If you just watched the SuperBowl as I did, then you know all about underdogs. The New York Giants had a great season, shadowed by the Patriots' undefeated season. Granted, I wasn't exactly fanatic, watching every game I could or focusing on a particular team. I watched the Chiefs until their season was done and then watched more of the games because the hype began about the Patriots.
I cheered for the Giants for the following reason: the underdogs winning is a parallel story to the story of Scripture.
SUPERPOWERS
Patriots
They were undefeated going into the SuperBowl. They were assumed to win, as they had proved themselves to be powerful and victorious. It's obvious that they were a good solid team. I don't doubt this.
Rome
They were the superpower of the world. Prosperous and widespread. Just as with the Patriots, I don't exactly know all the details of their reign, but Rome was powerful, no doubt about it.
UNDERDOGS
Giants
They had a great season, but it wasn't perfect. They had legitimate claims to their potential but next to the perfection of the Patriots, they paled in comparison.
Jesus
He led a great life. He claimed to be the son of God; a blasphemous claim. Compared to the rule of the Romans, his future reign of the kingdom paled in comparison.
BUT LOOK WHO WON!! JESUS MAY HAVE BEEN VIEWED AS THE WEAKER POWER, BUT HE WAS ONLY VIEWED TO BE SUCH. HE WAS, IN FACT, THE MORE DOMINANT 'TEAM' AND HE KICKED SO MUCH TAIL!
I'm lucky; I was born into a Christian family. It was easy for me to recognize God as the eventual overall winner of the world. For you, you may perceive it as a bad choice to leave the power behind and accept Christ.
God loved you enough to set up a story to prove it to you. He may even have led the Giants to win so that we could see that power isn't everything. He loved you then and He loves you now.
I cheered for the Giants and I cheer for Jesus.
Who's team are you on?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We've all got our wild (and perhaps sinful) side. Figured you might want to hear about mine...and maybe learn from it! We've all got a place in God's world. Figured you might want to hear about mine...and maybe learn from it!
10 comments:
When did God lose the world?
I think you may be missing the point of the blog, but here are some clarifying statements
1. God "lost" the world to Satan when Satan tempted Adam and Eve to sin. However, God was always in control, always sovereign.
2. When God sent Jesus to earth, Jesus was viewed to be blasphemous and a traitor to Rome. He was shunned and tested and scorned. He was viewed to be "weak"
3. Jesus eventually died on the cross by the hands of Rome. This was viewed by the Romans as a Roman victory, but the opposite was true. This death on the cross was a victory for Christ over sin. It was a victory for God over Satan.
This is what I meant by the story. The facts of the football story may not line up perfectly with the story of God and Jesus, but I think the overall message rings true.
1.I don’t know where you get your theology, but I think you should re-evaluate: God did not “lose” the world, sin entered the world. God is sovereign and has always had control over the world. Sin entering the world did not cause the world to be “lost,” it just caused man to lose his relationship with God, hence the reason why Christ came into the world to restore our relationship with God. Satan has never been a winner; always the loser.
2.Christ was never blasphemous toward Rome; the Jewish ruling sect accused Christ of being blasphemous. The Romans could care less about what Christ was doing, because Christ never started a revolt against Rome. The jealousy of the ruling Jewish class forced Rome to crucify Christ. So, the Jews crucified Christ, not the Romans.
3.Christ did not die on the cross at the hands of the Romans. Christ died on the cross at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was an instrument of God’s hands. God was always in control.
John 19:10-11 : 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
4.You need to re-read your bible and re-think your theology. If you believe God is the sovereign God, you can not possibly believe that He ever lost the world.
1. You say that God did not “lose” the world and I agree. But since I said "lost" instead of just lost, I meant that lost was a word that didn't quite fit. But I think it does work to a point. When Eve was faced with a choice, it was conflict between two kingdoms: God and Satan. When Eve chose Satan's kingdom, Satan won. Granted, God never "lost" his power or lost humankind for all time. Also, that word is tossed around as in "lost souls" so I thought it would be a good word to use considering most people might know what it meant.
2.The sentence I used was "Jesus was viewed to be blasphemous and a traitor to Rome." Separate it out to be two phrases and you'll be less confused. Jesus was viewed to be blasphemous. Jesus was viewed to be a traitor to Rome.
Having said that, I thank you for helping me get the details right regarding Christ's crucifixion.
3. Again, I agree with you and thank you for helping me clarify my argument. I agree that God was is sovereign and that applies to the crucifixion, too.
4. When you say things like "re-read your Bible" and "re-think your theology" you are creating distance yourself and me. What I wish you would have done is corrected me on the details in a loving manner. Instead, you judged me and criticized me when really, we're on the same side and believe the same things. The world would be a much better place if we would learn how to focus on what we agree on rather than picking apart arguments and criticizing points of view.
If I've done or said anything in a non-Christian manner, please let me know.
You remind me of the former president Bill Clinton. He once said, "that depends on what the meaning of the word is is." When I call you on a wrong point, you counter to say that "that's not what I meant," and then take my points as your own to be correct. Further, you change your story or tweak it, if you will, to make yourself a bit more justified. This is how you put it: " Proverbial Verbosity said...
You say that God did not “lose” the world and I agree. But since I said 'lost' instead of just lost, I meant that lost was a word that didn't quite fit." When you say lost, it means LOST. When you're comparing New England to be Satan, and they're winning, and then Christ comes down (NY Giants) and takes over, you're wrong. Christ was never the underdog.
I'm not condemning you, just pointing out wrong theories. You also remind me of the former presidential candidate John Kerry, flip-flopping in your debate.
After reading a few of your blogs, i've discovered you write to feel good, not with substance, and that's why i'm pointing out your errors.
Rodney King - "Why Can't We All Just Get Along?"
Whatever I mean 'lost' to mean, that's what I want it to mean. You can read it how ever you want but the original intent is the main thrust and therefore the only meaning that should be considered.
I never said, although I implied, that Christ was the underdog. I said that He was viewed as a threat and blasphemous. In the theological classes that I take, we talk a lot about how Christ died and how the people (Jews, Romans, whoever) thought that He had not backed up what He had said. If He was King, then how could He rule if He was dead? In this 'underdog' move, Christ WON by completing the task that God wanted for Him.
I think you can agree with what I'm saying. You're only arguing certain points and rather than working on helping a fellow Christian, you're trying to hurt me and justify your own mind and build yourself up.
Please, please, please reconsider your motives behind posting on my blog.
And, if you truly read my blog, you would know why I blog. You say I do it to make myself feel good. This is a HUGE ASSUMPTION and assumptions are not appropriate. I write so I can develop my creativity and so I can help point people to Christ. Those are my motives.
It's all about "ME"
Hi Debby. Consider turning on post moderation if you have trouble.
Right on Trev.
The point is definitely made in the comparison.
And the way that Herod viewed it was a window to the way that Rome felt about this Jesus, Herod was thinking that this new Messiah would take his place as ruler over the Jews, and obviously he didn't want that.
I'm wondering what part of the Bible you read, that you came up with this conclusion?
Post a Comment