The Bible - I. Introduction

My wife and I were teaching the Life of Jesus as recorded in The Bible for ESL/EAL students.  This series of lessons left many unanswered questions about The Bible itself. Therefore, we took some time for lessons on The Bible itself, which I am sharing here.

The Old Testament

No one knows for sure how old The Bible is. Most Bible scholars believe the first written parts of the Bible were recorded about 1200 years Before Christ (BC).  These are the oldest sections of the Old Testament and we usually say they were first written by a Jewish leader named Moses. They are the first five books of the first part of the Christian Bible, which we call The Old Testament. The Jewish people have only The Old Testament as their Bible. It was first written in their Aramaic and Hebrew language. The rest of The Old Testament was written over the next 800 years. Some other writers are thought to be people like the famous Jewish King David and his son, King Solomon. For the last 400 years before Jesus was born nothing new was added to The Bible we have. However, there are a number of writings that the Jewish people have which are sometimes included in the Bible between the Old and New Testaments in what we call the Apocrypha.  The parts of the Old Testament on different subjects and written by different writers are called ‘books’. There are 39 books in The Old Testament. It is called The Old Testament because it is the oldest part of The Bible, written before Jesus was born.

Jesus himself said about The Old Testament:

John 5:39 Search The Scriptures; for in them you think you will find everlasting life: and they do indeed talk about me.

The Apostle Paul, one of he most prolific writers of the New Testament wrote:

Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written in the past were written for our learning, that we through patience and the comfort of The Scriptures might have hope.

The New Testament

Just as with The Old Testament, no one knows for certain when the New Testament was written. It is believed to have been written between about 30 to 65 years after Jesus died and was raised to new life. Also as with The Old Testament, it consists of a number of smaller sections. There are 27 of these so-called books in The New Testament. They were mostly written by Jesus’s followers or disciples, whom we later knew as The Apostles. Two were also written by a doctor named Luke, and many were written by a special apostle named Paul. The first 5 books tell the story of Jesus and The Early Church. Most of the rest of The New Testament consists of letters to churches in parts of what we now call The Middle East and Europe.  Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written not in Hebrew but in Aramaic and Greek. This is because those were the common languages of the time. What is recorded in The New Testament fulfills predictions made in The Old Testament.

As Jesus himself said after he rose from the grave:

25  Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26  Should Christ not have suffered these things, to be able to enter into his glory?

27  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them in all The Scriptures the things about himself.                                                           Luke 24:25-27

44  And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in The Prophets, and in The Psalms, concerning me.                     Luke 24: 44

Chapter 14 - The Ten Commandments Number 10 – 2008 7 28

Down to the last Commandment, the Tenth. This one states, "You shall not covet your neighbour's house, you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbour's."

Covet means to be jealous of, to want something that you don't have. We have already talked in the last 'chapter' about what neighbour means – really everyone else but you.

We know that coveting your neighbour's wife could yield to disaster if you followed the thought into action. It could end up with marriage breakup. That has serious harmful effects on both families. Most of us don't have servants but we have many tools and appliances that do the work of servants for us. Do we see things our neighbour has that we don't and wish we did? We don't use oxen or asses (donkeys) much in our society. Instead, we use cars and trucks. Have you been jealous of your neighbour's car?

Desire, wanting things, and the trouble that gets us into, was one of the main things that got the founder of Buddhism into thinking there was more to life than material things and working to earn them. Christianity teaches likewise, the same. Jesus, the Christ, said, as recorded in Luke 12: 15, "Be careful, beware of covetousness, for a person's life does not consist of the abundance of things which he possess." How true this is. The more we have, the more worried we get about its security. We are pre-occupied; our minds get too full, with thoughts of losing it or its being stolen. We put up big walls around our homes. We put up big gates. Everything gets locked up. We get it all insured. We purchase and install alarm systems. In the end, by so doing, we fall prey to the trap of materialism.

What a lot of work, just to guard things that we all have to leave behind when we die anyway! What is most important is getting things in order in this earthly life so we can continue this life as it was meant to be before sin entered the world, where it should be, with our God, but now only to be fully ours after we pass from this earth.

Chapter 13 - The Ten Commandments Number 9 – 2008 7 27

The Ninth command is another fairly straightforward one: "You shall not tell lies against your neighbour," Exodus 20:16.

We all know what telling a lie is. It is being untruthful, maybe even simply dishonest. Can we sometimes say something of which the words are true but the meaning will be different?

We generally teach Christians should not gamble. Suppose you see me come out of the casino and tell someone else who knows me, "I saw Lorne come out of the casino".  That person may say to the next one, "Apparently Lorne goes to the casino." The third one may say, "What's Lorne doing, going to the casino," which could already sound like it's something I am doing more than once. You see how a fact can be distorted, twisted, made to sound different. The truth might be I was at the restaurant upstairs, not even in the gambling area (Actually, I have never been at that restaurant either, although I have gone to concerts in the facility).

I think this is often what happens in gossip. We may be telling something true but the way we say it gives it a different meaning that is harmful to our neighbour. Maybe we do this by saying something with emphasis suggesting our neighbour does something all the time, something wrong. Maybe the truth is they may have just done it once, and repented about it already. Or maybe it wasn't even wrong?

And who is our neighbour? Actually, according to the New Testament, it is anyone around us. Especially someone in need (See the famous story in Luke 10:25-37). We all need each other to safeguard our reputation as ambassadors, representatives, of Christ and members of the same Body of Christ. We should not be harming one another and therefore Christ's Body with untruthfulness. Let us always ask God to keep our lips pure.

Chapter 12 - The Ten Commandments Number 8 – 2008 7 25

Two years ago, when I first began this blog, I posted a number of segments of a series of lessons that my wife and I had taught an adult class in our church some 3 years earlier. A certain amount of effort went into preparing those writings and other lessons that were taught to this class. In the interests of promoting discussion of the Christian faith and perhaps providing further education with respect to it, I want to continue posting some of those writings. I would remind you too that these students were ESL (English as a Second Language), or as it is now beginning to me more acceptable to say, EAL (English As an Additional Language which takes away the Anglo-Centric view that English is the first language) students, so the level of discourse may be somewhat simple for some of your readers.

The area that I had first begun to post was on the so-called 10 Commandments allegedly given to the prophet Moses and the Children of Israel by God after their apparently miraculous escape from Egypt, and in preparation for a new phase of the life of this people in the land of their forefathers to which they were being led back to.

The Eighth Commandment is Exodus 20:15, "You shall not steal."

Most societies frown on stealing. There are specific omissions though. Our First Nations sometimes apparently considered it an honourable act of bravery if you could break into an enemy encampment and steal a horse, or horses, without getting caught, of course. However, one could argue that, if such as thing is considered acceptable on both sides, it may be more like a game or a skill contest than a crime.

Most would agree that taking from your family member, your relative, your friend, or your neighbour without permission, without asking them, is stealing, is theft, robbery. However, some people seem to think it's alright if they take from someone they don't know, or someone who is a lot richer than they are, or from their employer, especially if it is a big impersonal business. They say, "They won't miss it." Others think it is alright to steal from the government. They might argue that we all pay our taxes so we are entitled, the government owes it to us, it's ours. However, there are also many who are really stealing from the government by not paying dues and taxes that it is legal to pay. They may not declare their income on a tax form or write down what they have purchased when they cross the border. This is all wrong. We all expect the government to do things for us, like provide health care, pensions, good streets and roads and utility services. Without this money, they cannot do as much as they would like for us. Somebody will suffer. Someday it could be us.

Stealing is taking what does not belong to us, according to our customs or our laws. One day the Jewish leaders asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor Caesar. They may have been thinking that this is a foreign power who does not respect us and our God, who persecutes us and oppresses us, so why should we pay taxes. It just lets him keep on doing these bad things to us. Jesus reply was simple, "Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's". 

When Jesus talks of what belongs to God, he was likely thinking of our offerings, our tithes to God. Are we then stealing from God by not giving Him what is His?

Of course, we must always remember that one can steal not only money and things. One can steal time and other intangible or immaterial things as well. Let us, as Believers, not take what is not ours, nor keep what is not ours.

  

Canada and Marijuana

Eight years ago when I announced to my colleagues in a departmental meeting that I was going to move to British Columbia, one of my colleagues who had taken his residency training there smirkingly responded, "Everybody there is on drugs!" Of course, that is not true, and I did not believe him, but neither have I forgotten his reply. The statement does reflect perhaps a more permissive attitude towards the use of "drugs" in BC then elsewhere in Canada. Some would relate this to its proximity to California, which has often been seen as the beginning of many things culture-cultural, referring to DC as "California North close. Now, of course, states even nearer the sea such as Washington, and Colorado, seem to be moving in an even more liberalizing direction than California when it comes to the use of marijuana.

I have never "used drugs." Some of the background of that would be my religious faith, which would be against it. As a Christian, I regard my body as, as Scripture puts it, "the temple of the Holy Spirit", and as such, do not believe that I need to inhale, ingest or inject anything to alter my experience, my sensory awareness. Some of this would also simply be the fact that I have been blessed with a good life and generally feel that my mental health is good so far, so I am not tempted in this direction either. Now, when I say good life, it does not mean that it has been all ‘smooth sailing.’ I have experienced significant losses and struggles in my life, but again, I believe it is my faith and the support of family, church and friends (probably in that order for me) that has helped me process and overcome these issues without becoming negative or depressed. However, that is another story.

At the same time, I think all of this, for me, let's me be more open to the possibilities of benefit of "drug use" for those who are not as fortunate as myself. Who am I to judge? It is a bit like the ex-smoker being harder on remaining smokers than those of us who have never smoked. The new convert is often more zealous than someone who has grown up in a faith or whatever area we are talking about. Don't get me wrong, I am not pro-drug use of any kind except the medical. I even have my reservations of their, which in some ways have increased the longer I am in the medical profession. For most of my life I have even almost been a teetotaler.  I have never been a smoker (I tried a cigarette once, and did somewhat enjoy a cigar on 3 occasions when friends had a birth in their family). But since when do we foist these views on everybody else in society. Even if I come as a Christian, believe that we can do without these substances and perhaps should do, not everyone in our world is a Christian, so I cannot tell them what to do.

Really too, what is it in our culture or history that has led us to focus on marijuana versus alcohol or tobacco? One thing that the lay public often sees as being wrong with marijuana is that it is believed to cause people to lose initiative and motivation. There is some research that counters this, suggesting that those manifestations are more the sign of the underlying problems, such as depression, that have led to the substance use as a form of self-medication, rather than coming from the substance use itself. The other perception of marijuana users that the non-using public also of course has is that of the "stoners," those who are so "high" or intoxicated that they are somewhat non-functional. Now, is that any worse than individuals who are intoxicated on alcohol? Again, both substances also are known to cause problems with cognitive function, perception and physical attributes of his reaction time when it comes to things such as driving motor vehicles. However, again, this is when one is "intoxicated" or under the influence. Some of these things did lead to movements in the past to prohibit alcohol, but our Western societies long ago gave up on that. Interestingly, almost euphemistically, some of that was referred to as a Temperance Movement.

What many do not know, which I know from the medical vantage point, is that marijuana can cause symptoms such as even panic attacks, suggestive of increasing anxiety. That would be an argument against its use, but it does not happen to nearly everybody. The chief complaint against marijuana is that it is often linked in young people with the development of psychosis. That is a serious issue. However, again, it does not happen to everybody. Indeed, again, there is research indicating who is more at risk of this, and these factors do not apply to every user.

However, we all know that alcohol is not without its problems either. When it comes to intoxication, I sometimes like to put it, perhaps somewhat facetiously, that individuals under the influence of marijuana seldom if ever say to someone they encounter, "Let's take it outside", in other words, let's settle something with a fight. That scenario is all too common with alcohol. We have already mentioned the area of cognitive and perceptual impairment that can lead to disastrous consequences with things like motor vehicle accidents, which can cause injuries and death. Many of us also know that perhaps 10 to 15% of those who drink alcohol develop dependency, become alcoholics. We know that people using marijuana can also apparently become dependent on it. However, because it is an illicit substance, we don't really have a good research-based to know what percentage of users that might be. For the same reason, we really don't know how many people develop anxiety or psychosis related to marijuana use. With respect to the latter, there is continued to be too though as to the chicken-end-egg nature of this issue. With these individuals have developed psychosis without marijuana use? One can well understand that one could never do research that would answer that question. You are not going to very likely receive ethical support for a study that requires a certain group to go on marijuana from a certain age for a long-term compared to a control group that does not, to see who'd become psychotic. So what do we do with that question?

We know that there are also a certain number of people who abuse alcohol who develop problems of our psychotic nature, particularly as they get older and even developed an alcohol-related dementia. Then, there are also the chronic and heavier users of alcohol to the belt things like stomach ulcers and cirrhosis of the liver, the latter of which can even be fatal. Alcohol use is also a risk factor for other problems like heart disease. So, as we know, alcohol is by no means benign, but we still have it, legally, and at least as regards its manufacture, distribution and sales, largely controlled.

Given that comparison of alcohol and marijuana, I do not think we really have a good basis for refusing to decriminalize or even legalize marijuana and allow it to be used in our society in the way that alcohol is. How many of us do not enjoy a beer or wine as part of our normal social life? Who are we to hold on to that but deny those who use marijuana the same pleasure with using it as part of their social life?

Those of us old enough to remember, or who have studied history enough, about the criminal element that prospered during the period of alcohol prohibition in North America. Well, we have been experiencing that for decades with respect to marijuana prohibition. Frankly, I think it is a drastic waste of resources to direct so much energy of our law-enforcement agencies into fighting the distribution and use of marijuana. Indeed, there are an increasing number of politicians, health experts and even those in law-enforcement agencies, and even more so those who have retired from these positions and they'll feel free to speak out, who are beginning to realize this and lobby for changes with respect to our legislation about marijuana.

Interestingly, in both our country and the US, it is the federal government that seems more in opposition to this direction then state and provincial bodies. Some of that in Canada has to do with our desire not to upset our southern neighbors by making our laws more relaxed when they are still carrying on such a large campaign against drugs. There are concerns about what it would do to our border exchanges. In the US, a lot of their effort is focused on trying to stem the production and flow of drugs into their country from Latin America and Canada. How would this be different if the laws were changed? It would probably make relations between these countries better in some respects.

An argument that has long been used against the use of marijuana is that it is a gateway drug, one that is first used on the path to use of "harder drugs" such as cocaine and the opiates. However, I do not think that this is something that the science and population epidemiology really supports. Given the degree of marijuana usage in our societies, I am not sure that there is a real concern about its use significantly escalating, if at all, if the laws were relaxed. Indeed, for some, the rebellious aspect now currently associated with it might make it less desirable.

We in BC are all too familiar with the regular news reports of gang-related activities, the shootings, the death of innocent bystanders, because of those involved in the illicit behaviors around the use of these currently illicit substances. Marijuana is by far the most commonly used up all of the substances, so taking that out of the domain of those involved with it illegally, would create a significant drop in criminal activity. That would still be there to a certain extent with respect to the use of other drugs such as the opiates and cocaine, NDMA or "ecstasy," methamphetamine and a host of other substances and drugs that people misuse. However, again, this argument has not been used again since the 1920s and 30s to try and eliminate alcohol from our society, so why continue it against marijuana? We know that some of these substances have valid uses, e.g. opiates for pain control, but that they also have misuses. Removing the restrictions on marijuana use might even lesson the attraction of some of these other substances. Many of these substances are used to self-medicate against everything from physical symptoms such as the pain and nausea associated with cancer to psychological symptoms such as anxiety and depression. There appears to be evidence that certain strains of marijuana, with different ratios of the active substances, can be purified to be more specifically effective against everything from insomnia to anxiety and depression. If this could be pursued legally and scientifically, marijuana and its derivatives might be effectively used for many of the conditions to which people are now turning desperately to all kinds of more potentially harmful substances.

Is it not really time to look at changes with respect to our marijuana laws? To be sure, our government has seemingly lowered its guard somewhat with respect to the whole area of the use of medical marijuana, but that is a morass in itself, which is worth devoting another essay to.

2013-8-2