Peter, the rock.
Following this, Jesus wanted to return to Galilee, nearer His hometown. He had apparently come down south for certain reasons, perhaps the baptism, but had completed His purpose here for the moment. We are not told when the 40 days of temptation fit in, but presumably it was after the baptism and before He went back to Galilee. But prior to returning, He found Philip, who was from the same city as Andrew and Peter. So it appears these disciples were not random people, but people who had interacted with Jesus on various other occasions, and were chosen probably partly based on these interactions.
Philip's call to Nathanael again centers around Jesus being the Messiah. And Nathanael's response reveals the attitudes present towards Nazereth, and the inconsistency of a Messiah coming from there, since the Messiah is supposedly good.
The interaction between Jesus and Nathanael is somewhat a mystery, because it seems to be specific to Nathanael's experience. Nevertheless, John the author placed this section here, perhaps to emphasis how the disciples were convinced of Jesus' identity, and how Jesus revealed Himself to them. In Nathanael's case, it was through Jesus revealing His divine knowledge about him in a prophetic manner. Did Nathanael see something under the fig tree? Was he asking about something then? We are not told. But we are told that Jesus promised that he would see even greater things that this simple revelation of the Messiah through a prophetic word. He would see the Messiah Himself in His reconciliatory role (the angels of God ascending and descending are reminiscent of Jacob's vision of the ladder) and in glory.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Pork Rib and Lotus Root soup
Very very healthy soupIngredients
1 Lotus Root (get from oriental market, its a smooth pale-colored root, if you open it up, you'll see some holes. Its like someone took a shot gun and shot through it)
A bunch of pork ribs
A handful of peanuts
If you have baby squid even better!
Method
Just cut up the lotus root into slices, then put it all into a pot of water with the meat, peanuts and squid, and boil boil boil. Keep boiling, then when you think its done, boil some more. Do this for at 3 hrs, the longer the better. Add salt to taste. Then after you've boileded it, you can drink the soup dish with rice.
Teochew Porridge
Teochew MuiOne of the easiest meals to make. Just boil the rice for a very very very long time. Boil until the rice become soft. Then just buy some canned preserved food. Like sardine lah, salted vegetables lah, salted eel lah, sweet peanutes lah, pickles lah, spicy cabbage lah, even kimchi also can, salted egg lah, century egg lah. Then just open and eat direct, or warm up in hot water before you eat, also can. Also can. All also can.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Winter comment
Acherly hor, this winter so far very the wimpy lah. Snow little little, then no more already. But then is a bit the cold lor. Like that how can!?!? Then cold for what? You want to cold, then you must snow, if not then just hot lah. Waste the cold. Anyway, maybe I speak too soon lah. Maybe suddenly the snow will all lau chut lai. So no pic or movie today. Because, nothing to see!
John 1:29-34
"The next day..."
The day after the Baptist was questioned by the priest and Levites sent from the Pharisees, Jesus comes towards John. Perhaps He was already in the vicinity, and people were curious as to who He was. Even John said "I did not know Him", but identified Him as the Lamb of God after he saw the Spirit descend and remain on Him.
This is John the Baptist's testimony as John the author reports it. John was sent to baptize with water, to make straight the path in the wilderness for the coming of the Lord. To prepare people so that the Lord can walk through the wilderness. His baptism and preparation centered around instructing people to repent of their sins and to be cleansed. This is then how John the Baptist summarized the role of Jesus in this section. Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. He is also the One who will baptize us with the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is the taking away of sin, as well as the cleansing and purification of our hearts.
This is the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus. John's Baptism, where did it come from?
Jesus, where did He come from?
We are now faced with this mystery. The Incarnation. God with us, in the flesh, in Jesus. The sacrificial Lamb, like all the lambs sacrificed for the atonement of sin at the Jerusalem temple. And the Holy Spirit in us? Note, previously in the Old Testament, prophets and individuals were anointed, and at times, it is recorded, the Holy Spirit came upon them, for certain works. But here, we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is something more than just "coming upon". This is indwelling. This is the Divine in us.
The day after the Baptist was questioned by the priest and Levites sent from the Pharisees, Jesus comes towards John. Perhaps He was already in the vicinity, and people were curious as to who He was. Even John said "I did not know Him", but identified Him as the Lamb of God after he saw the Spirit descend and remain on Him.
This is John the Baptist's testimony as John the author reports it. John was sent to baptize with water, to make straight the path in the wilderness for the coming of the Lord. To prepare people so that the Lord can walk through the wilderness. His baptism and preparation centered around instructing people to repent of their sins and to be cleansed. This is then how John the Baptist summarized the role of Jesus in this section. Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. He is also the One who will baptize us with the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is the taking away of sin, as well as the cleansing and purification of our hearts.
This is the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus. John's Baptism, where did it come from?
Jesus, where did He come from?
We are now faced with this mystery. The Incarnation. God with us, in the flesh, in Jesus. The sacrificial Lamb, like all the lambs sacrificed for the atonement of sin at the Jerusalem temple. And the Holy Spirit in us? Note, previously in the Old Testament, prophets and individuals were anointed, and at times, it is recorded, the Holy Spirit came upon them, for certain works. But here, we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is something more than just "coming upon". This is indwelling. This is the Divine in us.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Definition of consciousness
Consciousness: the state in which a cognitive system has or processes the knowledge or information that there is a distinction between the object of processing and the system implementing the process.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Defending science or religion with passion?
Here is a rather interesting article in the New York Times today about some debates about the influence of science and religion in society [download pdf]. As there are already many opinions, I do not wish to add "just" another one. Instead, I would like to plead with the scientific community as well as the religious community, if you are reading this. Please be mindful to consider the nature of your arguments, whether they stem from the self, or truly from a consideration of what can be known about the truth. Because what is at stake is not merely just who is right or wrong. What is at stake here, is your life, and the lives of others.
Consider this. If those who reject the idea of God are correct, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no need to live according to what God says. If so, for some of us, we may find value in other things as our meaning in life (if that were possible without appealing to God). Some of us may feel that we no longer suffer under the guilt of possible judgment under God. Some of us may feel that there is no difference. IF there is no God.
If there is a God, however, then the question becomes, who is this God? And what does that mean for us? Let us assume there is a God, and this God is the Judeo-Christian God (we could pick other examples, but let us just assume this one for argument's sake). If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then, those who reject His existence have much to fear indeed! For He says that those who do not believe, there will be a cost. Some of us may not be willing to pay that cost.
Therefore, I say, consider carefully the nature of your arguments. Lay aside anything that might cloud your thinking and respect your fields of study, do not be a disgrace to it, do not disgrace yourself by failure to consider the possibility of your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Because your opinion, and the facts, are not the only things at stake.
Consider this. If those who reject the idea of God are correct, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no need to live according to what God says. If so, for some of us, we may find value in other things as our meaning in life (if that were possible without appealing to God). Some of us may feel that we no longer suffer under the guilt of possible judgment under God. Some of us may feel that there is no difference. IF there is no God.
If there is a God, however, then the question becomes, who is this God? And what does that mean for us? Let us assume there is a God, and this God is the Judeo-Christian God (we could pick other examples, but let us just assume this one for argument's sake). If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then, those who reject His existence have much to fear indeed! For He says that those who do not believe, there will be a cost. Some of us may not be willing to pay that cost.
Therefore, I say, consider carefully the nature of your arguments. Lay aside anything that might cloud your thinking and respect your fields of study, do not be a disgrace to it, do not disgrace yourself by failure to consider the possibility of your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Because your opinion, and the facts, are not the only things at stake.
Monday, November 20, 2006
John 1:19-28
"...testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
Or perhaps, "Who do you think you are?". We cannot deny a sense of suspicion on the part of the interrogators. For John the Baptist has been preaching a radical message, as we have observed in other gospels. He has also been baptizing, hence the term the Baptist. Here, John, the author, narrates the events that took place prior to the first recorded public anointing of Jesus for His ministry, being baptized by John. Remember, that as recorded in Matthew, about 30 years ago, there was a huge massacre of infants by Herod, because he was afraid of the threat of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy. So, we must wonder, perhaps people have been thinking all this while, with much tension, hope, expectancy, and for some, fear, about the big question - WHO? It is therefore no surprise that when people noticed the radical nature of John the Baptist's ministry, they suspected him of being the Messiah. The One whom the Jews have been waiting for. The One whom the Scriptures have foretold since Genesis 3:15 and throughout all the Old Testament. Even now, those who do not receive Jesus as the Messiah (Christ, in Greek), are still awaiting and wondering - WHO will save us?
Note, that John, the author, states that the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews. Recall that John was probably writing this gospel around the time of 70-90AD. And he was writing in the midst of two teachings that needed to be addressed, that were stumbling the Christians at that time (this gospel was probably circulatory to all the churches throughout all the Diaspora, as well as to Israel). The first was the teachings of agnosticism, who basically hold the idea that there is no God. The second teaching related to Christians, whether previously non-Jewish or Jewish, were reverting back to the old Jewish practices, tied to the practices of the Torah, such as circumcision. Thus, when John pinpoints here, that the Jews were one of the first to question John the Baptist, and how throughout the gospel, these interrogators are constantly referred to as being unable to accept the Messiahship of Jesus, we can see that if we were Jewish readers, this touched a sensitive spot. Let us be sensitive to this, therefore, and be open to hear what John, the author, is truly saying about the state of our hearts with respect to the identity of the Messiah. Perhaps, the question is, why do we react the way we do, when we hear that Someone is the Messiah? Do we doubt? Do we fear? Or do we not even care about such things? Or do we receive this information without due testing and consideration? Or do we receive it with joy, and righteous faith?
Nevertheless, it is the priests and Levites, sent by the Pharisees (v24), that ask "who are you?" Such a question! How would we answer if someone were to ask us that? The interested, should at this point look up background information about the Pharisees. Here, it is useful to know that, because of their religious leadership role and position in the Jewish society, it is no surprise that they would be the ones to first jump at outstanding people to test them about their teachings. Perhaps some Pharisees were truly concerned about what these outstanding people were teaching the average Jew. And so, they exercised a paternalistic approach to people such as John, and subsequently Jesus. Testing, questioning, suspecting.
"...I am not the Christ...(not) Elijah...(not) the Prophet..."
Malachi 4:5,6 talks about God sending Elijah, before the dreadful day of the Lord. So, people then probably took this to mean that Elijah (who was taken up into heaven 2Ki 2:11) would come back before the Messiah would come back. This is where the point may have been missed. The people were looking for the Messiah as a sign for deliverance. They may have had wrong ideas about what this deliverance entails. Regardless, they were focusing on the Messiah as a sign, and were deaf and blind to the message and truth of Who the Messiah is, and what He said and was doing. Thus, even if John was Elijah as foretold, is that really that important?
John the Baptist denied association with all these signs that the people were so eagerly attending to much like the way Jesus typically responded to the peoples' request for signs. But gave the answer from Isa 40:3. Which is both specific as well as generic. In a way, we are all voices crying out in this wilderness for people to make straight the way of the Lord. But John the Baptist probably knew this more clearly than anyone else, for to him was revealed that his cousin, Jesus, was indeed the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ. Where did he gain this knowledge? We are not told. But he expressed explicit knowledge, and declared it in the following verses.
John the Baptist's baptism
The word baptism has two related meanings. The first meaning is simply to immerse, or submerge, the second meaning is to wash, or clean. This word is used in the New Testament, but does not seem to occur in the Old Testament. However, we are reminded, when we think of cleansing, of the Old Testament commandments regarding purification rites during temple servies and sacrificial offerings. We are also reminded of submersion in the Red Sea crossing during the Exodus of the Isrealites from Egypt, the crossing of the Jordan river, when the Isrealites entered the promised land. The constant meaning that we obtain from these examples is the idea of being transformed from a previous old, dirty, inferior, unacceptable state, to one that is new, clean, perfected, and accepted. Thus, reading this into this section in John, it seems that the practise of baptism has become formalized as something done by a rabbi or teacher as a ritual representing the change of the baptizee from an old state to the new state, perhaps the state taught or recommended by that particular teacher.
Perhaps, the interrogators were questioning John's authority (see Mt 21:25, Mr 11:30, Lk 20:4) and teaching. What was he teaching the people, since he says he has no authority. And John's reply here was to indicate the baptism he performed was but a faint comparison to the true baptism to be performed by the Christ. So we are to think of our practice in church of earthly baptism with water as well.
Look also at Lk 12:50. Here Jesus talks about His own baptism, His immersion and purification by suffering on the cross. Was He not pure? Why did He need to be purified? Was He not God? How can He be immersed in anything? How can anything contain God? But recall, that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist (next section). And recall, that our sins were laid on Him. And recall, that He had to die on our behalf, the price of our sin, and the ultimate immersion, the ultimate containment from the rest of all creation, is death. Finally, the baptism we practise does not stop in immersion. For it is first immersion, then purification. This speaks of the resurrection to perfect life after the death to sin.
Going back to the Baptist. If we were so totally convinced about the identify of Christ, would we be as bold as John to declare publicly this truth? Reflect on John the Baptist's actions. How he behaved, remember his lifestyle previously mention, remember his message based on his knowledge of Christ. A voice in the wilderness, sometimes a lonely voice, sometimes unheeded, sometimes even ridiculed and mocked and placed under suspicion. Consider the Baptist's faith, in One who, at the time when he knew Him, had not yet died for his sins, but yet, he already had faith. Consider now, we who know Him in the fullness of His intentions and acts and words, our faith. And John, when ask who he was, his answer was always in relation to Christ. He never said I am John, these are my teachings, this is my thinking, that is why I do these things. Instead, it was always simply "I am His".
Or perhaps, "Who do you think you are?". We cannot deny a sense of suspicion on the part of the interrogators. For John the Baptist has been preaching a radical message, as we have observed in other gospels. He has also been baptizing, hence the term the Baptist. Here, John, the author, narrates the events that took place prior to the first recorded public anointing of Jesus for His ministry, being baptized by John. Remember, that as recorded in Matthew, about 30 years ago, there was a huge massacre of infants by Herod, because he was afraid of the threat of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy. So, we must wonder, perhaps people have been thinking all this while, with much tension, hope, expectancy, and for some, fear, about the big question - WHO? It is therefore no surprise that when people noticed the radical nature of John the Baptist's ministry, they suspected him of being the Messiah. The One whom the Jews have been waiting for. The One whom the Scriptures have foretold since Genesis 3:15 and throughout all the Old Testament. Even now, those who do not receive Jesus as the Messiah (Christ, in Greek), are still awaiting and wondering - WHO will save us?
Note, that John, the author, states that the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews. Recall that John was probably writing this gospel around the time of 70-90AD. And he was writing in the midst of two teachings that needed to be addressed, that were stumbling the Christians at that time (this gospel was probably circulatory to all the churches throughout all the Diaspora, as well as to Israel). The first was the teachings of agnosticism, who basically hold the idea that there is no God. The second teaching related to Christians, whether previously non-Jewish or Jewish, were reverting back to the old Jewish practices, tied to the practices of the Torah, such as circumcision. Thus, when John pinpoints here, that the Jews were one of the first to question John the Baptist, and how throughout the gospel, these interrogators are constantly referred to as being unable to accept the Messiahship of Jesus, we can see that if we were Jewish readers, this touched a sensitive spot. Let us be sensitive to this, therefore, and be open to hear what John, the author, is truly saying about the state of our hearts with respect to the identity of the Messiah. Perhaps, the question is, why do we react the way we do, when we hear that Someone is the Messiah? Do we doubt? Do we fear? Or do we not even care about such things? Or do we receive this information without due testing and consideration? Or do we receive it with joy, and righteous faith?
Nevertheless, it is the priests and Levites, sent by the Pharisees (v24), that ask "who are you?" Such a question! How would we answer if someone were to ask us that? The interested, should at this point look up background information about the Pharisees. Here, it is useful to know that, because of their religious leadership role and position in the Jewish society, it is no surprise that they would be the ones to first jump at outstanding people to test them about their teachings. Perhaps some Pharisees were truly concerned about what these outstanding people were teaching the average Jew. And so, they exercised a paternalistic approach to people such as John, and subsequently Jesus. Testing, questioning, suspecting.
"...I am not the Christ...(not) Elijah...(not) the Prophet..."
Malachi 4:5,6 talks about God sending Elijah, before the dreadful day of the Lord. So, people then probably took this to mean that Elijah (who was taken up into heaven 2Ki 2:11) would come back before the Messiah would come back. This is where the point may have been missed. The people were looking for the Messiah as a sign for deliverance. They may have had wrong ideas about what this deliverance entails. Regardless, they were focusing on the Messiah as a sign, and were deaf and blind to the message and truth of Who the Messiah is, and what He said and was doing. Thus, even if John was Elijah as foretold, is that really that important?
John the Baptist denied association with all these signs that the people were so eagerly attending to much like the way Jesus typically responded to the peoples' request for signs. But gave the answer from Isa 40:3. Which is both specific as well as generic. In a way, we are all voices crying out in this wilderness for people to make straight the way of the Lord. But John the Baptist probably knew this more clearly than anyone else, for to him was revealed that his cousin, Jesus, was indeed the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ. Where did he gain this knowledge? We are not told. But he expressed explicit knowledge, and declared it in the following verses.
John the Baptist's baptism
The word baptism has two related meanings. The first meaning is simply to immerse, or submerge, the second meaning is to wash, or clean. This word is used in the New Testament, but does not seem to occur in the Old Testament. However, we are reminded, when we think of cleansing, of the Old Testament commandments regarding purification rites during temple servies and sacrificial offerings. We are also reminded of submersion in the Red Sea crossing during the Exodus of the Isrealites from Egypt, the crossing of the Jordan river, when the Isrealites entered the promised land. The constant meaning that we obtain from these examples is the idea of being transformed from a previous old, dirty, inferior, unacceptable state, to one that is new, clean, perfected, and accepted. Thus, reading this into this section in John, it seems that the practise of baptism has become formalized as something done by a rabbi or teacher as a ritual representing the change of the baptizee from an old state to the new state, perhaps the state taught or recommended by that particular teacher.
Perhaps, the interrogators were questioning John's authority (see Mt 21:25, Mr 11:30, Lk 20:4) and teaching. What was he teaching the people, since he says he has no authority. And John's reply here was to indicate the baptism he performed was but a faint comparison to the true baptism to be performed by the Christ. So we are to think of our practice in church of earthly baptism with water as well.
Look also at Lk 12:50. Here Jesus talks about His own baptism, His immersion and purification by suffering on the cross. Was He not pure? Why did He need to be purified? Was He not God? How can He be immersed in anything? How can anything contain God? But recall, that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist (next section). And recall, that our sins were laid on Him. And recall, that He had to die on our behalf, the price of our sin, and the ultimate immersion, the ultimate containment from the rest of all creation, is death. Finally, the baptism we practise does not stop in immersion. For it is first immersion, then purification. This speaks of the resurrection to perfect life after the death to sin.
Going back to the Baptist. If we were so totally convinced about the identify of Christ, would we be as bold as John to declare publicly this truth? Reflect on John the Baptist's actions. How he behaved, remember his lifestyle previously mention, remember his message based on his knowledge of Christ. A voice in the wilderness, sometimes a lonely voice, sometimes unheeded, sometimes even ridiculed and mocked and placed under suspicion. Consider the Baptist's faith, in One who, at the time when he knew Him, had not yet died for his sins, but yet, he already had faith. Consider now, we who know Him in the fullness of His intentions and acts and words, our faith. And John, when ask who he was, his answer was always in relation to Christ. He never said I am John, these are my teachings, this is my thinking, that is why I do these things. Instead, it was always simply "I am His".
Cultural effects on visual processing as a function of age
Evidence shows that Westerners are more object-focused, being more individualistic, whereas East Asians are more context-focused, being more holistic. These differences are probably due to the larger historical cultural developmental influence exerted on individuals throughout their life experiences. Such influences permeate from the larger societal forces down to the everyday inter-relational communications, even to the physical habitational environment as an outward expression of these internal thoughts. With age, therefore, there is greater experience with one's own cultural development. We sought to examine these neural correlates of cultural experience with age.
The same study previously conducted with East Asians was conducted with Westerners. In summary, we found that Westerners showed similar object, background, and binding processing regions. These regions showed reduced expression with age. The most interesting contrast, however, was that Older East Asians did not show typical object processing (as measured using our adaptation paradigm; see subsequent follow-up experiments) while Young East Asians, Young Westerners and Old Westerners all showed object processing in the lateral occipital complex (LOC). This was related to changes in attentional resources with age. Furthermore, the difference was consistent with cultural expectations because the Old Westerners showed preserved object processing engagement, reflecting the more object-focused cultural background.
This study is currently in press in Cognitive, Affective, Behavioral Neuroscience journal. CNS 2006 abstract available for download.
So now, we know that differences in experiences over lifetime lead to differences in engagement of visual processing regions, and these differences are at the neural systems level as well. The next question how these patterns of neural engagement relate to what these people are actually looking at. This is important for understanding what is the actual visual information being attended. This has implications on developmental experience as a top-down modulator of the bottom-up visual information being input into higher cognitive processes. The other aspect is how external experience interacts with biological or cognitive changes related to aging.
What processes are specific to aging only? What processes are specific to long-term experience within the external developmental environment? Can short-term training alleviate processes that decline with age? What are the long-term experiences that lead to beneficial aging neural, cognitive outcomes?
This study had since had a press release [article].
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Oleng Color in Allerton and UIUC
See ah, I press, then he sing"Ahh! Ahh! Ahh!"
That's why the Sun Singer sings
Hands up high high
Butt press ring ring
That's why the Sun Singer sings
Click here for the full movie. And here for the picture album. All the color belly nice. Got gou, oleng, led, gleen, bloun. I see already also my eyes get huay huay. See already also can cry ah. I recommen Allerton park for new visitor to UIUC lah. The uni own it. Used to belong to some rich man son. Then dunno why, he sian already then he sell to the uni. Wah lau, his house is still there. Then the backyard ah, is acherly the whole forest leh! Piang! If your backside garden is a forest ah, I everyday go camping ah. Got a river flowing through some more. Can catch fish jiak sushi lah. Or else, catch deer jiak deer meat on hot plate, season with spring onion and ginger.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
John 1:15-18
"John bore witness...He who come after me is preferred...for He was before me."
This statement is presumably uttered just before Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. John had a rather large following, being a radical teacher prophet, a fresh voice in the Roman colonialized Israel. For 400 years after the remnant returned from being exiled to Babylon and Persia (as narrated in Nehemiah and Ezra), not much is known about what was going on in Israel. During this time, Rome came into power and defeated the previous kingdoms, and Israel came under its power. And just at this time, possibly a very dynamic, radical period of change in terms of politics, economy, culture and religion, John the Baptist cries out this statement pointing towards Jesus Christ. If you were one of the people listening to John's words, you might be puzzled as to what he was talking about. Because he was referring to Jesus, of Nazereth, as being preferred and before him, even though Jesus was younger than John in terms of human age. Radical claims. Either John the Baptist was mad, or else what he was saying was truer than anything else we've ever known. Either way, it is clear that he was very much convinced about what he was saying. And his own ministry, the baptism of repentance, rebuking of Pharisees (seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was centered around this fact.
But the John, the author of this gospel interjects this statement by the Baptist here, because in the context of these verses, the point was to declare that Jesus Christ was the Word that he had been talking about in the previous sentences. Again, the pattern is, the idea of the Word, and that the Word took on flesh as Jesus Christ, through whom came grace and truth. A repetition for emphasis, for connection, for expansions. For not only was the Word full of grace and truth. But we have received from His fullness, the same grace, and the same truth. So as He had these qualities fully in Him, so He imparts it to us through Jesus Christ.
Note the contrast between the law through Moses, and grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Some seek to find truth in the law, some even seek to find grace in it, thinking that the law is good and therefore must reflect some element of grace. That may be in some cases. However, we see here that in fact, the law is placed in juxtaposition with grace and truth. Thus, at most, the law is but a reflection of the reality. If there is any truth in the law, it is because it is merely reflecting the Truth. If there is any hint of grace, it is because it again is merely reflecting the One who is full of grace.
"No one has seen God...He has declared Him"
This statement is a continual theme for John (1 John 4:12-16) and relates to the world not comprehending Him. For God is invisible to us in all His Otherness. However, He is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. If we know Jesus, we know God. So there are two levels of testimony here. The first is the testimony of John the Baptist as to who Jesus was. And the second, greater testimony, is that of Jesus as to who God is.
This statement is presumably uttered just before Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. John had a rather large following, being a radical teacher prophet, a fresh voice in the Roman colonialized Israel. For 400 years after the remnant returned from being exiled to Babylon and Persia (as narrated in Nehemiah and Ezra), not much is known about what was going on in Israel. During this time, Rome came into power and defeated the previous kingdoms, and Israel came under its power. And just at this time, possibly a very dynamic, radical period of change in terms of politics, economy, culture and religion, John the Baptist cries out this statement pointing towards Jesus Christ. If you were one of the people listening to John's words, you might be puzzled as to what he was talking about. Because he was referring to Jesus, of Nazereth, as being preferred and before him, even though Jesus was younger than John in terms of human age. Radical claims. Either John the Baptist was mad, or else what he was saying was truer than anything else we've ever known. Either way, it is clear that he was very much convinced about what he was saying. And his own ministry, the baptism of repentance, rebuking of Pharisees (seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was centered around this fact.
But the John, the author of this gospel interjects this statement by the Baptist here, because in the context of these verses, the point was to declare that Jesus Christ was the Word that he had been talking about in the previous sentences. Again, the pattern is, the idea of the Word, and that the Word took on flesh as Jesus Christ, through whom came grace and truth. A repetition for emphasis, for connection, for expansions. For not only was the Word full of grace and truth. But we have received from His fullness, the same grace, and the same truth. So as He had these qualities fully in Him, so He imparts it to us through Jesus Christ.
Note the contrast between the law through Moses, and grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Some seek to find truth in the law, some even seek to find grace in it, thinking that the law is good and therefore must reflect some element of grace. That may be in some cases. However, we see here that in fact, the law is placed in juxtaposition with grace and truth. Thus, at most, the law is but a reflection of the reality. If there is any truth in the law, it is because it is merely reflecting the Truth. If there is any hint of grace, it is because it again is merely reflecting the One who is full of grace.
"No one has seen God...He has declared Him"
This statement is a continual theme for John (1 John 4:12-16) and relates to the world not comprehending Him. For God is invisible to us in all His Otherness. However, He is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. If we know Jesus, we know God. So there are two levels of testimony here. The first is the testimony of John the Baptist as to who Jesus was. And the second, greater testimony, is that of Jesus as to who God is.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
John 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory..."
Recall the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. Then, the tabernacle was the vessel for God's glory as He dwelt among the Israelites during their journey. The tabernacle was made from various materials, each having their symbolism as well as purpose. But here, here is no longer symbolism, there is no more analogy. This is the reality of those former shadows (Heb 10:1).
There is in our culture, the idea that flesh is evil, and not good. Yet, the glory of God was beheld in the form of flesh. What is glory? Even more specifically, what is His glory? There is always the idea of brightness, weight, presence. Glory. Some might think it to be about fame or credit, as we are prone to say, "He takes all the glory for himself". But that is but one aspect of the idea of glory. For throughout the old testament, glory seemed to be consistently used to represent the presence of individuals that are great, that have done great things, that are distinct in their otherness compared to us. And glory is mostly used to refer to rulers, like kings and their glory. It is also applied to men and their glory. Their presence, their legacy. It is intimately tied to their being. Where the life within them is so influential, it spills out as glory. And in contradiction to our thoughts about the evil flesh, the flesh of the Word was the vessel for His glory. How wonderful this revelation, this release, that our flesh too then, the same flesh as for the Word, has the possibility to contain or be the medium through which His glory can be known.
"...begotten of the Father..."
The Son of God. The very product of Father. One is not the Father without offspring. He would only be a being. Yet, now we have a revelation. He is the Father. First to the Word, and we will learn later, to us all who believe and have been adopted. This means that in the Word, is the essence of the Father. In the Word, the Father is seen, because His essence is at work. If God has an offspring, a true one, would that offspring not also be God? Although we are created by God, we are not true offsprings. But if one were to stem from God, He would be God as well. Not another one, but the same One. For there cannot be more than one God. By definition, there can be only One God. This is the mystery and must be deeply considered.
"...full of grace and truth."
Grace and truth! Consider the state of interpersonal values and situations that we experience. If we were to arrive at a plain summary, we might find that if there are many problems in these relationships, from the lowest to highest levels, from person-to-person, one-to-many, many-to-many, group-to-group, if there are any problems, they are due to a lack of grace and truth. Because we do not trust others, and they do not trust us, at least not completely. Because we do not show grace to others, nor are they gracious to us, again, at least not completly. But here, John states, that the Word is full of grace and truth. This cannot be repeated enough. If we are searching for truth, because of the various voices that speak in our world, we will find it in the Word. If we are looking for grace, because of the unforgiving, methodical, procedural operations of the world, we will find it in the Word. Again, contrast this to the Law. Law versus Word. The Law of Moses was written on stone, with words. Yet, here is the Word, but instead of the rigid, prescriptive tone seen in the Law, we see life, light, grace and truth. How can this be? Are they inconsistent? No. For, as it is said, all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in one commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:9). But we digress, in a good way.
Consider truth. What is it? It seems that John here is speaking of an absolute truth. A truth, or Truth, that everyone can regard as such. Truth that does not depend on anything. What is this? We are not given anymore detail from this verse, other than that it can be found in the Word. But we know that truth as we use the term means something that is real, that is reliable, that would apply in every situation. The concept of truth by definition would mean that whatever it is, it always is. The minute one thinks that a truth is at one time, but is not at another, it would contradict the strict meaning of truth. Truth should always be. It is as eternal as God is, as previously mentioned. And as such, might we think that then, the only real truth, is the truth of Himself. His being? Stark constrast to the current subjective truth ideas. Is truth an emergent property of collective consciousness? No. Because that would mean it depends on the collective. Is the idea of truth a product of collective consciousness? Maybe. But then who can show that it is not itself a true concept. Yet, think of the Word, and John's claim. The Word was, and is, full of truth. John simply states it with no reference to any collective idea. We must pause and consider this deeply. Is he stating an idea from the collective consciousness simply as one of the partakers? Yet, he had evidence, for all the ideas in John, John saw those ideas fulfilled in the Word. When collective ideas are fulfilled, it is a scary thing...a scary thing to the beholder, the one who realizes the fulfillment, and to those who would realize it because of the testimony of the one who witnesses.
Consider grace. What is it? As we know it, grace speaks of acceptance, approachability, beauty, fluidity. Someone defined grace as getting that which we do not deserve. In our interactions, do we not see the lack of such qualities? We are constantly trying to define ourselves in term of boundaries, personality, distinguishing ourselves from others in a struggle to be known. We are constantly wanting to get what we think we deserve, and not giving others what we think they do not. Yet the Word is full of grace. Is this not the ultimate expression of one's being, to acknowledge the being of others in the fullest possible way, that is, to consider them higher than the self. To serve them. To give to them. To accept them. And in so doing, we express ourselves in relationship to them. For if we only consider ourselves, what do we have to verify our own being with? And that relationship with others, it cannot be one of selfishness and self-obsession, the opposite of grace. For if so, we would annhilate the other, and end up with only ourselves. Which would be an unreasonable state. But of course, grace is more than this negative perspective.
Grace is positive. Just as truth is positive. Just as light is positive. There is creative power, propagation, influence, revelation, release, transformation, growth, and all these are tied to His glory. So there are two things here. Truth. Independent of everything else, having its own being. And grace. The fullest expression of that being in relation to others.
Recall the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. Then, the tabernacle was the vessel for God's glory as He dwelt among the Israelites during their journey. The tabernacle was made from various materials, each having their symbolism as well as purpose. But here, here is no longer symbolism, there is no more analogy. This is the reality of those former shadows (Heb 10:1).
There is in our culture, the idea that flesh is evil, and not good. Yet, the glory of God was beheld in the form of flesh. What is glory? Even more specifically, what is His glory? There is always the idea of brightness, weight, presence. Glory. Some might think it to be about fame or credit, as we are prone to say, "He takes all the glory for himself". But that is but one aspect of the idea of glory. For throughout the old testament, glory seemed to be consistently used to represent the presence of individuals that are great, that have done great things, that are distinct in their otherness compared to us. And glory is mostly used to refer to rulers, like kings and their glory. It is also applied to men and their glory. Their presence, their legacy. It is intimately tied to their being. Where the life within them is so influential, it spills out as glory. And in contradiction to our thoughts about the evil flesh, the flesh of the Word was the vessel for His glory. How wonderful this revelation, this release, that our flesh too then, the same flesh as for the Word, has the possibility to contain or be the medium through which His glory can be known.
"...begotten of the Father..."
The Son of God. The very product of Father. One is not the Father without offspring. He would only be a being. Yet, now we have a revelation. He is the Father. First to the Word, and we will learn later, to us all who believe and have been adopted. This means that in the Word, is the essence of the Father. In the Word, the Father is seen, because His essence is at work. If God has an offspring, a true one, would that offspring not also be God? Although we are created by God, we are not true offsprings. But if one were to stem from God, He would be God as well. Not another one, but the same One. For there cannot be more than one God. By definition, there can be only One God. This is the mystery and must be deeply considered.
"...full of grace and truth."
Grace and truth! Consider the state of interpersonal values and situations that we experience. If we were to arrive at a plain summary, we might find that if there are many problems in these relationships, from the lowest to highest levels, from person-to-person, one-to-many, many-to-many, group-to-group, if there are any problems, they are due to a lack of grace and truth. Because we do not trust others, and they do not trust us, at least not completely. Because we do not show grace to others, nor are they gracious to us, again, at least not completly. But here, John states, that the Word is full of grace and truth. This cannot be repeated enough. If we are searching for truth, because of the various voices that speak in our world, we will find it in the Word. If we are looking for grace, because of the unforgiving, methodical, procedural operations of the world, we will find it in the Word. Again, contrast this to the Law. Law versus Word. The Law of Moses was written on stone, with words. Yet, here is the Word, but instead of the rigid, prescriptive tone seen in the Law, we see life, light, grace and truth. How can this be? Are they inconsistent? No. For, as it is said, all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in one commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:9). But we digress, in a good way.
Consider truth. What is it? It seems that John here is speaking of an absolute truth. A truth, or Truth, that everyone can regard as such. Truth that does not depend on anything. What is this? We are not given anymore detail from this verse, other than that it can be found in the Word. But we know that truth as we use the term means something that is real, that is reliable, that would apply in every situation. The concept of truth by definition would mean that whatever it is, it always is. The minute one thinks that a truth is at one time, but is not at another, it would contradict the strict meaning of truth. Truth should always be. It is as eternal as God is, as previously mentioned. And as such, might we think that then, the only real truth, is the truth of Himself. His being? Stark constrast to the current subjective truth ideas. Is truth an emergent property of collective consciousness? No. Because that would mean it depends on the collective. Is the idea of truth a product of collective consciousness? Maybe. But then who can show that it is not itself a true concept. Yet, think of the Word, and John's claim. The Word was, and is, full of truth. John simply states it with no reference to any collective idea. We must pause and consider this deeply. Is he stating an idea from the collective consciousness simply as one of the partakers? Yet, he had evidence, for all the ideas in John, John saw those ideas fulfilled in the Word. When collective ideas are fulfilled, it is a scary thing...a scary thing to the beholder, the one who realizes the fulfillment, and to those who would realize it because of the testimony of the one who witnesses.
Consider grace. What is it? As we know it, grace speaks of acceptance, approachability, beauty, fluidity. Someone defined grace as getting that which we do not deserve. In our interactions, do we not see the lack of such qualities? We are constantly trying to define ourselves in term of boundaries, personality, distinguishing ourselves from others in a struggle to be known. We are constantly wanting to get what we think we deserve, and not giving others what we think they do not. Yet the Word is full of grace. Is this not the ultimate expression of one's being, to acknowledge the being of others in the fullest possible way, that is, to consider them higher than the self. To serve them. To give to them. To accept them. And in so doing, we express ourselves in relationship to them. For if we only consider ourselves, what do we have to verify our own being with? And that relationship with others, it cannot be one of selfishness and self-obsession, the opposite of grace. For if so, we would annhilate the other, and end up with only ourselves. Which would be an unreasonable state. But of course, grace is more than this negative perspective.
Grace is positive. Just as truth is positive. Just as light is positive. There is creative power, propagation, influence, revelation, release, transformation, growth, and all these are tied to His glory. So there are two things here. Truth. Independent of everything else, having its own being. And grace. The fullest expression of that being in relation to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)