Jump to content

Baruq JW

Member
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Baruq JW

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

200 profile views
  1. Baruq JW

    Joseph, un modèle du Christ

    Salut Salomon, C'est un article que j'ai écrit basé sur la Bible, tout simplement. J'espère seulement que cela puisse amener à une discussion pacifique; j'ai trouvé l'analogie entre Joseph & Jésus très intéressante. Certains ont calculé qu'il y avait environ une centaine de points communs entre les deux personnages. De fait, sur certains aspect, Joseph est le type du Christ. On a tout à gagner à imiter les deux hommes, mais parfois on peut se sentir diminué par rapport à Jésus qui était parfait, tandis qu'un exemple d'un commun des mortels peut nous encourager car même avec le poids de l'imperfection, nous pouvons être parfaits aux yeux de Dieu, toutes proportions gardées. Personnellement, j'avais quelques soucis et je m'angoissais, puis, au fur & à mesure que je rassemblais les idées de l'article, je me suis senti poussé à imiter Joseph qui ne s'est découragé en rien. Depuis, je vis beaucoup mieux, sachant que d'une part nous ne pouvons pas changer le cours des choses en général, & d'autre part que quoi que ce soit que Dieu permette, il y a le bien à la fin, comme pour Joseph. Devant chacune de nos incertitudes, il faut s'appuyer sur Dieu et nous sommes sûr que nous prendrons la bonne décision.
  2. Baruq JW

    Joseph, un modèle du Christ

    Bonjour Salomon, Je ne suis pas sûr de bien comprendre ton message et ce que tu veux, désolé. Pourrais-tu reformuler ta question? Merci.
  3. I can not speak for the English language as it is not my mother tongue, but in both French and Italian, no one would use the word hand to talk about the wrists. The hand is one thing, the wrist is another.
  4. Did not Jesus come back in 1919, when he inspected his house and appointed the FDS?
  5. John, instead of focusing on Watchtower faults, do not you think it would be more beneficial to use that energy in the study of the Word of God? After all, you can not fight against windmills. (I am sure that you actually study, but the time you spend on research on Watchtower can be use better, I think) Me too at the beginning I was very critical, but I realise now that it is a waste of time. Moreover, you will never succeed in convincing a witness because he is completely under the control of the Governing Body. Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God.
  6. I thought a little about this stake or cross story today. And I came to the conclusion that Jesus has been put to death on a simple stake. Here is my reasoning: It seems that the Romans used to leave in the ground the stakes on which they used to hang the convicts. Indeed, why redo a hole each time? Not to mention the stony ground of Palestine and the fact that a stake planted and replanted many times would end up having trouble standing up after a while. So the theory that the stake was fixed is very plausible. I read that generally the convict carried with him, not the entire cross, or the stake according to our beliefs, but only the crossbar, which was already weighing very heavy. Then the prisoner was nailed to this crossbar and hoisted on the stake. The crossbar was placed into a notch made on the pole. So we have, stake already in place plus crossbar = cross. Now, if you are an inhabitant of the region and you are talking about the coming execution and you have before you the instrument where the convict will be hang, a simple piece of wood in the ground, would you speak of it as a cross or as a stake? If one shows the stake to a stranger who knows nothing about how prisoners are put to death and call it a cross, the other man would have difficulties to understand what he is talking about since he does not see any cross but a stake and can not imagine that the convict will come with the crossbar. In my opinion, but I do not have the infused knowledge, since the crossbar was brought with the prisoner, I think it's likely that people were talking about hanging on a stake at the time, the crossbar being a simple support that was not part of the pole itself. The instrument of punishment was therefore the stake. Once the prisoner hoisted up, his hands tied to the crossbar, we had before our eyes a cross. But it is quite possible that they continued to talk about it as a stake, since that's how it was named the rest of the time. That could reconcile the Jehovah's Witnesses with the rest of Christendom: for the first, Jesus died on a stake, since that's the name given to it and it was the instrument that was under the eyes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem night and day, for the others he died on a cross since Jesus came with the crossbar and once hoisted, we had before our eyes a cross.
  7. Jesus asked a question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?". He did not gave the answer. The only clue he gave is how we can recognise the evil slave: "he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards". Now, we have no way to know who is the FDS, but by examining Christianity, including us as Jehovah's Witnesses, we can understand that all the leadership (from Papacy to Governing Body) are beating the flock. The faithful slave will be appointed over all his belongings when Jesus returns, not before. (verse 47 of Matthew 24 is clear) So, how can the GB claims that they have been appointed on Jehovah's organisation since the first part of the 20th century?
  8. Baruq JW

    Man dies eight years after eating garden slug

    Poor guy. Why kids are doing this kind of things?
  9. Joseph, ein Modell von Christus Wenn ein Christ Zweifel an einer Vorgehensweise hat, hält er es manchmal für angebracht, sich folgende Frage zu stellen: Was hätte Christus getan, wenn er in meinen Schuhen gewesen wäre? Und oft ist die Antwort spontan und dann trifft diese Person die richtige Entscheidung. Christus ist offensichtlich das Vorbild, dem man folgen kann, aber jemand könnte einwenden, dass Jesus ein vollkommener Mann ist. Die Dinge waren daher für ihn viel einfacher. Obwohl dies nicht stimmt, hatte Jesus die freie Wahl seiner Handlungen und hätte den unaufhörlichen Versuchungen Satans erliegen können - andere rechtschaffene Männer können als Beispiel dienen. Spontan sind Gottes Diener, die uns in den Sinn kommen, ohne Zweifel Hiob, Abraham oder Jakob. Über Hiob sagt Gott, dass es niemanden wie ihn auf der Erde gab. Abraham wird Gottes Freund genannt, was einer der größten Unterschiede ist1. Wir mögen weniger geneigt sein, an Joseph zu denken, den Sohn Jakobs, den er bei Rachel hatte. Betrachten wir jedoch die folgenden Tatsachen: Von den etwa sechsundsechzig Seiten von Genesis, wie wir sie in einer der Ausgaben der Neuen Welt-Übersetzung finden, sind ungefähr zwanzig Joseph gewidmet. Stellen wir es neben den Raum, der für die Beschreibung der Schöpfung (eineinhalb Seiten) und die antediluvianischen Ereignisse (sechseinhalb Seiten) belegt ist, und wir verstehen die Bedeutung, die diesem Mann in der Heiligen Schrift beigemessen wird2. Was macht diesen Mann so bemerkenswert, dass sich etwa ein Drittel des ersten Buches der Bibel auf ihn konzentriert? Joseph, ein Mann ohne Schuld Joseph teilt einen Punkt mit wenigen anderen biblischen Charakteren: Er scheint nur rechtschaffene Taten zu vollbringen. Natürlich ist dies nicht der Fall, er trug wie alle von uns das Gewicht der Sünde, aber diese waren sicherlich so gütig, dass sie es gar nicht wert waren, darüber zu sprechen. Was auch immer seine Fehler waren, sie wurden von seinem hervorragenden Verhalten in den Schatten gestellt. Wenn es jedoch eine Eigenschaft gibt, die die Bibel von anderen Schriften der Antike unterscheidet, dann ist es seine Ehrlichkeit, wenn es darum geht, die Fehler der Diener Gottes zu melden. Daher sind die Sünden Davids nicht verborgen. Er war eine Ehebruch, ein Mörder, und wegen seiner Eitelkeit starben Tausende von Israeliten. Moses war laut biblischer Darstellung der bescheidenste Mann, aber seine Wut kostete ihn einmal das Privileg, das verheißene Land zu betreten. Abraham war rechtschaffen, aber als Gott ihm sagte, er solle nach Kanaan gehen, hielt er im Land seiner Vorfahren in Haran auf und ging erst fünfzehn Jahre später nach dem Tod seines Vaters. (Apg 7:1-4) Als in Kanaan, dem Land, in dem Gott ihm versprochen hatte und ihm befahl, zu bleiben, eine Hungersnot auftrat, ging er nach Ägypten. Aus Angst um sein Leben wurde er gelogen, indem er so tat, als wäre seine Frau seine Schwester. Dies deutete auf mangelndes Vertrauen in Jehova hin, weil er versprochen hatte, dass seine Nachkommen das Land erben würden. Wegen der Hungersnot oder der Hand des Pharao konnte er nicht zugrunde gehen. Aber er lernte die Lektion nicht, weil er später denselben Fehler wiederholte und selbst sein Sohn Isaak in die gleiche Falle der Angst des Menschen geriet, obwohl die göttliche Verheißung wiederholt wurde wurde3. Jakob, dem das Erstgeburtsrecht versprochen worden war, erhielt es von einer Unterschlupf, die vorgab, sein Bruder zu sein, anstatt auf Gott zu warten. Er tolerierte die Idole in seiner Familie, bis Jehova ihn bat, nach Bethel zu gehen gehen4. Seine Passivität kostete auch die Ehre seiner Tochter, die sich daran gewöhnt hatte, die heidnischen Mädchen des Landes zu besuchen, in dem sie lebten. Es scheint, dass dieses Familienerbe Joseph nicht beeinflusst hat. Aber aus menschlicher Sicht hätte er das Recht gehabt, bitter oder sogar wütend auf seine Familie und sogar gegen Gott selbst zu sein. Im Alter von siebzehn Jahren haben ihn seine eifersüchtigen Brüder einer Karawane von Kaufleuten anvertraut, die ihn in Ägypten an einen Gerichtsbeamten namens Potiphar verkauften. Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass Joseph nicht fliehen wollte, im Gegenteil, er war so vertrauenswürdig, dass sein Herr ihn dem ganzen Haus anvertraute. Die Geschichte sagt uns, dass Jehova Potiphar selbst wegen Joseph gesegnet hat und dass sein Geschäft erfolgreich war. Aber Joseph nutzte die Situation nicht aus. Manchmal hören wir Zeugnisse von vertrauenswürdigen Männern, die letztendlich nicht so waren und das Geld ihres Arbeitgebers missbrauchten. Inzwischen war Joseph ein ehrlicher und fleißiger Arbeiter. Er tat nicht das Nötigste und sagte, dass er sicherlich nicht mehr bezahlt werde, wie einige Angestellte sagen. Und wenn, wie uns gesagt wird, Jehova zum Erfolg geführt hat, dann wahrscheinlich, weil er sich ihm anvertraute und ihn um Weisheit in den Entscheidungen bat, die er treffen musste. Einige Zeit später erregte dieser gutaussehende junge Mann die Aufmerksamkeit der Frau seines Herrn, die ihn jeden Tag bat, sich zu ihr zu legen. Bis dahin hatte Jehova kein Gesetz erlassen, das diese Art von Übung verbot, und dennoch lautete Josephs Antwort: Wie konnte ich diese große Bosheit begehen und tatsächlich gegen Gott sündigen? Was ihn beunruhigte, war nicht das, was die Menschen dachten, sondern das, was Gott dachte. Manchmal könnten wir sagen, dass es in der Bibel keinen klaren Befehl gibt, uns diese oder jene Handlung zu verbieten. Wenn wir jedoch auf Gottes Denken eingestellt sind, werden wir auch ohne Gesetz wissen, was zu tun ist. Wir wollen nicht schlecht und Sünde gegen Gott begehen. - Genesis 39:9 Trotz seiner festen Haltung wurde er fälschlicherweise wegen versuchter Vergewaltigung angeklagt, und sein wütender Lehrer sperrte ihn in ein Gefängnis. Eine andere interessante Sache: Was war die Strafe für die Vergewaltiger? Kein Gefängnis, aber der Tod. Warum hat Potiphar sein Recht nicht benutzt, um Joseph in dieser Angelegenheit zu töten, aber stattdessen hat er ihn ins Gefängnis geschickt? Sicherlich wegen Josephs Vertrauen in ihn. Denken wir, dass dieser Mann seine Frau nicht gekannt hat? Der Vers sagt, dass seine Wut aufgeflammt ist. Aber wir wissen nicht, auf wen er wütend war. Könnte es sein, dass er seine Frau nicht öffentlich beschuldigen kann, gelogen zu haben und Joseph (und seinen eigenen Ruf) retten zu wollen, beschließt er, ihn einzusperren? Besseres Gefängnis als der Tod! Wenn Joseph jedoch kein treuer Sklave gewesen wäre und die Interessen seines Herrn in seinem Herzen gehabt hätte, hätte er sein Leben verschont? Was wäre passiert, wenn er ein nonchalanter Sklave gewesen wäre, selbst unehrlich und entspannt? An diesem Punkt in Josephs Leben könnten wir denken, dass er vor Wut kocht oder er einer Depression erliegt. Hier ist ein Gerechter, der Gott dient, ihm vollkommen vertraut und unter falscher Anklage im Gefängnis landet! Wie viele von uns hätten Gott beschuldigt oder hätten den Glauben verloren oder sogar seine Existenz geleugnet? Aber nicht Joseph. Er ließ sich von Jehova anführen. Er bemühte sich, seinen Gefängniszustand so nützlich und angenehm wie möglich zu gestalten, vorausgesetzt, ein Aufenthalt im Gefängnis könnte angenehm sein. Als Belohnung war Jehova bei Joseph und er fand Gnade in den Augen des Obersten Offiziers des Gefängnisses. Wie Potiphar ließ er alle Gefangenen in seinen Händen. Kurz gesagt, er erhielt die gleichen Verantwortlichkeiten wie zuvor. In keinem Fall beschuldigte er Gott seiner Situation oder ärgerte ihn. - siehe Hiob 1:22 Ein weiteres Merkmal, das sich aus Josephs Lebensgeschichte im Gefängnis ergibt, ist sein Einfühlungsvermögen. Als der Bäcker und der der Mundschenk des Königs schließlich im Gefängnis landeten, bemerkte er ihre Trauer. Es versteht sich von selbst, dass Traurigkeit obligatorisch ist, wenn man plötzlich die Freiheit beraubt, aber es ist eine andere Art von Trübsal, die er feststellt. Es ist offensichtlich, dass Joseph sich nicht nur um die materiellen Bedürfnisse der Gefangenen kümmerte, sondern sich für sie interessierte. Wie viele Gefängniswärter würden eine Stimmungsänderung bei einem Insassen bemerken? Nur jemand, der von Natur aus an anderen interessiert ist, eine fürsorgliche und mitfühlende Person. Es muss ein Balsam für das Herz gewesen sein, einen Gefangenen wie Joseph zu haben. Wieder wurde er für seine Haltung belohnt. Oh, nicht sofort. er musste zwei lange Jahre warten. Aber es kam der Tag, an dem er vom Pharao empfangen wurde, der ihn zum Rang eines führenden Oberhauptes über seinem Königreich erhoben hatte, der zweite nach ihm5. Haben wir nie bemerkt, dass einige Leute, wenn sie beispielsweise in einem Unternehmen in eine wichtige Position befördert werden, ihr Verhalten völlig ändern? Einige werden arrogant, tyrannisch und nutzen die Situation oft, um ihre eigenen Interessen zu vertreten. Wenn wir uns in dieser Situation befinden würden, wie profitabel wäre es, Joseph als Beispiel zu verwenden? Ein Modell von Christus Joseph ist ein hervorragendes Modell von Jesus, der "in eine höhere Position erhoben wurde". So wie der Pharao ihm einen herrlichen Namen gab und ordinierte, dass er als Gouverneur von Ägypten anerkannt werden sollte, so auch "Gott der Vater gab ihm den Namen, der über jedem anderen Namen steht, so dass jede Zunge offen anerkennen sollte, dass Jesus Christus der Herr ist". (Philipper 2:9-11, Genesis 41:43-45) Joseph versuchte nicht, den Thron des Pharao an sich zu reißen. Aber er hätte versucht sein können. Vielleicht hat ihn jemand sogar vorgeschlagen. Hat er die Menschen nicht vor der Hungersnot gerettet? Und die Leute bringen denjenigen, der ihn füttert, schnell zur Macht. - Johannes 6:10-15 Bedenken Sie, wie Gott Joseph Gehorsam lehrte. Er war Jakobs Lieblingssohn und genoss Privilegien in dem Haus, die seine Brüder nicht hatten. Diese, eifersüchtig, wurden ihn los. Für Jacob war sein Sohn tot. Es war eine Demütigung für Joseph, aber er tat "alles ohne Murren und Widerreden". (Philipper 2:14) Dies erinnert uns daran, dass Christus selbst sich selbst erniedrigt hat, indem er die Form eines Sklaven angenommen hat und gehorsam wurde. Jesus "keine gewaltsame Besitzergreifung in Betracht zog, nämlich um Gott gleich zu sein". - Philipper 2:6-8 Darum, fahrt fort, in der Weise, wie ihr allezeit gehorcht habt, mit Furcht und Zittern eure eigene Rettung zu bewirken; denn Gott ist es, der um [seines] Wohlgefallens willen beides in euch wirkt, das Wollen und das Handeln. Tut weiterhin alles ohne Murren und Widerreden, so daß ihr euch als untadelig und unschuldig erweist, Kinder Gottes ohne Makel inmitten einer verkehrten und verdrehten Generation, unter der ihr wie Lichtspender in der Welt leuchtet, indem ihr euch mit festem Griff an das Wort des Lebens klammert. - Philipper 2:12-16 ––– 1 Aber wir haben die Möglichkeit, Söhne Gottes zu sein und Teil seiner Familie zu sein. (back) 2 Sechzehn Seiten beschreiben die Handlungen Abrahams, acht drehen sich um Isaak und etwa siebzehn über das Leben Jakobs, wobei einige Seiten mit seinem Sohn gemeinsam sind. (back) 3 Dies wirkt sich in keiner Weise auf die Integrität dieser Männer oder den außergewöhnlichen Glauben aus, den sie später manifestierten. Im Gegenteil, es beweist, dass Jehova uns gestaltet oder poliert, um das Beste aus uns zu machen. (back) 4 Beachten Sie, dass er die Idole nicht zerstört hat, sondern sie einfach begraben hat. (back) 5 Es mag ungewöhnlich klingen, dass Joseph von einem Pharao, der ihn nicht einmal kannte, zu einer solchen Position erhoben wurde. Dennoch wurde der Pharao dadurch von jeder Verantwortung befreit, wenn sich die Dinge schlecht entwickelten, zum Beispiel wenn die Prophezeiung nicht in Erfüllung ging. Alles würde auf Josephs Kopf fallen. (back) See more on https://www.baruq.uk/joseph_a_model_of_christ.html
  10. Baruq JW

    Joseph, a Model of Christ

    I must admit that every time I read the passage where he reveals himself to his brother I got thrills & tears come in my eyes.
  11. Baruq JW

    Joseph, a Model of Christ

    Hi Jan, The goal of the article is to focus on Joseph and the huge faith he had in God and show that there are similarity between him and Christ. He could have dwelt on his troubles, but on the contrary he knew that God had a purpose: the preservation of the lineage of Abraham which, as we know, should lead to Christ (of course, this aspect was foreign to him). This is what he says when he is reunited with his brothers again: "But God sent me ahead of you in order to preserve for you a remnant on the earth and to keep you alive by a great deliverance." And he added: "it was not you who sent me here, but it was the true God". We never read a single breach of faith on his part. Reflecting on his experiences brought me closer to God and increased my faith and appreciation for him and what he did. Moreover, having experienced ups and downs in my life (not at Joseph's level, of course), it convinced me that whatever God allows to happen to His servants serves a specific purpose. About Abraham, he is one of the greatest examples of faith. To be called friend of God is not a small honour. But before he got there, he had to be shaped by Jehovah. So if he had stayed in Canaan instead of going to Egypt, he would not have had to lie about his wife. It was a half-truth since she was his half-sister, but mostly a half-lie. That being so, God continued to bless him. We can learn from this that God does not hold us against our mistakes, but that he also shapes us to take the best of us for his glory.
  12. The Existence of God If a Christian, and especially a Jehovah's Witness, is asked to provide proof of the existence of God, it is very likely that he will quote verse four of the third chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, "every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God". The reasoning may be right, nothing came from nothing but everything on earth is due to the will of a designer, it is still good to note that Paul was not trying to argue about the existence of a Creator. He spoke to his Hebrew Christian companions who certainly did not question the fact that the universe was ruled by a powerful being who is behind everything. Moreover, in antiquity the problem was certainly not the non-belief in God but rather the opposite: people tended to believe in a multitude of gods. Furthermore, Paul, on one occasion, noticed that an altar dedicated to an unknown god had been made, certainly for fear of forgetting to revere a deity. As always with the Bible, but the modus operandi is valid on all occasions, everything we read must be considered in relation to its context. In this passage, the apostle is talking about the house of God. This house is composed of the "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling". Christ "was faithful as a son over God’s house". As in the case of a building we honour the builder and not the house itself, similarly in this case the honour does not belong to those who make up the house but to its creator, God. Does this mean that we cannot take Paul's illustration as a basis for reasoning? Of course not, the idea itself is valuable. We must simply be careful not to attribute to the apostle anything other than what he intended to say, so that we cannot be accused of distorting God's Word. Although the denial of divine existence has been a particularly striking phenomenon since the second half of the nineteenth century, history tells us that atheism has always existed. Cicero had already pointed out that most philosophers said that the gods existed, but that Protagoras was in doubt while Theodore of Cyrene and Diagoras of Melos maintained that there was none. Heraclitus (535-475 BC) claims that the world was not made by any of the gods or men, but was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire. All this ends up giving birth to epicureanism, the search for individual happiness on earth in a human world without God1. The psalmist tells us that the foolish one says in his heart: "There is no Jehovah". The rejection of God finds its roots in the immediately post-diluvian world where, to protect themselves from a new flood, men began to build a tower whose summit would reach the heavens2. It is not so much the existence of God that men have rejected, but the submission that he deserves. So, the origin is in the rejection of the authority. And how to justify this desire for freedom other than by denying the existence of the one to whom we are accountable? From the rejection of Jehovah (the Pharaoh himself to say: who is Jehovah?3), it was easy to proceed with the complete negation of a creator. It was from the first half of the sixteenth century that the idea emerged that all religion is an invention of the powerful who take advantage of the ignorance of the humble (De tribus impostoribus4). Religious practice suffered a sharp decline, especially in the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In this case, it is centuries of tyranny on the part of religious leaders that generates this state. God was rebuffed, but in reality it was those who claimed to be his representatives that were rejected. While philosophy is generally seen as the antithesis of the belief in God, as we have seen above the greatest Greek philosophers were theists. Voltaire himself questioned himself: the universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think that this clock exists and has no watchmaker. Chancellor Francis Bacon said: a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. How can we convince ourselves and defend the existence of a Creator? First of all, atheism is not as widespread as one might think. For example, according to a study, more than seventy percent of the Americans would be believers. It is a fact that some of those who pretend to be atheists never really thought about it. A simple discussion will reveal that most have not given serious consideration to the issue. People often reject God because they reject organised religion. The reason may also be that the person grew up in an atheistic family, just as children often continue to believe in God once adults because that is what they taught them. For example, the sons of members of a religious community generally become members of this community; in this case too a simple discussion will often reveal that there is not a sincere reflection upstream5. This is just the perpetuation of a family tradition. We will make the same observation in various organisations, such as political movements6. Charles Darwin is often presented as the father of modern atheism. But his own writings show that he believed in the existence of a creator, an initial force at the root of everything, even if he rejected the Christian faith. If he wondered why life was full of pain, he did not see this as an argument against the existence of God. Towards the end of his life, he wrote that he has never been an atheist nor he denied the existence of God. This does not preclude Richard Dawkins, the high priest of twentieth-century atheism, from writing that he could never have been an atheist before Charles Darwin. In fact, it suits unbelievers to present Darwin as the one who opened the way to atheism, exposing his theory as a fact that put God at the forefront of the fables of dark times. By claiming that life has a chance origin, one think he can escape accountability. It should not be understood that atheists have a less developed moral sense than theists; it is the kind of affirmations we've read in the Watchtower's publications7. One could even say that sometimes it is the opposite: abuse in the name of religion have led to the rejection of God by people who have had their moral feelings shocked. However, refusing to be held accountable to God could lead a person to think that he is free from certain constraints. Now, these constraints are usually those imposed by men and not by God himself. It is undeniable that believe in God entails obligations, if only by the duty to bear witness. But if we look closely, Christianity as preached by Jesus has only two commandments: you must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind, and you must love your neighbour as yourself. This is not a heavy yoke, to paraphrase Christ. – Matthew 11:29, 30 So, is science necessarily in opposition to religious faith? This is what many publications on the subject would like to lead us to believe. Even if the rate of believers is lower among scientists than in the rest of the population, we should not think that all are atheists8. One can try to prove the non-existence of God by giving a rational explanation of the origin of the universe without intervention of anyone. If they did, it would not necessarily establish that God does not exist, but in any case it could be a serious blow to his defenders. However, despite decades or more of studies on the subject, we are still at the stage of hypotheses, which sometimes contradict each other and do not find consensus within the scientific community. The Big Bang, for example, still encounters oppositions (although weak, it must be recognised). It is nevertheless interesting to know that one of the initial promoters of this theory was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. For him, there did not seem to be any conflict between the two parties, the religious party and the scientific party. Above all, the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the universe, but only the state where it would have been at a given moment. Nothing is said about what was before or what is the origin of this universe. We must admit either that it always existed, or that time did not exist, that it was initialised by this original explosion. It seems that this last explanation gains the most approval today9. If God is at the origin of everything, then who created God? In either case, whether the universe is the result of an initial explosion, whether it comes from another previous universe, or that it was created by an intelligent being, one must always admit that something had always existed. Each of the assertions only moves us one step backwards. Is it more scientific, or reasonable, to believe that for ages there existed matter, or some other substance, which a fine day gave birth to our universe, by some unknown force resulting from the most complete chance, rather to admit a designer living from eternity to eternity having intentionally done all that surrounds us? In all instances, it is a question of faith, if we want to give the word a meaning that is not its own10. – Psalm 90:2 We can read in some popular science book that with the "Big Bang" the time has come to existence. And so, that would solve the problem of what was before. Let us admit that before the beginning, time did not exist; and in this case it is wrong to say "before the beginning", since it is precisely the beginning of time, so there was no 'before'. This is exactly what the first book of the Bible tells us in his first chapter and his first verse: in the beginning God created… Yes, the Bible begins with a scientific assertion: there was a beginning, a beginning of time. God started by creating time as one of the dimensions in which we live. Does this contradict what the researchers tell us? It seems like no, since they claim that with the beginning of the universe time came to existence. If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the universe does not allow us to invalidate or confirm the existence of a creator, will we have more chances with the other fields of science? The theory of evolution may seem to have sounded the death knell for believers. Now, as we have seen previously, the father of the theory, Charles Darwin, believed in a god. Moreover, some religious denominations accept the idea of a world that has evolved under the guidance of an initial designer11. Even if one managed to prove the origin of life according to evolutionary theories, it would not call into question his existence. Even today, about one hundred and sixty years after Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species", we still use the word theory when we talk about evolution. Why? Because there is no fixed explanation of this doctrine. According to its supporters, this is the most consistent interpretation found, yet the definitive proof is yet to come. What does evolution mean? This is the transformation of living species over generations. That is to say, the fact that a form of life is modified to adapt to its living environment. Everyone may still remember the pictures posted on the walls of the science classes representing a large fish coming out of the water, which undergoes various transformations until becoming a man. And to explain to us that, one day, this fish decided to leave its aquatic environment to go on earth; and magically, legs sprouted. Later, he decided to fly, to jump in the trees, to walk on two legs, etc. We do not know why he wanted to get out of the water. We are told that this is adaptation to its environment. But what about the other fish that stayed in the water? Why did not they adapt too? If really it was a means of survival, why do we still see fish in the sea?12 If we admit that man is the most accomplished species, why in this case are there still other species that populate the earth? Why are not all individuals of one species transformed themselves? Man is certainly the species able to adapt to all terrestrial conditions. But he is still a human, whether he is an Inuit living in the extreme conditions of the north, or a Berber daily facing the heat of the desert. Everyone adapted to their environment, that is all. Take the case of the Peppered moth (biston betularia). This moth has a colour that starts from gray to go to black. For proof of the evolution, evolutionists use this example: in England, before 1850 gray individuals were preponderant. But things changed in the years that followed: there was a proliferation of black individuals. At the same time, it was observed that the bark of the birches was blackened by the soot deposited there due to the smoke of the surrounding factories. In the sixties, the gray moth revived, while at the time campaign was conducted to improve the quality of the air. It seemed to be the proof of the transformation and adaptation of a species to its environment. However, the explanation is simple, and moreover it is the one provided by the evolutionists themselves: when the bark is clear, the light moths merge with the colour of the tree and therefore the predators feed mainly on dark individuals. When the bark is black, the clear population is more visible and therefore more likely to fall into the hands, or rather into the beaks of the birds that feed on them. In one case or the other, one colour develops since less subject to pressure while the other collapses. But are these moths no longer moths? Did they turn into another species to escape their predators? No, they were moths, moths they remained. No doubt there has been natural selection but no evolution in another species. That individuals experience some variation from their environment is a proof of divine wisdom. Imagine that all men are cut out for arctic life, we would all be crammed into the far north while the tropics would be empty. Years of genetic mutation experiments, especially on the fly, have only led to failures. No mutation has proved beneficial, on the contrary. Virtually all individuals are either dead, disabled or infertile. Really, there are no profitable mutations. Each one modifies an existing structure, but in a disorderly way. Each disorganisation causes the death of the individual13. The mutations found among the victims of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, as well as their descendants, or to be closer to us, among the victims of Chernobyl, generated only handicap, malformation and death. And in no case the creation of a new and viable species distinct from the human species. The vapourware of paleontologists is obviously the famous missing link thought to be intermediate between the anthropoid apes and man. It has been missing for so long, despite regular announcements, that it is doubtful that it will ever appear. To this day, no evidence has been provided of a link between an apelike fossil and man. The proof is the controversy surrounding the discovery in Chad by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye of Toumaï who, having all the characteristics of a chimpanzee, is undoubtedly a ... chimpanzee. Despite this, his discoverers insist to see in him the ancestor of the man14. Note that we rely on a skull, five fragments of jaw, a few teeth and a diaphysis of left femur probably having belonged to nine different individuals! With this, they reconstruct a skeleton, they give it a face (similar in any point to that of a monkey) and they decide that it is one of our ancestors. But the goal is not to denigrate the work of scientists. It is not reprehensible to dismiss God from the field of hypotheses when we seek the explanation of a natural event. For millennia men have attributed to God actions that today have quite grounded explanations. If we had persisted to think that way, we would still believe that lightning is the expression of divine wrath. It is normal to ask questions or to be curious. Otherwise, God would not have created us with the desire to learn and understand. Please do not get me wrong: there is no question of asking unbelievers to prove that God does not exist. So, I can very well argue that the laughing chicken exists. When I am asked for evidence, I can affirm that it is not up to me to provide it but up to those who refute my assertion15. Would it be honest on my part? Surely not! It is therefore our duty, as believers, to demonstrate the existence of God. On the other hand, what is valid in one direction must be valid in the other: when we are told that man is the result of an evolution from fish to all other forms of life, there so they have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it is necessary to say that this is a hypothesis having the same validity as that of theism. Evolutionists regularly accuse creationists16 of credulity. But what should we conclude when we are told that no competent person is questioning the evolution, that all reputable biologists admit that it is an established fact, or that anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices has no need for additional evidence? Is it not the same kind of reasoning as saying that we believe in God because the church says it, all the great religious names admit that his existence is an established fact or that belief is a matter of faith and does not require additional proof? Out of a thousand evolutionists, how many have seriously studied the subject? Out of a thousand creationists, how many have seriously studied the subject? In either camp, it is important to know what we are talking about when we support something. Is there more credulity in the assertion that God is at the origin of all than there is in the allegation that the universe appeared one day from nothing? Besides, how can it come from nothing? If I take a blackboard and ask a mathematician to write a series of zeros, multiply, add or divide them, from what point will he succeed in extracting a single unit? And yet, this is what we are asked to accept by some proponents of a universe that comes from nothing and who accuse us of believing in fairy tales17. Others will call us sweet dreamers if we maintain that God has always existed while they will have no trouble accepting that the universe, or what preceded it, had no beginning. What is the evidence about God? The fact is that atheists cannot prove that there is no God (but that is not what we ask them), and above all, they cannot prove the theories they put forward. Moreover, these theories do not necessarily demonstrate the absence of God, as we can see by observing that some religious feel that we can very well reconcile these hypotheses with a Creator18. But can we prove the existence of God? Paul tells us that "his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable". What does nature reveal to us? Nothing but intelligent design, perfect harmony. To deny the existence of God is to say that mere chance is at the origin of our environment and of mankind. That this remarkable chance has happened millions and millions of times. Is it reasonable? Let us imagine that I am on a height on a rainy day and that I haphazardly throw a million bricks and bags of cement down that mountain. Let us say that two bricks fall perfectly on each other and that the cement is impregnated with rainwater and joins in between. Let us go so far as to say that this occurrence repeats a second time. Let us be generous and go up to three! Will it ever result in a habitable house? Even recommencing the operation with a second million bricks, it is doubtful whether we could build a mere doghouse. In the meantime, two million bricks will have been reduced to nothing. If there were anything below, nothing will be left now, crushed under the pile. I could throw as many millions of bricks as I want and nothing good will come out. And would that be the case, I would have prove that it took someone to throw the bricks, they will not have thrown themselves alone! Clearly, chance never produced anything good in a sustainable way. To repeat the example above, if I ever managed to mount an embryo of wall by throwing bricks and cement, it would be immediately destroyed by the following bricks. How can one seriously argue that a causality of events spanning billions of years can engender a functioning universe and an earth capable of harbouring millions of species? For one lucky event, how many billions of disaster? It is therefore the order in the world that surrounds us that demonstrates the existence of a Creator. It is not even credible that this author simply started the process and then let chance do the rest. What kind of industrialist, wanting to manufacture a product, would rely on luck? Our environment and the way we, humans, are made denote wisdom, harmony and love. While evolutionists, on the basis of a conclusion, search for the facts that can prove it, believers take the facts and draw the only possible conclusion: there is a benevolent God who created our space. A God who loves us and proves it every day, while the majority of humans do not want to take him into account in everyday life. One is interested in him when misfortune occurs, but forget him when everything is fine. And yet, even the hairs of our head are all numbered; no sparrow will fall to the ground without his knowledge. – Matthew 10:29, 30; Psalm 52:1; Titus 3:4-7 Someone will argue that wars, diseases, famines, pollution, etc., give the lie to the statement that love rules our world. We cannot answer this objection in two words, but the Bible gives satisfactory explanations that we will have the opportunity to examine later. It is enough to take the time to read and study it seriously, while asking God to give us his spirit. If we are sincere, everything will become clear. – Romans 5:5; Psalm 52:8 Of course, with this essay I do not pretend to have convinced a single atheist. This belief is too deeply rooted for this to be done just by reading a few pages. I also did not want to do a scientific thesis, and it may be that some errors have crept into this text (I thank those who will report them). I only hope that the logic of the words strengthens the reader's faith, giving him some keys to defend his beliefs. ––– 1 Epicureanism does not deny the existence of God, but rather his involvement in the world. According to the proponents of this philosophy, God does not interfere with humans. (back) 2 The biblical text does not expressly say that this was the goal of the builders of the tower. Perhaps the desire was to rise to the level of God, in order to challenge him. (back) 3 Pharaoh did not question the existence of Jehovah. There is also a good chance that he knew his name as well as his actions. Indeed, the time of the Flood was not so remote and it would be surprising that at a distance of a few hundred years men had forgotten what was at the origin of the disaster that has left his mark on people's mind at the point that we find traces in the legends of most civilisations. Of course, he intended to demonstrate, as Nimrod and the builders of the tower did, that he had no intention of being accountable to the ruler of the universe. (back) 4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_of_the_Three_Impostors (back) 5 It would be interesting to count the baptismal candidates at a Jehovah's Witnesses convention and to make the proportion of people arriving from the preaching activity (usually the oldest) in relation to the young children of Witnesses. (back) 6 It is a fact that in the capitalist states, many ardent defenders of communism come from communist families. (back) 7w60 6/1 p. 324; w93 12/15 p. 16-17 (back) 8 Allan Sandage, astronomer having determined the first reasonably accurate values for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe, said: The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. (back) 9 Alongside several other theories that generally receive little favorable echo, such as a universe of grapes (the bootstrap put forward by Edgard Gunzig), in which ours is only one of the grains having the ability to give birth to other universes by means of white holes, or the rebirth of an ancient universe that would retract to form a black hole that, after reaching the critical mass, eventually explode. Note also the theory of the "primordial instanton of size zero" of Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff as well as the scenario of the "pre-Big Bang" developed by the Italian physicists Gasperini and Veneziano. (back) 10 The Apostle Paul tells us that faith is "the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen". (Hebrew 11:1) It is not about being gullible, but about trusting in someone who has proven himself worthy. The Greek word "pistis" referred to a guarantee that was given. So, if we are told that it is faith that makes us believe in God, then we can take this as an argument for his existence, since our conviction comes from the guarantee that he has given us. (back) 11 In 1996, John Paul II asserted that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. For Benedict XVI, the world comes from an evolutionary process, while being derived from God. As for Pope Francis, he said that evolution is not contradictory to the notion of creation. (back) 12 In August 2003 a living coelacanth was found off the Comoros. It has been portrayed by some newspapers as the missing link between fish and man. This statement is still subject to debate. The following question arises: why have some evolved and other not? If it were beneficial to get out of the water and let the paws grow, why are there still today coelacanths that have remained in the "primitive" state, seventy million years later? (back) 13 Paraphrase of the remarks of Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences. (back) 14 According to some researchers Toumaï is actually a female. (back) 15 For the chronicle, the laughing chicken, Ayam Ketawa in Malay, is a breed of chicken native to the Sidenreng Rappang area in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. (back) 16 In this article the term creationist applies to anyone who believes in the creation of the universe by a God, whatever the school of thought. (back) 17 Paradoxically, the agnostic Jean Rostand, while affirming that one can only believe in the evolution, said that this is a fairy tale for adults. (back) 18 See note 11 above concerning papal declarations. (back) Link to article: baruq.uk/let_us_examine_our_beliefs_the_existence_of_god.html
  13. Giuseppe, un modello del Cristo Quando un cristiano nutre dei dubbi riguardo ad una condotta da tenere, trova a volte appropriato porsi la domanda seguente: cos'avrebbe fatto Cristo se fosse al mio posto? E spesso le risposta è spontanea e permette di prendere la decisione giusta. Cristo è evidentemente l'esempio da seguire, ma qualcuno potrebbe obiettare che per Gesù, essendo un uomo perfetto, le cose erano di conseguenza molto più facili. Benché ciò non sia vero – Gesù era libero di scegliere le sue azioni e sarebbe potuto soccombere alle incessanti tentazioni di Satana – altri uomini giusti possono servirci da esempio. Spontaneamente, i servitori di Dio che ci vengono in mente sono senza alcun dubbio Giobbe, Abraamo o Giacobbe. Di Giobbe, Dio disse che non c'era nessuno come lui sulla terra. Abraamo è chiamato “amico di Dio”, il che è uno dei più grandi distintivi che ci siano1. Saremo forse meno inclini a pensare a Giuseppe, il figlio che Giacobbe ebbe da Rachele. Eppure, esaminiamo i fatti seguenti: sulle settanta pagine circa della Genesi come la troviamo in una delle edizioni della Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo, quasi una ventina è dedicata a Giuseppe. Compariamola con lo spazio occupato per descrivere la creazione (una pagina e mezza) e gli eventi antediluviani (sei pagine e mezza), capiamo l'importanza che è data a quest'uomo nelle Sacre Scritture2. Che cosa fa che quest'uomo sia così ammirevole al punto che un terzo circa del primo libro della Bibbia sia incentrato su di lui? Giuseppe, un uomo senza difetti Giuseppe condivide un aspetto con pochi altri personaggi biblici: sembra che adempia solo azioni giuste. Ovviamente, ciò non è il caso, portò come tutti noi il peso del peccato, ma questi furono certamente così veniali che non valeva neanche la pena parlarne. Quali che furono i suoi errori, furono eclissati dalla sua condotta eccellente. Eppure, se c'è una qualità che differenzia la Bibbia dagli altri scritti dell'antichità, è la sua onestà quando si tratta di riportare i falli dei servitori di Dio. Così, i peccati di Davide non sono occultati. Fu adultero, assassino, e a causa della sua vanità migliaia di Israelita morirono. Mosè era, secondo il racconto biblico, il più umile degli uomini ma il suo lasciarsi trasportare in un'occasione gli costò il privilegio di entrare nella Terra Promessa. Abraamo era giusto ma quando Dio gli disse di andare a Canaan, si fermò nel paese dei suoi antenati a Haran e ripartì solo quindici anni dopo, alla morte di suo padre (Atti 7:1-4). Quando una carestia sopravvenne a Canaan, il paese che Dio gli aveva promesso e dove gli aveva comandato di soggiornare, partì per l'Egitto. Là, temendo per la sua vita, arrivò a mentire pretendendo che sua moglie fosse sua sorella. Ciò denotava una mancanza di fede in Geova, poiché aveva ricevuto la promessa che la sua discendenza avrebbe ereditato di quella terra. Non era quindi possibile che perisse a causa della carestia o per mano di Faraone. Ciò non gli servì da lezione poiché ripeté lo stesso errore in seguito e anche suo figlio Isacco cadde in questa trappola per via del timore dell'uomo quantunque la promessa divina gli fosse stata reiterata3. Giacobbe, a chi fu promesso il diritto di primogenitura, ottenne quest'ultimo con un sotterfugio facendosi passare per suo fratello invece di attendere Dio. Tollerò gli idoli nella sua famiglia fino a che Geova gli chiese di rendersi a Betel4. La sua passività costò anche l'onore di sua figlia che aveva preso l'abitudine di frequentare le figlie pagane del paese dove risiedevano. Sembra che questa eredità familiare non influenzò Giuseppe. Eppure, dal punto di vista umano, avrebbe avuto di che essere infastidito, o addirittura in collera contro la sua propria famiglia e anche contro Dio stesso. All'età di diciassette anni, i suoi fratelli gelosi lo cedono a una carovana di mercanti che lo vendono in Egitto a un funzionario di corte dal nome di Potifar. È degno di nota che Giuseppe non cercò di fuggire, ma al contrario era talmente degno di fiducia che il suo padrone lo mise al di sopra di tutta la casa. Il racconto ci dice che Potifar stesso era benedetto da Geova a causa di Giuseppe e che i suoi affari prosperavano. Ma Giuseppe non approfittò in alcun modo della situazione. Sentiamo a volte delle relazioni su uomini di fiducia che in fin dei conti non ne erano così degni e che si sono appropriati indebitamente dei fondi del loro datore di lavoro. Giuseppe in quanto a lui era un lavoratore onesto e alacre. Non faceva lo stretto necessario, dicendo che in ogni caso non sarebbe stato pagato di più, come possiamo sentire dalla bocca di alcuni impiegati. E se, come ci è detto, Geova lo faceva riuscire, è senza dubbio perché confidava in lui e gli chiedeva la saggezza nelle decisioni che doveva prendere. Qualche tempo più tardi, questo bel giovane attirò l'attenzione della moglie del suo padrone che lo supplicò giorno dopo giorno di giacere con lei. Nessuna legge era stata emessa da Geova fino a quel tempo vietando questo genere di pratica eppure la risposta di Giuseppe fu: “Come potrei commettere questo grande male e peccare in effetti contro Dio?”. Non era ciò che pensavano gli uomini che gli interessava ma evidentemente ciò che pensava Dio! A volte, potremmo dire che non c'è nessun comandamento nella Bibbia che ci vieti di fare questa o quella azione. Ma se abbiamo il pensiero di Dio, anche in assenza di leggi sapremo cosa fare. Non vorremo commettere il male e peccare contro Dio. – Genesi 39:9 Nonostante la sua ferma posizione, fu falsamente accusato di tentato stupro e il suo padrone, in collera, lo fece rinchiudere in prigione. Notiamo comunque qualcosa di interessante: qual era la punizione per i violentatori all'epoca? Non la prigione ma la morte. In questo caso, perché Potifar non fece uso del suo diritto mettendo a morte Giuseppe ma al contrario lo consegnò alla prigione? Certamente a causa della fiducia che Giuseppe si era guadagnato presso di lui. Pensiamo che quest'uomo non conoscesse sua moglie? Il versetto dice si infuriò. Ma non ci è detto contro chi si arrabbiò. Potrebbe essere che, non potendo pubblicamente accusare sua moglie di menzogna e per salvare Giuseppe (e anche la propria reputazione), decise di farlo rinchiudere? Dopo tutto, è meglio la prigione che la morte. Da un altro lato, se Giuseppe non fosse stato uno schiavo fedele, avente a cuore gli interessi del suo padrone, questi gli avrebbe lasciato la vita salva? Cosa sarebbe successo se fosse stato uno schiavo noncurante, o addirittura disonesto e scansafatiche? In questo momento della vita di Giuseppe, potremmo pensare che ribollisse dalla collera o sprofondasse nella depressione. Ecco un uomo giusto, che serve Dio, fiducioso in lui e che si ritrova in prigione per una falsa accusa! Quanti tra noi avrebbero incolpato Dio oppure avrebbero completamente perso la fede, addirittura negando la sua esistenza? Ma non Giuseppe. Si lasciò guidare da Geova. Si applicò a rendere il più utile e gradevole possibile la sua condizione di prigioniero, al punto che un soggiorno in prigione potesse essere piacevole. In ricompensa Geova era con Giuseppe e trovò favore agli occhi del funzionario della prigione. Similmente a Potifar, questi lasciò tra le sue mani tutti i prigionieri. In definitiva, ricevette le stesse responsabilità che in precedenza. In alcun caso accusò Dio della sua situazione o gliene volle. – vedi Giobbe 1:22 Un altro tratto caratteristico che risalta dal racconto della vita di Giuseppe in prigione è la sua empatia. Allorché il capo dei panettieri e il capo dei coppieri si ritrovarono in cella, rimarcò la loro tristezza. Va da sé che la tristezza è d'obbligo quando si è improvvisamente privati della sua libertà, ma è un altro tipo di abbattimento che notò. È evidente che Giuseppe non faceva che semplicemente badare ai bisogni materiali dei prigionieri, ma si interessava a loro. Quante guardie carcerarie noterebbero un cambio di umore di un detenuto? Solo qualcuno che per natura si interessa degli altri, una persona benevola e piena di compassione. Doveva essere un balsamo per il cuore avere un compagno di cattività come Giuseppe. Lì ancora, fu ricompensato per la sua attitudine. Non subito, dovette attendere due lunghi anni. Ma il giorno arrivò in cui fu ricevuto da Faraone che lo elevò al rango di personaggio principale del suo reame, il secondo dopo di lui5. Non abbiamo mai notato che certe persone, quando sono promosse a una posizione importante, presso un'impresa ad esempio, cambiano completamente comportamento? Certe diventano arroganti, tiranniche e spesso approfittano della situazione per fare i loro propri interessi. Se dovessimo ritrovarci in questa situazione, quanto sarebbe profittevole prendere esempio da Giuseppe! Un modello di Cristo Giuseppe è un eccellente modello di Gesù che è stato “innalzato a una posizione superiore”. Come Faraone gli diede un nome glorioso e ordinò che lo si riconoscesse come governatore dell'Egitto, similmente “Dio padre gli ha dato il nome che è al di sopra di ogni altro nome, affinché ogni lingua riconosca pubblicamente che Gesù Cristo è Signore”. (Filippesi 2:9-11; Genesi 41:43-45) Giuseppe non cercò di usurpare il trono di Faraone. Eppure, sarebbe potuto essere tentato. Forse qualcuno glielo avrà anche suggerito. Dopo tutto, non ha salvato il popolo dalla carestia? E il popolo è pronto a portare al potere colui che lo nutre. – Giovanni 6:10-15 Pensiamo alla maniera in cui Dio insegnò l'obbedienza a Giuseppe. Era il figlio preferito di Giacobbe e beneficiava di privilegi nella casa che i suoi fratelli non avevano. Questi, gelosi, si liberarono di lui. Per Giacobbe, suo figlio era morto. Fu un'umiliazione per Giuseppe ma fece “ogni cosa senza mormorii e disaccordi”. (Filippesi 2:14) Ciò ci ricorda che Cristo stesso si umiliò prendendo la forma di uno schiavo e imparò l'obbedienza. Neanche Gesù “pensò di appropriarsi di qualcosa che non gli spettava, cioè l’essere uguale a Dio”. – Filippesi 2:6-8 Quindi, continuiamo a operare per la nostra salvezza con timore e trepidazione. Dio infatti è colui che, secondo il proprio volere, agisce in noi dandoci sia il desiderio che la forza di agire. Continuiamo a fare tutto senza mormorii e disaccordi, così da essere irreprensibili e innocenti, figli di Dio senza difetto in mezzo a una generazione corrotta e perversa, in mezzo alla quale risplendiamo come luce nel mondo, mantenendo una salda presa sulla parola di vita. – Filippesi 2:12-16 ––– 1 Ma abbiamo la possibilità di essere figli di Dio e così fare parte della sua famiglia. (back) 2 Sedici pagine riportano i gesti di Abraamo, otto trattano di Isacco e circa diciassette raccontano la vita di Giacobbe, essendo alcune pagine in comune con quelle su suo figlio. (back) 3 Ciò non toglie nulla all'integrità di questi uomini o alla fede che manifestarono in seguito. Al contrario ciò prova che Geova ci modella o ci leviga al fine di estrarre il meglio da noi. (back) 4 Notiamo che non distrusse gli idoli ma li fece semplicemente sotterrare. (back) 5 Ci si potrebbe stupire del fatto che Giuseppe sia elevato a una tale posizione dal faraone che non lo conosceva neanche. Tuttavia, agendo così Faraone si scollava da tutte le responsabilità se le cose avessero preso una brutta andatura, per esempio se la profezia non si realizzava. Tutto ricadrebbe sulla testa di Giuseppe. (back) Link all'articolo completo: baruq.uk/joseph_a_model_of_christ-it.html
  14. José, um modelo de cristo Quando um cristão tem dúvidas sobre uma conduta a adoptar, às vezes parece apropriado fazer a seguinte pergunta: o que teria feito Cristo se estivesse em meu lugar? E muitas vezes a resposta é espontânea e, em seguida, essa pessoa toma a decisão certa. Cristo é obviamente o exemplo a seguir, mas alguém poderia objetar que Jesus sendo um homem perfeito, portanto, as coisas eram muito mais fáceis para ele. Embora isso não seja verdade, Jesus teve a livre escolha de suas ações e poderia ter sucumbido às incessantes tentações de Satanás, outros homens justos podem servir como exemplo. Espontaneamente, os servos de Deus que vêm à nossa mente são, sem dúvida, Jó, Abraão ou Jacó. De Jó, Deus diz que não havia ninguém igual a ele na terra. Abraão é chamado de "amigo de Deus", que é uma das maiores distinções1. Podemos estar menos inclinados a pensar em José, o filho de Jacó que ele teve com Raquel. No entanto, vamos examinar os seguintes fatos: das sessenta e seis ou mais páginas de Gênesis encontradas em uma das edições da Tradução do Novo Mundo, cerca de vinte são dedicadas a José. Vamos colocá-lo ao lado do espaço ocupado para descrever a criação (uma página e meia) e os eventos antediluvianos (seis páginas e meia), entendemos a importância dada a este homem nas Sagradas Escrituras2. O que torna este homem tão notável que cerca de um terço do primeiro livro da Bíblia se concentra nele? José, um homem sem falhas José compartilha um ponto com alguns outros personagens bíblicos: ele parece realizar apenas atos de justiça. É claro que este não é o caso, ele carregava o fardo do pecado, como todos nós, mas estes eram certamente tão benignos que nem valia a pena falar disso. Quaisquer que fossem os seus erros, eles foram eclipsados pelo excelente comportamento deles. E, no entanto, se há uma qualidade que diferencia a Bíblia de outros escritos da antiguidade, é a sua honestidade quando se trata de denunciar as falhas dos servos de Deus. Assim, os pecados de Davi não estão ocultos. Ele era adúltero, assassino e, por causa de sua vaidade, milhares de israelitas morreram. Moisés foi, de acordo com o relato bíblico, o mais humilde dos homens, mas sua raiva uma vez lhe custou o privilégio de entrar na terra prometida. Abraão foi justo, mas quando Deus lhe disse para ir a Canaã, ele parou na terra de seus antepassados em Harã e não partiu até quinze anos depois, com a morte de seu pai. (Atos 7:1-4) Quando ocorreu uma fome em Canaã, a terra que Deus prometera e ordenou que ele ficasse, foi para o Egito. Lá, temendo por sua vida, ele foi forçado a mentir fingindo que sua esposa era sua irmã. Isso indicava falta de confiança em Jeová porque ele tinha uma promessa de que seus descendentes herdariam essa terra. Não lhe era possível perecer devido à fome ou à mão do faraó. Mas ele não aprendeu a lição, porque ele repetiu o mesmo erro mais tarde e até mesmo seu filho Isaac caiu na mesma armadilha do medo do homem, apesar do fato de que ele foi reiterado a promessa divina3. Jacó, a quem foi prometida a primogenitura, obteve-a através de um subterfúgio, fingindo ser seu irmão em vez de esperar por Deus. Ele tolerou os ídolos de sua família até que Jeová lhe pediu que fosse para Betel4. Sua passividade também lhe custou a honra de sua filha, que se acostumou a freqüentar as meninas pagãs do país em que viviam. Parece que essa herança familiar não se espalhou para José. E, no entanto, do ponto de vista humano, ele teria tido o suficiente para ser amargo, mesmo zangado com sua própria família e até mesmo com o próprio Deus. Com a idade de dezessete anos, seus irmãos invejosos o levam para uma caravana de mercadores que o vendem no Egito a um oficial da corte do faraó chamado Potifar. É notável que José não tenha tentado fugir, mas, pelo contrário, era tão confiável que seu mestre o nomeou em toda a sua casa. A história nos diz que o próprio Potifar foi abençoado por Jeová por causa de José e que a bênção estava sobre tudo o que ele tinha na casa e no campo. Mas José não aproveitou a situação. Às vezes ouvimos relatos de homens de confiança que afinal não eram tão dignos e que se apropriaram indevidamente de fundos de seu empregador. José, enquanto isso, era honesto e trabalhador. Ele não estava fazendo o mínimo, dizendo que, em qualquer caso, ele não seria pago mais, como podemos ouvir de alguns funcionários. E se, como nos dizem, Jeová o fez bem, é indubitavelmente porque ele confiava nele e lhe pedia sabedoria nas decisões que ele tinha que tomar. Algum tempo depois, esse belo rapaz atraiu a atenção da esposa de seu mestre, que implorava a ele todos os dias para deitar com ela. Jeová não havia promulgado nenhuma lei até então que proibisse esse tipo de prática e, no entanto, a resposta de José foi: como eu poderia cometer essa grande maldade e realmente pecar contra Deus? Não era o que os homens que o interessavam pensavam, mas o que Deus estava pensando! Às vezes podemos dizer que não há um mandato claro na Bíblia que nos proíba de fazer isso ou aquilo. Mas se estamos em sintonia com o pensamento de Deus, mesmo na ausência da lei, saberemos o que fazer. Não queremos cometer mal e pecar contra Deus. – Gênesis 39:9 Apesar de sua posição firme, ele foi falsamente acusado de tentativa de estupro e seu mestre irritado mandou jogá-lo na cadeia. Nós ainda notamos algo interessante: qual foi a punição para os estupradores naquela época? Não prisão mas morte. Nesse caso, por que Potifar não usou seu direito de matar José, mas, pelo contrário, o entregou à prisão? Certamente por causa da confiança que José ganhou dele. Acreditamos que esse homem não conheceu sua esposa? O verso diz que acendeu-se a sua ira. Mas não nos dizem com quem ele estava zangado. Será que, incapaz de acusar publicamente sua esposa de mentiras e salvar José (assim como sua própria reputação), decidiu entregar-lo à prisão? Afinal, a prisão é melhor que a morte. Por outro lado, se José não tivesse sido um escravo fiel, levando em conta os interesses de seu senhor, ele teria salvado sua vida? O que teria acontecido se ele tivesse sido um escravo despreocupado, até desonesto e vago? Neste momento da vida de José, podemos pensar que ele está fervendo de raiva ou sucumbindo à depressão. Aqui está um homem justo, servindo a Deus, confiando nele completamente e acabando na prisão sob uma falsa acusação! Quantos de nós teriam culpado a Deus por isso ou teríamos perdido completamente a fé ou até mesmo negado sua própria existência? Mas não José. Ele deixou-se guiar por Jeová. Ele se esforçou para tornar seu status de prisioneiro o mais útil e agradável possível, contanto que uma estadia possa ser agradável. Como recompensa, Jeová estava com José e encontrou graça aos olhos do carcereiro-chefe e ele encarregou José de todos os prisioneiros. Em suma, ele recebeu as mesmas responsabilidades de antes. Em nenhum caso ele acusou Deus de sua situação ou se ressentiu dele. – veja Jó 1:22 Outra característica que emerge da história da vida de José na prisão é sua empatia. Enquanto o o chefe dos padeiros e o chefe dos copeiros acabavam na cela, ele notou sua tristeza. É desnecessário dizer que a tristeza é obrigatória quando se subitamente é privado de sua liberdade, mas é outro tipo de pessimismo que ele observou. É óbvio que José não estava apenas cuidando das necessidades materiais dos prisioneiros, mas que estava interessado neles. Quantos guardas da prisão vão notar uma mudança de humor em um preso? Apenas alguém que por natureza está interessado em outros, uma pessoa amorosa e compassiva. Deve ter sido um bálsamo para o coração ter um cativo como José. Mais uma vez, ele foi recompensado por sua atitude. Não agora; Ele teve que esperar dois longos anos. Mas chegou o dia em que ele foi recebido pelo faraó, que o elevou ao posto de personagem principal em seu reino, o segundo depois dele5. Já notamos que algumas pessoas, quando são promovidas a uma posição importante dentro de uma empresa, por exemplo, mudam completamente seu comportamento? Alguns se tornam arrogantes, tirânicos e muitas vezes aproveitam a situação para fazer seus próprios interesses. Se tivéssemos que nos encontrar nesta situação, quão útil seria usar José como exemplo? Um modelo de Cristo José é um excelente modelo de Jesus que foi "enaltecendo a uma posição superior". Assim como o faraó lhe deu um nome glorioso e ordenou que ele fosse reconhecido como governador do Egito, assim "Deus, o Pai lhe deu bondosamente o nome que está acima de todo outro nome a fim de que toda língua reconheça abertamente que Jesus Cristo é Senhor". (Filipenses 2:9-11, Gênesis 41:43-45) José não procurou usurpar o trono de Faraó. No entanto, ele poderia ter sido tentado a fazê-lo. Talvez alguém tenha sugerido isso para você. Afinal, ele não salvou as pessoas da fome? E as pessoas são rápidas em trazer poder àqueles que as alimentam. – João 6:10-15 Considere como Deus ensinou a obediência a José. Ele era o filho favorito de Jacó e desfrutou de privilégios na casa que seus irmãos não tinham. Estes, ciumentos, se livraram dele. Para Jacob, seu filho estava morto. Foi uma humilhação para José, mas ele fez "todas as coisas sem queixas nem discussões". (Filipenses 2:14) Isso nos lembra que o próprio Cristo se humilhou na forma de um escravo e aprendeu obediência. Jesus não "não pensou numa usurpação, isto é, em ser igual a Deus". – Filipenses 2:6-8 Portanto, persistamos em produzir a nossa própria salvação com temor e tremor. Pois Deus é aquele que, segundo o que lhe agrada, está agindo em nós, e lhes dá tanto o desejo como o poder de agir. continuemos fazendo todas as coisas sem queixas nem discussões, para que venhamos a ser irrepreensíveis e inocentes, filhos de Deus sem defeito no meio de uma geração pervertida e corrompida, no meio da qual estamos brilhando como iluminadores no mundo, mantendo-nos firmemente agarrados à palavra da vida. – Filipenses 2:12-16 ––– 1 Mas temos a oportunidade de ser filhos de Deus e fazer parte de sua família. (back) 2 Dezesseis páginas relatam os atos de Abraão, oito giram em torno de Isaque e cerca de dezessete contam a história de Jacó, algumas páginas sendo comuns com seu filho. (back) 3 Isso de modo algum diminui a integridade desses homens ou a fé extraordinária que manifestaram posteriormente. Pelo contrário, isso prova que Jeová nos forma ou nos apta para fazer o melhor de nós. (back) 4 Na realidade, ele não destruiu os ídolos, mas simplesmente os enterrou. (back) 5 Pode parecer estranho que o faraó o tenha elevado a José para tal posição que ele nem o conhecia. No entanto, ao fazê-lo, o faraó libertou-se de toda a responsabilidade se as coisas tomaram um rumo errado, por exemplo, se a profecia não se realizou. Tudo cairia na cabeça de José. (back) Artigo completo: baruq.uk/joseph_a_model_of_christ-pt.html
×

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation