Participation Required: I Would Love to Have Dinner with…..
No Jesus jukes please…
Who is the one person , living or dead, that you would love to have a leisurely dinner with?
For me, it would be Calvin…because I suspect that he and I have similar personalities and it would give me an excuse to go back to Geneva.
Noah or Eve. .
My dad. I have so many unanswered questions.
Fr. Seraphim Rose
http://deathtotheworld.com/articles/blessed-hieromonk-seraphim-rose/
Katharine Bushnell
Who is picking up the tab? … it may make a difference. 🙂
James Jamerson
My Dad’s Father – I never met my Grandpa and I would really, really like that.
Michael Newnham
I find the whole idea of having dinner with a stranger to be stressful and unappealing, so I wouldn’t particularly care to have dinner with anyone I don’t already have dinner with.
I keep thinking of specific people, but then what J2 says, I feel the same way. That was has held me back from commenting. I felt very insecure and nervous about the idea.
#8 Suck-up!!!
I think Luther would be a lot more fun than Calvin. I’d choose any of the Apostles, with Paul being the obvious choice.
Although John would be qualified to answer my questions and could also tell me about his friend Jesus in a way that no one else could.
Only about three of these qualify as non-jesus juke. Even Calvin is a bit of a Jesus Juke.
My ex
I had to google Jesus Juke. You kids are so hip.
LOL, I thought it said no Jesus Jokes. – now i need to google.
Nah…A real Jesus juke is for someone to condemn all you guys for picking Christians and then say that HE would pick Hitler or Bin Laden or someone and try to lead them to the Savior.
THAT’s a Jesus juke!
I think, given my love and history with baseball, that Jackie Robinson would be a fascinating dinner guest for me. On many levels.
Jesus Juke:
When some Christian brings Jesus into an argument or conversation out of no where. Usually creating another religious argument within the original argument or conversation.
You just Jesus juked me, bro!
Here you go MLD
Dinner with Henri Nouwen and Brennan Manning.
Who gave Bob three dinners?
I think Bob might be planning a dine and dash. Some guys never really grow up. 😉
Rob
I have chosen to grow out rather than grow up.
Jim
Michael allowed me extra dinners because I chose him first. 😉
Chuck Smith.
I’d ask him how that curse worked out and what he thinks of the BG situation now that he (assumed by many evangelicals) sees and knows all now that he’s in heaven (even though his body is still in the ground).
my son in Germany or the other in South Korea. I’m a simple man… 😉
#18 Yep, Steve nailed down a Jesus juke there.
No one in particular for the meal thing.
Michael,
What if Calvin wants to come out to Oregon to have dinner, maybe meet you at the nearest Denny’s or McDonald’s. Will it seem as spiritual and deep a conversation when its under fluorescent lighting? Maybe over a Salisbury steak or a Big Mac. Can you imagine the looks you’ll get from the other diners, especially if comes dressed like he is in the picture above.
I’ll take Martin Luther- same problem with apparel but add in his rather “earthy” way of speaking and there will be even more looks- at least there will be if the nearby diners understand German…
Others on the short list:
1. Adam. I’d like to know if he was literal…and if he has a belly button. I’d be curious to know what it was like for him being created as an Adult with no childhood, etc and how long it took him to name every last animal species on the planet, as there are millions….and what language he spoke, since there were only him and Eve…did they have some sort of innate language they were born with? Etc. But, again, Adam is in the ground, so not sure whether I’d be having dinner with his resurrected body or some sort of disembodied spirit…so.
2. Nikolai Tesla. I’d like to pick that dude’s brain about Resonance.
3. Young Elvis, before he got fat and puffy and drugged out. I’d bring a guitar for him.
4. Raquel Welch…only at about 30 years old.
5. My Kiddos. I think I’ll do it again tonight.
Bob gets multiple dinners because he’s buying. 🙂
My dinner with Calvin wouldn’t be real “spiritual”.
He was an introvert with a bit of a temper who was forced into the public arena and suffered because of it.
I can relate.
He wrote volumes and volumes with a quill…and I can’t finish one book.
He rarely wrote in peace…he had a houseful of orphans around constantly.
He was lied about and slandered mercilessly…and finished well.
I like the guy…
Dinner with Daniel would be good but not in his den.
I wouldn’t mind eating with Jacob and Esau, they understood food.
Eating with Paul at Corinth would have some fascination.
Who wouldn’t eat with John the revelator as long as scrolls were not the menu?
Otherwise, Henry the VIII … theology, marriage, and food.
RB,
Thumbs up on young Elvis and Tesla(!).
My list JFK
Augustine
Noah for similar reasons as RB.
Jack Chick
anyone of the disciples
Mahatma Gandhi
Actually, I would like to have a nice quiet dinner alone.
My Dad.
I miss him something fierce.
C.S. Lewis – I can’t believe I’m the first one to mention him.
Jack chick – That would be an interesting one, Brian.
Actually. how about dinner with God the Father…alone, without Jesus and the Holy Spirit, those two are always hanging around, just some alone time with the Father LOL.
…they are three separate beings, no? Or are they all one being? I always get confused with regard to the Trinity.
You did say “person” and I’ve heard you refer to God as “three persons’ in One…and others have commented how they have the Trinity all figgered out. Somehow, I can’t seem to get my head around it, but I keep trying 🙂
So you know for a fact Calvin was slandered? Maybe there was truth to the accusations, you don’t know and I don’t know cuz we both weren’t even alive. Stop hero worshipping. For me it would be “Dr. D” David Shultz
#36 Was close to a Jesus juke, but not quite there.
Try again.
Solomon,
There are these things called “history books” You may want to read one.
Marcel Marceau
Red Skelton
Michael,
If we have to sift through lifetimes of books about the real Calvin, where does that leave Chuck Smith?
I’d also like to have dinner with John Galt.
Gary,
It doesn’t say anything.
We have letters from Calvin, from his friends, and his enemies.
There is a great deal of scholarship available on Calvin and more being translated every day.
That is the work of the historian.
So far, nobody has written an biography of Smith that includes any controversial matter at all.
They will.
RB,
Before the fat lady sings, a lot of us may dine with Mr Galt. Your kids and my grandkids may very well live in the gulch.
Moe, Larry, and Curly. Food fight! Imagine the glory of being hit in the face with a pie thrown by an actual Stooge.
Lonnie Frisbee, that would be a trip.
I’m going to be having lunch with the closest friend I had in my youth who was also the best man at my wedding. After being saved I became black and white about everything. In my mind I needed to cut out my non christian friends and come out of the world.
He tried so hard to maintain our friendship but I pretty much walked away from it in the name of being holy. We were as close as brothers and I want so much to explain what happened. As a teenager I had so many close friends but somewhere along the way I forgot how to do friends.
I’m happy he wants to have lunch with me and is looking forward to it. I’d rather have lunch with a friend than a hero…
Football player: Brett Farve, tough as nails
Basketball player: Dennis Rodman, interesting
Baseball player:Pete Rose, played the game the way it should be played
Hockey player: Brett Hull, cornerstone of my St. Louis Blues for years.
Tennis:Serena Williams, she’s a gorgeous brickhouse
MMA: Fedor, dominated PRIDE for so long
Boxing: Mike Tyson, met him already, was cool as hell
I met Lonnie the second time he was at CCCM. It really wasen’t much of a trip. I’ll get beat up for this, but he was pretty much a jerk by them.
Jim Elliot, a humble man of God who gave his life serving God by serving others. He never made millions, never had a book on the best sellers list, never had a radio program or even pastured a church. But few in this life will be used by God to reach others for Christ like him.
Boy, do I hate spell check… 🙁
RB Dr. Packer has done some very powerful yet concise work on the Trinity. Here is a PDF that might help.
http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ji_packer/ji_packer.Trinity.pdf
Randall…not surprising.
Jim Elliot is a wonderful example and I am sure a wonderful man.
One other avenue I would like to pursue. Since it was common in my early Christian experience to compare all of us to say Hitler, Pol Pot, Dalmer, Richard Ramirez add your own serial killer evil monster. The way it basically came out is that we are born so evil, vile … that we would make Hitler look like a choirboy in our unregenerate state. I would like to meet one of these folks before the committed their crimes to see if I am actually worse than they are. Dont know if I would want to have dinner with them.
We weren’t born evil and vile. We were born with a sin nature.
Sin in and of itself is not necessarily evil or vile
Wow MLD that is sort of like I think but that is not what I was taught, before we were born we hated God and were vile, evil etc. and that is the mild version.
Sol Rod, met Rodman a few times, Meh. just a little boy who never grew up.
Also my grandma on my dads side.
I think we would have a lot to talk about and I wish I had known her more.
The religion my dad belonged to (have no idea what it was. One of those mystery things we never talked about except when he told me I was going to hell once because I did not belong to his church)
If course, he never invited us or told us about it so I guess he didn’t think it was all too horrible that his whole family would wind up there….
But anyway…I hear my Geandma was an amazing preacher and people lived to hear her preach.
I wish I knew more about her life.
Loved not lived.
“Sin in and of itself is not necessarily evil or vile”
MLD, can you explain what you mean by this?
Jim, LOL! Yup.
Sin is sin – it is not necessarily evil and vile.
If I drive by a person with a flat tire on the freeway, because I am late or my mind is cluttered, well that is a sin – I have not served my neighbor … but is it evil and vile?
MLD,
I agree sin in and of itself may not be evil but it is never by itself. Let me explain, sin by nature is rebellion towards God. God is the judge and no one else not society or some other standard such as serving the poor person having the flat tire. Anything that is an offense to God I would say is evil.
So, in God’s eyes, my passing the guy with the flat tire is just as evil as a baby killer.
Try preaching that one around town.
MLD,
I never said passing the guy with the flat tire was a sin. You are the one that made that judgement and called it a sin which I thought was one of the most ridiculous things I have heard.
sin of omission, if we are to serve our neighbor.
It’s kind of like passing on the other side of the road to avoid helping someone who had been beaten by marauders. Too bad Jesus never spoke to this.
Michael #43,
So then, who do we believe, Calvin or his detractors? How do we know who is telling the truth? And this after hundreds of years. I see a similar aftermath about Chuck.
How about lunch with Chuck and Calvin? I wouldn’t get a word in but I’d certainly get an earful!
MLD,
Yeah and we have a lot of neighbors. You mentioned you would be late for something. How about all those neighbors? How about your wife, family, etc…? I believe it could even be sin to stop for this flat tire guy considering all the others you will let down. It would not be wise to put yourself in danger on the highway which could cause harm. It may even be illegal to stop such as it is in many states with hitch hikers. There are too many unknowns to say this is definitely sin. I believe only a legalist would call this sin. I believe there are degrees of sin and some if more evil than others but never the less, all sin is evil since it is ultimately God we sin against.
Gary,
People are not either all saint or all sinner.
We are simultaneously both.
We look at the most complete historical picture of people and we acknowledge their triumphs and their failures.
See my new article on Luther as an example.
Andrew,
OK, I just used black marker in my Bible to cover over the story of the Good Samaritan – how did I miss Jesus’ error all these years – these folks were to busy with other obligations and did not want to let down those people.
MLD,
I love the story of the Good Samaritan. Its a wonderful lesson for all of us but you seem to be making a case that every time we see a guy with a flat tire we are to stop and help because its a sin not to. Albeit not an evil sin according to you but apparently one that Jesus had to die for. Or are you saying there are some good sins or casual sins that Jesus didn’t need to die for? That is a bunch of hogwash.
Speaking of the good Samaritan, a friend of mine just pointed out to me of another Samaritan and I had never noticed it. Can anyone tell me what the significance is of the leper who went back to thank the Lord, (LUKE 17:11-19) that he was a Samaritan. Obviously he would not go to the priest…he was not a Jew…he would not be allowed in the Temple. AND Jesus commanded the other lepers (the JEWS) to go to the priest and be declared clean, which was what the law said to do. (and stories like Namaan doing what the prophet told him to do, so obeying the voice of the prophet and continuing to go see the priest)
So when the Samaritan leper went back, Jesus was the only place for him to go to give thanks to God. The other (Jews) lepers were doing just what Jesus said to do. I’ve never heard anyone preach on the Samaritan leper having no where else to go to “thank God” but to go to Jesus or that the other lepers did just what Jesus told them to do. I’m intrigued. Any comments?
Nonnie,
That would be the “good Samaritan leper”. I read the passage. It doesn’t say that only one was a Samaritan. Jesus was in Samaria. They were most likely all Samaritans. Jesus told them to go to the priest so that’s what they did. Only one was thankful enough to go back to Jesus. The passage doesn’t say what happened to the rest. They probably continued on they way and either went to the priest or went home. They would not have had to go inside the temple to see a priest. On the other hand the priests may have been too holy to go near lepers. I doubt they had any experience with lepers who had been cleansed or cured.
To me the significance was that he was so happy and thankful that it was more important to thank his healer than to go immediately to the priest. Maybe he was more capable of loving Jesus than the others. He may have gone back to the priest afterward as it would be a great benefit to be restored to society.
Gary, I thought the Samaritan could not go to the priest, since the Jews hated the Samaritans??
“People are not either all saint or all sinner.
We are simultaneously both.”
Yep, devil inside.
Since the Samaritans used the Pentateuch, I have to wonder if Jesus meant for them to go to their own priest.
Given Luke, I think it is safe to say the implication is that the other 9 were Jews. And the significance is what comes out from the plain reading – like the Good Samaritan story also told in Luke. Some make the additional point that a physical healing really is incomplete unless it leads to faith in Jesus (as He notes at the end when the guy returns)
However, we definitely can say that Jesus said show yourself to the priests (plural).
The Samaritans had priests too – thus it is possible that is why Jesus used the plural. Jews to one priest, Samaritan to another. The Samaritan could go to Mt. Gerizim if he was told to offer a sacrifice, as the Jew would go to Jerusalem. Of course, this would assume Jesus gave some sort of acknowledgement to Samaritan worship, which seems unlikely too. So maybe the priests in the plural is just because there were ten of them and they would likely go their own ways (rather than stay as one large bunch)
Samaritans also could go to the temple (if they wanted, but likely few did) – though they were forbidden from going into the inner area reserved just for the Jews. And of course, until given the “OK” from the priest(s) none of them were going to go to the temple anyway (as lepers).
Nonnie, I think your friend gives a great example of what I call something that preaches well – but it may not really be the point of the story. And is missing a little in accuracy. Just my two cents.
How could the other 9 be Jews? Why would they be in Samaria with Samaritans since they hated the Samaritans? The only way would be if there was only one leper colony and it was in Samaria. It’s possible but not likely imo. Where is the inference that any were Jews?
Thanks, guys. I always thought the point of the story was gratitude, and praise to Jesus. But it hadn’t occurred to me before that they did do exactly what Jesus (and the law) told them to do. I just wondered if there was significance to that.
Thanking Jesus trumps the Law. 😉
Gary, ^^
Gary, not real clear if he was IN Samaria, or just around the border. My inference is the specific reference to this “foreigner” which seems to contrast to the others for whom Jesus also expected a return thank you. But like many places in Scripture, we can tread lightly on such ponderings and focus on definitely the key thing that jumps out.
I also think it is fitting for Luke to make Samaritans, Gentiles, women as seen in better light than the average Jews.
I spoke about this in my Bible class 2 or 3 Sundays ago. The Luke passage was one of the readings and even though I was teaching in Hebrews some of the folks started the class asking about the “other 9”. Were they not really healed, were they not saved like the one who returned, and even as Nonnie’s friend suggested, perhaps they were doing what they were told.
My reply? the story was not about the other 9 – it was about the one and we cannot say anything about the other 9 because the Bible does not say anything about the other 9.
Ok, no one will probably know these, but I have a couple.
Alex Zanardi, and he will bring MaxPapis. (I think they are brothers in law)
Maybe Orson Scott Card. Kathy Reichs.
My dad and Grandma. I miss them. I’d like to know if they would like who I am today.
Since we believe in the inspiration of scripture I think few things would exceed speaking to authors of texts if for no other reason than to ask them what the heck they were intending to tell us or in the case of some if they even knew.
Wouldn’t you like to ask Daniel about the 70 weeks, or Ezekiel about the temple, a discussion of the “righteousness of God” with Paul and how much fun to lay out our eschatologies to John and Paul and see if they even recognize what we are promoting.
And who wouldn’t want to talk to the author of Hebrews just to discover who it is. And a bit of talk with Noah about waters and Adam about days would be delicious.
After those things then I want to talk to martyrs, dictators and explorers.
And then there is Marilyn and JFK
Theologians wouldn’t interest me at all in comparison to the aforementioned. They all have written enough for me to figure them out.
Ok except for P T Forsyth, that guy would be a blast.
MLD, thank you, also!
And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:
Jesus is in the midst of Samaria and Galilee. In a certain village.
Jesus is in the midst of Samaria and Galilee.
————————————————
Gary, how can he be in two places at once? 🙂 Samaria and Galilee are different regions
However, it says he was passing through both regions (probably an ingressive imperfect tense)…on his way to Jerusalem. Indicating the journey that was taking some time.
We really don’t know exactly where that village is.
Even the Firesign Theater couldn’t be in 2 places at once, and while I am often tense and the definition of imperfect, I don’t want to be ingressive.
As I look at the map of Israel (or is it Judah?) during the time of Jesus I see that Samaria is about 40 miles north of Jerusalem and Galilee is about 30 miles north of Samaria. From reading the verse I get the sense that Jesus is in Samaria, or Galilee, or somewhere in between. It looks to me like the village was in “the midst of Samaria and Galilee”.
I suppose a group of lepers could include Jews and Samaritans but certainly not by choice. Jewish lepers would only be with Samaritan lepers if there was no other option. The Samaritan would be a leper among lepers.
Maybe Luke’s purpose was to show the Hellenists that they, too were offered healing and salvation by Jesus.
My commentaries seem to assume he was likely on the border of Samaria – explaining the mixture of lepers (if indeed it was a mixture)
Maj. Frank Winters. Imagine the stories…
Brian Regan. Though it would be hard to eat while laughing
and Dietrich Bonhoeffer
and as a fly fisherman, Frank Moore. WW2 vet from Normandy and fly fishing expert. I cannot wait to see this documentary. Absolutely incredible idea for a documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4aaWTWuoE