How to Succeed in Business

How to succeed in business? Use the lessons and models found in the Torah!

In a new book, Jewish Wisdom for Business Success (Amacom, 2008), Rabbi Levi Brackman and Sam Jaffe write that the Torah provides models for people to succeed in business. In Chapter 4 of the book, titled “Patriarchal Business Models,” the authors provide an example of how Abraham began successfully building the brand of monotheism. According to the authors, Abraham used a bold marketing technique: he smashed all the idols in his father’s shop. They wrote:

“Abraham’s public relations stunt with his father’s idols succeeded even better than he could have imagined, earning him credibility and a reputation throughout Mesopotamia as an iconoclast and a holy man.”

Now, that is something pastors should consider. Maybe churches today need to smash a lot of idols if they want to promote Christianity in a world filled with idols.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abraham, Business, Religion,Torah

Jesus as the Messiah

Part 1: The Messiah
Part 2: Messianic Expectation
Part 3: Jesus as the Messiah


In the study of the Messiahship of Jesus, several questions arise: Did Jesus know that he was the Messiah? If he did, when did he, in his lifetime, realize that he was the Messiah? Did Jesus proclaim to his disciples and to others that he was the Messiah? These questions are not easy to answer, and a simple answer to these questions may, perhaps, be a way to get out of the problem. Many scholars agree that the question whether Jesus ever declared openly that he was the Messiah or that he had a Messianic self-consciousness is one of the major problems for understanding Jesus’ life and teachings.

Messianic consciousness presupposes the claim to belong to a realm which extends far beyond the range of ordinary human possibilities. The Messianic claim presupposes that everything the prophets of the Old Testament had predicted about the coming Messiah, the son of David, was finding fulfillment in the person of Jesus. The Messianic hope proclaimed by the prophets includes the eschatological nearness of salvation, the nearness of the Kingdom of God, and the advent of reconciliation and redemption.

The message of the early church was that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the assertion that Jesus was the Christ was proclaimed by the church and this assertion became one of the most important characteristics of the Christian message. To deny that Jesus was the Christ is also to deny the focal point of the Christian message.

The Messiahship of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. Christianity was born not with the birth of the man who was called “Jesus,” but in the moment in which one of his followers was driven to say to him: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16 NRSV).

If Jesus is the Messiah, how and when did he become conscious of his Messiahship? The answer to this question is not easy, for the gospels do not provide much information as to the manner in which Jesus’ Messianic consciousness arose.

Some scholars affirm that Jesus never made any explicit Messianic claim and that he displayed no direct Messianic consciousness. However, the New Testament clearly indicates that the disciples regarded Jesus as the coming Messiah. They believed that Jesus was the Messiah Israel had been expecting. It is important to understand an important problem in the Messianic claims of the New Testament: some of the passages in the Synoptic gospels in which the disciples recognized Jesus as Messiah reflect the Easter story projected backward into Jesus’ life and ministry. But the fact remains that the New Testament, the proclamation of the apostles, and the traditions of the early church affirm that Jesus was the promised Messiah. In addition, the events related to Jesus’ death reveal that he was crucified as a Messianic pretender.

As one studies the Messiahship of Jesus, two questions must be asked. First, did Jesus declare that he was the Messiah? Second, when did Jesus become aware that he was the Messiah? To answer the first question, several passages must be considered.

When Jesus was arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, the high priest asked him: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61). In Matthew, the question appears in the form of a request: “Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63). When asked whether he was the Messiah, Jesus answered: “I am” (Mark 16:62).

When Jesus was brought before Pilate, Pilate asked him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus told Pilate: “Yes, it is as you say” (Mark 15:2). Another passage that indicates that Jesus was aware of his Messiahship is Matthew 16:13-20 (cf. Mark 8:27-30), a passage that contains Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. When Jesus asked his disciples, “who do you say I am?” Peter answered: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” According to Matthew, Jesus commanded his disciples “not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”

The restraining order of Jesus to his disciples, asking them not to proclaim to others that he was the Messiah is known in scholarly circles as “The Messianic Secret.” Jesus’ reluctance to be proclaimed as the Messiah of Israel was based on the fact that he did not want people to be led to a false conception of the Messiah, the same conception he had rejected during his temptations in the wilderness.

The second issue that arises in the study of the Messiahship of Jesus is: when did he become conscious of his Messiahship?

Some Christians believe that at the age of twelve, the occasion when Jesus went to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of the Passover (Luke 2:41-52), he was aware that he knew that the Father had sent him to save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) and that he would inherit the throne of David (Luke 1:32). Others believe that the Messianic consciousness came during his baptism, when the voice from heaven declared that he was God’s son (Luke 3:22). Still others believe that this consciousness came during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-13).

Although no specific occasion can be described as the exact moment when Jesus became aware of his Messiahship, it is clear that, early in the ministry of Jesus, the Synoptic gospels give evidence that Jesus was conscious of his special relationship with God and maybe even of the necessity of' suffering as a way to fulfill his mission.

During his baptism, a voice from heaven said: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). These words combine different Messianic ideas from the Old Testament. The first part of the statement, “You are my Son” identifies Jesus as the Messianic Son of God (2 Samuel 7:14). The second statement identifies Jesus as the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 42:1).

The temptations in the wilderness are based on the assumption that Jesus was conscious of his Messiahship, for apart from this assumption, the temptations are without meaning. What the gospels attempt to affirm is that after Caesarea Philippi the disciples recognized and acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah. Up to this point Jesus had been waiting for the disciples to recognize him as the Messiah. Once they accepted him as the promised Messiah, Jesus changed the focus of his ministry and taught them what kind of Messiah he was to be, namely, a suffering Messiah.

The gospels affirm that Jesus was the promised Messiah but he was a different Messiah. Jesus did not fulfill the popular expectation that the Messiah would “restore the kingdom of Israel” (Acts 1:6) during the time of his visitation. His work as the Messiah was not to establish a temporal and political kingdom, but to bring about the good news of the kingdom of God to all the nations of the earth (Matthew 28:16-20).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Christ, Jesus, Messiah, Religion

Messianic Expectation

Part 1: The Messiah
Part 2: Messianic Expectation

According to the narratives of the biblical text, David, the second king of Israel, was one of the greatest kings Israel ever had. A leader, both in battle and in politics, a good administrator, organized, and a musician, David became a hero to his people very early in his life. Because of the exceptional qualities ascribed to him in the biblical text, to the biblical writers, David became the model for all the kings who succeeded him, both in Judah and in Israel.

The dynasty of David obtained its religious legitimation by the so-called Nathan prophecy found in 2 Samuel 7 (cf. 2 Samuel 23:l-7) where God made an everlasting covenant with David (2 Samuel 23:5), a covenant in which God promised to establish the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:13). In this covenant between God and David, the dynasty of David was promised eternal existence (2 Samuel 7:16, 29; cf. also Psalm 89:3-4, 29-37; 132:11-12).

Thus, the Messianic expectation in Israel is linked to God’s covenant with David and to a well-developed world of ideas that came with the aggrandizement of David and the idealization of the Davidic kingdom. This Messianic ideal in Israel grew as the monarchy declined. It appears that the beginning of what is known as the Messianic hope in Israel begins to take place in the eighth century, primarily with some of the oracles of the pre-exilic prophets Isaiah and Micah. These two prophets begin to speak of a deliverer in terms which suggest that this deliverer will be an ideal king like David. Passages such as Isaiah 9:l-7; 11:l-9 and Micah 5:2-4 speak of a “shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse” and a ruler who will come from Bethlehem, one “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The ancient time mentioned by Micah is a reference to the times of David.

The Messianic hope that God would send an ideal king, one who would be like David, increased during and after the exile, at a time when the people in Babylon hoped for a return to the promised land and the reestablishment of the Davidic kingdom. However, the lack of detail about a Messianic expectation in the prophetic books indicates that a developed Messianic hope in Israel did not come into full bloom until later in post-exilic times.

Later additions to the prophetic books provide a good overview of the development of the prophetic hope in the exile and the post-exilic period. For instance, an addition to Hosea declares that the Son of David would be the bond of union among the tribes (Hosea 3:4-5). An addition to Amos says that David’s tent, which had fallen down, would be set up again (Amos 9:11). Micah promised that the remnant of Israel would become a strong people and the Lord would reign over them and that Bethlehem would be the birth place of the son of David who would rule in Israel (Micah 5:2-4). Isaiah said that David’s throne would be occupied forever and that the Gentiles would come to the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10). Jeremiah (Jeremiah 33:15-16) and Ezekiel (34:23-24) pointed to the reestablishment of the kingdom under one Shepherd and King, who should be David (that is, a son or descendant of David). The book of Daniel speaks about the coming of the Son of Man who should become ruler over nations (Daniel 7:13-14). Haggai and Zechariah speak of a son of David who was destined to be the great temple builder who would rule as the Lord’s “signet ring” (Haggai 2:23) and as the Lord’s servant and he would be known as “the Branch” (Zechariah 3:8).

In the inter-biblical period, at a time when many people began to believe that revelation had ceased, the expectation of a coming Messiah grew. The idea of a coming Messiah is present in the several apocalyptic writings of this time.

William Barclay, in his book, Jesus As They Saw Him (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 112-137,
developed a list of events and ideas associated with the coming of the Messiah. This list was drawn from the Old Testament and from the literature of the inter-biblical period:

(1) Elijah will return to be the herald and the forerunner of the Messiah.

(2) The Messianic Age was to begin with what was called the “travail of the Messiah.”

(3) Before the arrival of the Messianic age, there will be a time of terror.

(4) This time of terror will be a time of complete disintegration of society.

(5) The coming of the Messiah will be preceded by a time of cosmic upheaval.

(6) The beginning of the Messianic Age will be a time of judgment.

(7) The Gentiles will have a place in the Kingdom.

(8) The time of the Messiah will be a time for the ingathering of Israel.

(9) In the Messianic Age, Jerusalem would be restored and renewed.

(10) The resurrection of the dead is a regular hope and expectation of the Messianic Age.

At the beginning of the first century, the Messianic hope in Israel was in full bloom. In the Judaism of the time of Jesus, the Messiah expected by Israel was to be someone who would reveal God’s glory. This Messianic hope included the expectation of a deliverer who was to free the people of Israel, who for centuries were ruled and oppressed by foreign conquerors. The Messiah, who would be a man of Israel, would defeat Israel’s enemies and rule over the nations.

Thus, the Messianic expectation in Israel pointed to a coming king, a king who would be raised up from the family of David, reign over the house of Israel, who would rule supreme over the nations, and who would bring the end of time. This was the Messianic expectation of the first century.

This picture of the Messiah is not what the writers of the gospels presented in their writing. The Synoptic gospels’ presentation of Jesus’ life and work, when measured by Messianic expectations of first century Judaism, leaves no doubt that Jesus Christ was not the kind of Messiah people expected.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Christ, David, Messiah, Religion

Top 10 Religion Stories of 2007

Time Magazine has published their list of the Top 10 Religion Stories of 2007. The selection reflects the many issues confronting the church in 2007. Here is Time’s list:

#1. The Mother Teresa Revelations

#2. Democrats Embrace Religion and Mitt Romney Channels JFK

#3. The Reverend Jerry Falwell Dies

#4. The Pope's Moto Proprio

#5. The Episcopal Church At Odds Over Gays

#6. The Greening of Evangelicalism

#7. The Roar of Atheist Books

#8. The Sins of Ted Haggard

#9. The Creation Museum Opens

#10. South Korean Christian Missionaries Kidnapped in Afghanistan

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Church, Religion

Atheism and the Culture of Denial

In my interview with Jim West posted on July 1, 2007, Jim asked me a question about biblical interpretation. In my reply, I said that believers are better interpreters of the biblical text than atheists because atheists approach the Bible with false assumptions. Some of these false assumptions are that there is no God, that the Bible is only myth, that there is no revelation, and others.

In reply to my statement in that interview, Chris Hallquist published a blog in which he addresses my statement and also criticizes a response I wrote to Duane Smith, who had written his own post responding to my interview with Jim West. Hallquist’s post was also published in God is for Suckers, a blog dedicated to “making fun of believers everywhere.”

Hallquist believes that atheists can interpret the Bible as well as believers because anyone can examine an ancient text such as the Illiad [sic] “without believing everything it says.” The problem is that Hallquist already begins with the false assumption that the Iliad and the Bible are identical in purpose and message. They are not! The intent and message of the two books are completely different. The only similarity between both books is that they are literary works of individuals who lived hundreds of years ago.

Atheists and Christians have two different world-views and this alone influences the way they approach the Bible. Atheists can read and interpret the Bible from a historical, sociological, linguistic, or mythological perspective. Christians, on the other hand, read the Bible from a historical, sociological, linguistic perspective, but also from the perspective of faith and religion. For instance,

1. Atheists can study the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, but they cannot love God with all their heart, soul and strength.

2. Atheists can study the word hesed from a philological perspective, but they cannot experience divine hesed.

3. Atheists can write many books and articles about Christ, but they cannot say: “Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

4. Atheists can write about Christians and Christianity, but they cannot understand fully what it means to be saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8).

These are facts that atheists fail to understand. Atheists deny the existence of God and the claims of Christianity. Believers approach the Bible from the perspective of faith, thus, there must be a difference in the way believers and atheists interpret the Bible, since atheists do not have faith in the God of the Bible. Because atheists deny the possibility of faith, they are not willing to accept any view espoused by Christians. Because Christians believe in God, they are not willing to accept the claims of atheism. This, then, leaves both group at an impasse.

In his post, Hallquist uses “the outsider test” to evaluate my comments. According to Hallquist, “the outsider test” is “a phrase coined by John Loftus for the idea that religious believers ought to be willing to examine their beliefs from the point of view of an outsider.”

Hallquist applies the outsider test to Christianity; I would like to apply the outsider test to atheism.

1. The Test of History. Judaism and Christianity claim a historical basis for their faith. Judaism says there is a God because of the work of God in the history of ancient Israel. Christianity says there is a God because of the existence of a historical Jesus. Atheism does not have any historical claim to prove that there is no God. Atheists only have their own statement that says there is no God. Since atheists do not have history on their side, they deny the historicity of events in Judaism and Christianity.

2. The Test of Witnesses. Judaism and Christianity believe there is a God because they believe the words of witnesses who saw God at work. The people in Israel claimed they heard the voice of God. Christianity claims that after the resurrection, Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred people at the same time” (1 Corinthians 15:6). It is possible to say that these people were delusional or that they were unreliable witnesses but atheism does not have one witness who was there to say that there was no God. Since atheism does not have one single witness who has seen the evidence that there is no God, they reject the reliability of the biblical witnesses and deny the validity of their testimony.

3. The Test of Written Records. Judaism and Christianity claim that God exists because they have ancient written records that report the work of God in their history. Atheism has no written records that can prove that God does not exist, therefore they deny the claims of the written records of Judaism and Christianity.

The fact is, atheism cannot prove anything. Atheism cannot prove that God does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledged this truth. In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins developed a spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God. He said that there are seven levels of probability concerning the issue whether God exists. At one extreme is Level 1, where strong theists are. Those who are on Level 1 believe 100% that God exists. On the other extreme, Level 7 is where the strong atheists are. A strong atheist is the one who says for a fact that there is no God.

Dawkins says there are very few people at level 7. Dawkins places himself at Level 6. Those who are on Level 6 say that there is a very low probability that God exists. Those on Level 6 are the people who say they cannot know for sure but think that maybe God does not exist.

Since atheists cannot prove that there is no God, they place the burden of proof on Christians; it is the responsibility of Christians to prove that God exists. Since atheism cannot prove their claim that there is no God, they deny the existence of God, they deny the claims of the Bible, they deny the possibility of revelation, they deny divine intervention, they deny the reality of faith. Atheism is based on a culture of denial. In order for atheism to exist, atheists must deny anything and everything Christianity stands for. The truth is, atheism stands on the shoulders of Christianity to tell the world “there is no God.”

When asked to prove that there is no God, atheists point to errors and contradictions in the Bible, as if the faith of Christianity is based on who wrote Genesis, or how many days it took to create the universe, or how many officers Solomon had, or even how old Jehoiachin was when he began to reign.

Atheists also mention suffering, evil, wars, violence, diseases, hunger, poverty, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters to prove that there is no God. But these tragedies are not evidence that there is no God. These tragedies do exist. There are many reasons that cause some of these tragedies to afflict human beings; many of these tragedies are hard for us to fully understand. When Christians try to offer an explanation for these events, no explanation is good enough because atheists have already convinced themselves that these events are evidence that God does not exist or if he does, that God is not good or that God is powerless.

Atheists advance their cause by ridiculing others. “God is for Suckers” is their motto. Their writings are only “rants on the evils and stupidity of belief.” Their purpose is “making fun of believers everywhere.” Their goal is to discredit “the big invisible daddy in the sky.”

The ridicule present in the writings of atheists shows that there is no dignity in their argument. Atheism is a cause infused with a culture of denial. Atheism does not have anything positive to say; they only advance their cause by denying the claims of others. The day atheism can show me better proof that there is no God, I may be willing to listen.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Other posts of this topic:

The Answer Atheists Can't Provide

Atheists and the Bible

The God Delusion: A Preview

Tags: Atheism, Atheists, Christianity, Faith, Religion

Religion in China: Priests Held By Authorities

According to a news release, three Catholic priests are being held by Chinese authorities because of their refusal to join the officially-recognized Chinese religious organization.

The following report was released by Spero News:

The Cardinal Kung Foundation announced July 28th that three underground Roman Catholic priests were arrested at the home of a faithful Catholic on July 24th in the Ximeng region of Inner Mongolia. The three priests from the Hebei region of China were arrested by eight plain-clothes policemen because of the refusal to join the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, which is recognized by the Chinese communist government but which is not recognized by the Vatican.

Loyal to the pope and their church, the trio had fled to arid Inner Mongolia in order to avoid the arrest. They are: Father Liang Aijun, 35 years old, Father Wang Zhong, 41 years old, and Father Gao Jinbao, 34 years old; all of them hail from the Hebei region.

During the initial phase of their arrest, the priests were held in a lock-up and refused water and contact with outsiders. They were then removed to an undisclosed location.

In addition, a fourth priest, Father Cui Tai, 50 years old, has been held by authorities of the Chinese bureau for public security and religion since early July 2007. He has been held at the Zhuolu County detention cell ever since. Father Cui has also refused to register with the Patriotic Association. He belongs to the diocese of Xuanhua, Hebei province.

Joseph Kung, the President of the Cardinal Kung Foundation, said: "In his China letter published about a month ago on June 30, Pope Benedict, apparently referring to the Patriotic Association, said: 'the proposal for a Church that is 'independent' of the Holy See, in the religious sphere, is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.' The Pope continued to say: 'Many bishops have undergone persecution…..lay faithful….even paying a personal price for their faithfulness to Christ.' The Pope also assured the Chinese government that Catholics can also be "good citizens" and respectfully asked the Chinese government to guarantee them 'authentic religious freedom.'"

"Let us not forget that there are, as far as we know, still five bishops in jail; many other bishops are under house arrests and severe surveillance; and approximately 15 priests and some Catholic lay persons - an unknown number of them - are also in jail. While we need to 'love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us,' as Pope Benedict told us in his China letter, we also need to awaken the world to the ongoing persecution of the Roman Catholic Church in China. The freedom-loving and powerful countries of the world should take into greater consideration - consistently, and persistently, and not haphazardly - all human rights violations in China when forming and implementing their political and commercial decisions in relation to China."

"In the meantime, we urge the Chinese government to take steps immediately to stop all persecution throughout China and release all Roman Catholic bishops and clergy together with those faithful of other faith from prisons as a goodwill gesture to Pope Benedict and to restore the world confidence in its leadership."

Christians should pray for other persecuted Christians around the world.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: China, Religion, Religious Freedom, Religious Persecution

The Case of the Chastity Ring

Can a teenager girl wear a chastity ring in school? A young Christian teenager lost her case because a court denied her request to wear her virginity ring on her finger. The judge who decided the case said the ring in question was “not intrinsically a Christian symbol like a cross” so her right to “manifest” her religion in public was not infringed.

The following story appeared in TimesOnline:

A teenager who took her school to court claiming breach of human rights because she was forbidden from wearing a chastity ring has lost her case been ordered to pay £12,000 in legal costs.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, claimed the ban at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, was an "unlawful interference" with her right to express her Christian faith.

But deputy High Court judge Michael Supperstone said today that the ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith and upheld the school's right to enforce its uniform policy.

Lawyers for Ms Playfoot told an earlier hearing that her chastity ring was a "religious artefact" and should therefore be exempt from the school's general ban on jewellery -in the same way that Sikh pupils were allowed to wear bracelets known as Kara bangles

But the judge ruled that "whatever the ring is intended to symbolise, it is a piece of jewellery."

He added that Ms Playfoot's human rights had not been breached because she "voluntarily accepted the uniform policy of the school" and there were "other means open to her to practise her belief."

The judge also ordered Ms Playfoot's father, Philip, to pay £12,000 towards the school's legal costs. She was denied permission to appeal against the ruling.

Ms Playfoot said she was "very disappointed" by the decision and predicted that it would lead to other Christians being prevented from "publicly expressing and practising their faith".

A spokesman for the Church of England said it was a "great pity" that Ms Playfoot's "commendable commitment to upholding Christian teaching on chastity should have provoked controversy and the need for litigation."

"In this case, wearing a ring, though it is not intrinsically a Christian symbol like a cross, is clearly a symbol of the desire to uphold and practise an aspect of the Christian faith."

The National Secular Society, which has criticised the case as a "manipulative attempt to impose a particular religious viewpoint on the school", welcomed the result.

Ms Playfoot is one of a group of Christians at the Millais School who wore the ring engraved with a Biblical verse as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

In court her lawyers claimed that the school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

It is that last statement that is disturbing:

In court her lawyers claimed that the school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

There is a double standard in society today. Many societies, including our society here in the USA, go out of their way to please and appease religious groups by allowing them to express their religion. These religious groups are allowed to wear, as the report said, headscarfs, religious bracelets, veils, garments, and other items that clearly express religious faith. However, the same privileges are denied to others just because they are Christians. To me, this is a double standard that must be addressed.

The whole issue is very complicated. We live in a pluralistic society, a society with Christians and atheists, Moslems and Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs. Should we please all or none? It seems that the courts have decided to favor the few against the many. What do you think?

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Chastity Ring, Christian Symbols, Religion, Virginity

The New 7 Wonders of the World

The new 7 wonders of the world has been announced. They are:

1. The Colosseum in Rome

2. The Great Wall of China

3. Taj Mahal in India

4. The Ancient City of Petra in Jordan

5. The Incan Ruins of Machu Picchu in Peru

6. The Statue of Christ Redeemer in Brazil

7. The Chichen Itza Pyramid in Mexico

Of the new seven wonders of the world, five of them are directly or indirectly related to religion.

Read the news release here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Religion, Seven Wonders

Einstein and Faith

Time.com has published an excerpt of the book Einstein by Walter Isaacson. The book will be published Simon & Schuster, Inc. This excerpt of the book deals with Einstein’s view of God and his perspective on religion. What follows is a small portion taken from the excerpt:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Next week I will write a post dealing with Einstein’s view of God. My post will be based on the information Isaacson provides on Einstein’s religious views.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Einstein, Faith, Religion

Belief in God: A Survey

A recent poll conducted by The Financial Times of London and the Harris Poll surveyed adults in the United States and in five European countries to ascertain their religious views on various topics.

The poll shows that 73% of Americans believe in God or a Supreme Being wile 62% of Italians expressed belief in God. Of the five European countries, the French have the lowest number, with only 27% of the people expressing faith in God.

Read the report by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: God, Faith, Religion