Goliath is a comedy about a cat and one man’s search for his cat. After a Divorce the man gets the cat, he needs to find his cat.
See the trailer for Goliath here:
Sunny Griffin (text) and Donna Lee Hill (illustrations),
David and The Very Scary Giant.
Ashland, OH: Landoll, 1994.
Some children’s books are quite oblique when it comes to explaining what happens to Goliath at the end of the story of David and Goliath. After a very slow build-up, with lots of background about David as a young boy and how he looked after his sheep – David and The Very Scary Giant suddenly gets to the climax:
The text explains that David’s stone killed Goliath. That is, however, the last page. There’s no actual depiction of David killing Goliath, just the expectation in Goliath’s eyes. And there is definitely no head-chopping.
My favourite David and Goliath children’s books are the ones aimed at very young readers. To be clear, they are my favourite. I wouldn’t let them near actual children.
Take this one, a short board book, in the series “The Toddlers Bible Library”: V. Gilbert Beers (text), David Fights a Giant. The Toddlers Bible Library (Wheaton: Paradise Press, 1993).
I dunno – something about that series title (The Toddlers Bible Library) might have perhaps provided a hint that the David & Goliath story wasn’t really suitable.
Yet the authors attempt to make it suitable for toddlers by making it obscure how exactly David killed Goliath. The two characters never appear in the same shot, but only on successive pages. So your toddler doesn’t get to see this whole scene, which I’ve spliced together for older readers (R18):
And then you get a shot of Goliath lying down. One is not quite sure why he is lying down. To sanitise it for toddlers, the authors have had to make the plot undecipherable. But they do make the reason clear for why David defeated the giant: because he asked God for help, whereas Goliath did not. (No mention that it was ‘help’ … to kill someone.)
This is either a very confusing story for toddlers, or – if their parents explain what’s happening – a very unsuitable story for toddlers. All this explains a lot about how Christians turn out, though.
Thomas Jay Oord, ed., Theologians and Philosophers Using Social Media: Advice, Tips, and Testimonials (SacraSage Press, September 2, 2017)
It includes a section by me on using social media, in which I discuss things like the Biblical Studies Online website, John Dominic Crossan’s holiday photos, online discussions that were very helpful in writing my recent article about Jesus turning into a Giant in the Gospel of Peter, a contribution to an engagement with Larry Hurtado, Sathya Sai Baba’s injunction to ‘Love all, serve all’, and some other words of sage theological advice.
The insights in these 90+ essays are nothing short of inspiring! Their tips on best practices for social engagement, time management, social media as a resource for scholarship or creativity, technology and pedagogy, etc. will help readers tremendously.
The contributors are diverse. They include….
– Public theologians like Ben Corey, Brian McLaren, and Richard Rohr
– Younger scholars like Tripp Fuller, Jorey Micah, and Alexis Waggoner
– Biblical scholars like Michael Gorman, Joel Green, and Daniel Kirk
– Philosophers like Helen De Cruz, Aaron Simmons, and Kevin Timpe
– Establish scholars like James Crossley, Kwok Pui-lan, and Amos Yong
– Scholars outside North America like Deane Galbraith, RT Mullins, Hanna Reichel, and Atle Sovik
– Pastoral theologians like Patricia Farmer, Len Sweet, and Kurt Willems
– Historical theologians like Kim Alexander and Christine Helmer
– Science and religion scholars like Ron Cole-Turner, Karl Giberson, Lea Schweitz, and Jim Stump
– Constructive theologians like Oliver Crisp, Grace Ji-Sun Kim, and Jason Lepojärvi
– Ethicists like Miguel De La Torre, David Gushee, and Michael Hardin
…and the list goes on!
Whether the reader is an armchair theologian, a professional scholar, a graduate student, or simply interested in how social media is changing religious and philosophical studies, that reader will find Theologians and Philosophers Using Social Media of great help.
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing….”
– 1 Tim 2:12-15
In these latter days, false prophets have heinously distorted the Christian View of Sex Sessions – a view of human sexuality and sexual congress which was held by Adam and Eve before the Fall, later reaffirmed by Our Lord in the days He dwelt amongst men, and in the Early Church, and adhered to steadfastly throughout the centuries-long Epoch of Christendom by all True Christians (excluding Catholics). Now, during this twilight of Christian morality in the West, there have arisen self-proclaimed ‘Evangelical’ Christians – but in truth heretics and perverts – who would seduce, if it were possible, even the Elect. These pseudo-Evangelicals have sought to replace the eternal design of God Almighty for the Respective Roles of Men and Women and Proper Conduct for Sexual Coitus with nothing more than the concoctions of their own hearts.
Therefore, in witness to this sinful generation, and in repudiation of the Lies of Satan, we, the undersigned, declare our faithfulness to the original Christian View of Sex Sessions. We eschew the delusions of the Nashville heretics, who would reject the divine plan for sexual practice for their secularist, post-modernistic innovations. In its place we offer nothing more than the Truth given once and for all to the Saints, in the ante- post-Christian era.
To the glory of God, we offer the following affirmations and denials:
WE AFFIRM that sexual intercourse should be undertaken without joy or passion: ‘just like many a laborious work accomplished by the compliant operation of our other limbs, without any lascivious heat.’ Christian men must prayerfully seek to recover Adam’s ability to engorge their penises for coitus ‘simply by the direction of the will, not excited by the ardor of concupiscence.’
WE DENY the joy of sex, except for that sober and pious joy of achieving the only good purpose of sexual congress: the procreation of the species.
WE AFFIRM, given the nearness of the End Times, which is really very, very close now, so close it could happen any minute now, in fact, that it is better for the unmarried to remain as they are, and better for the married to abstain from any Sexual Sessions.
WE DENY that even the single man who is a chronic masturbator should seek marriage, given that the End Times is so very, very close. It’s going to happen any moment. We even doubted we’d get to the end of these articles before Our Lord came on the clouds, so to speak.
WE AFFIRM the missionary position.
WE DENY any other sexual position is acceptable in the sight of God, including, but not limited to, Doggy Style, the Cowgirl, Reverse Cowgirl, the Man Chair, the Camel Ride, the Downward Dog, anal, oral, standing, sitting, the Ballet Dancer, the Wheelbarrow, Angry Dragon, the 69er, Spooning, or Saddling.
WE AFFIRM that God has graciously bestowed on the female sex the privilege of salvation by childbirth. Thus, womenfolk have an additional means of salvation not available to men.
WE DENY that any honors rightly given to men, whether leadership of the church, headship of the household, entitlement to the top position in Sex Sessions, or rights of discipline over women, imply any inequality between men and women. For women still have the bonus means of salvation, via childbirth. No other worldly power may compensate for this grace received by women alone.
WE AFFIRM that menstruation is the overflow of sexual build-up, evidence of the inherently excessive concupiscence of the female. Menstrual blood is damaging to the male penis, which requires strict separation during the week of flow. So too, ‘the gaze of a menstruating woman can dim and crack a mirror.’
WE DENY that menstruation can be falsely reduced to mere natural or materialist processes. Attempts to do so are the result of the atheistic scientific worldview, and is only a presupposition, so just as much a matter of faith as belief in the evil of menstrual blood.
WE AFFIRM that women should in every way be subordinate to men in public.
WE DENY that subordination is any way to be equated with intolerance of women. Rather, it is those who claim to be ‘tolerant’ of women who are truly intolerant of those who would restrict a woman’s role in public, for if they were really tolerant, they would be able to tolerate our alleged intolerance. So it is the ‘tolerant’ who are truly intolerant, by being tolerant only of tolerance, while not being tolerant of intolerance. We have truly taken tolerance to a higher plane of toleration.
President, South-south-east Tennessee Baptist Seminary, and Pastor
Professor of Apologetics, Libertarian University
Mrs Laverne Colton
Authoress of ‘Devotion: In Your Heart and On Your Back’, mother of eight
Professor of New Testament, Rockwood Upper Floor Full Gospel Seminary
Cotton Mather Professor of Apologetics, Scripture and Prayer and author of How to Keep Your Right Eye and Right Hand (Zondervan, 2011)
PhD: Hard Complementarianism in the Four Gospels: An Anti-Bultmannian Approach (Durham University)
Mrs Denny Keller
authoress of Button Up that Blouse! and proud homemaker
Bart Ehrman, Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has commenced a podcast: The Bart Ehrman Podcast. But his words are spoken by another, his prophet on earth, John P. Mueller.
It involves a weekly podcast in which John reads two posts that have previously appeared on the blog, some of recent vintage and some archived, often from long ago.
So John P. Mueller reads posts from The Bart Ehrman Blog. The Blog is only available in full behind a paywall (to raise money for charities fighting poverty, hunger, and homelessness). The podcast is free, but only includes a selection of the posts on Ehrman’s blog. That is, the blog is not-for-profit but not via prophet, and the podcast involves no fee but is via prophet.
While Mueller’s voice differs from Ehrman’s slightly, his words are the ipsissima verba of Ehrman, a feature which is – after all – much more than can be said for the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament.
In ASOR’s publication, The Ancient Near East Today (August 2017, vol. 5, no. 8), John J. Collins provides a very informative summary of his new book:
The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul. Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 7. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2017.
Notably, for Collins, there is something distinctly religious (in concept, if not in name) about being Jewish by the second century BCE:
“In the second century BCE, the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes issued a decree proscribing the ancestral laws of Judea…. According to 2 Maccabees, chapter 6 “it was impossible either to keep the Sabbath, to observe the ancestral festivals, or openly confess oneself to be a Ioudaios.”… It is clear that Epiphanes was not forbidding people to say where they were from. The decree presupposed a normative understanding of what it meant to be a Ioudaios: to observe the Law of Moses, at least in its distinctive practices. What Epiphanes tried to do was to suppress the distinctive identity of the people of Judah, by proscribing the traditional formulation of their way of life.”
Collins then describes how the Jewish Torah (Law) was largely unknown before Ezra’s arrival in Judah (traditionally dated to 458 BCE), and even then its laws were not followed in any literal sense until “the attempt by Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress it”.
It’s a good summary of the early development of Judaism, Jewish identity, and Torah observance: read the article here.