I'm just popping in here really quick to say that I think anyone who says God doesn't have a sense of humor has never seen a duck-billed platypus.

*giggle* Or a lot of things in nature!

I must say that I found the idea of a humorless Jesus to be quite disturbing, as well as the implications of the statement "people are suffering so we should never be happy either." I...I'm not sure what to say to that. Just because bad things are happening in the world doesn't mean we have to weep and gnash our teeth and never laugh again. How would Jesus have attracted so many people if he had been somber and serious and strict?

What? A duck-billed platypus? They are cute, adorable critters - in the wild. And long may they survive. Now this debate is getting like World Series Debating, with the topic under discussion being 'Does God have a sense of humour?' I think this was actually done, with the Government side winning hands down. Their winning argument? God - however He went about it - created us humans. No ribbing please!

Of course Jesus had a sense of humour. A good sense of repartee as well. He needed to be witty, because of Pharisees trying all the time to make Him look in the wrong. Some of His answers, like Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God, or Sabbath is made for man, not Man for the Sabbath are terrific and memorable one-liners and some of His sayings have passed into ordinary speech. In the end, it was the legalistic Pharisees who looked stupid.

Just a quick note before this gets lost in the shuffle.

Why did the angels visit the shepards first? The answer is not because they were the closest, even though that may be the case. The answer also lies in the answer to why were women the first to hear about the Ressurection. If the birth or the Resurrection were ever to be a hoax, sheperds and women would NEVER be considered to be the first ones to start it. If it was a hoax, it would have been squashed in a matter of minutes. By choosing the lowest in the social standings to start the fire, God validated the story by ruling out the possibility of it being a hoax.

True. Bethlehem was so crowded that week that Joseph and Mary found no room at the inn, or anywhere else, and had to bed down in the stable. I'm sure there were closer potential witnesses, maybe even some who knew there was a woman in labor out there. But none of them were chosen to hear first and understand first. They heard it from the shepherds. In like manner, I'm sure there were plenty of prosperous, respectable people in town who could have been the first high-status witnesses, but the Magi -- rich aliens but still Gentile aliens -- were the first witnesses of that category.

From Matthew 2

3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ[c] was to be born. 5 "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
6 " 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'[d]"

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east[e] went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

...

16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi

It took some time for "all Jerusalem" to hear the rumors in the pre-radio days. It took time for Herod to summon all his counsellors from wherever in the country they were working. It took time for the Magi to find the child (not newborn), who by now was living in a house (not a stable). By the time the Magi met Jesus, the Babe had probably mastered roll over, sit up, and probably was working on first words and first steps. That was why Herod decreed the death of children aged two years old and under, in the assumption that Jesus was in there somewhere. But He wasn't a newborn anymore.

A lot of churches and families don't ban the Wise Men from their Nativity Scene but instead put them a short distance away and move them closer day by day to illustrate their dedication to find and honor the Christ Child.

...

PS: Where's the button to un-center the text? I don't like center but the forums do. When someone uses it, it bleeds over into all the following posts until the page rolls over.

I thought I'd toss this in for good measure, though I'm a bit late to the party. I remember as a young man our Sunday school teacher tackling the "humorless God" issue and she gave us an excerpt from Psalms 2:

1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.

Now clearly the verses are talking about how God reacts to the foolish attempts of mankind to do their own thing without His guidance, and sometimes taking a direct stand against Him and His people (it strikes me that this psalm is pretty applicable for today). But the fact remains that it clearly says that God laughs, and that's something that should be contemplated before applying a "God is all business with no time for laughter" methodology.

Now being something of a ham in real life if I get to Heaven and discover that my hamminess is not allowed and that Heaven is a "No Ham Zone", boy am I in trouble.

Um, there sure are a lot of verses quoted about how He Layeth the Smacketh Down Upon Thou Vile Sinner, Thou ... but all these quotes about Nelson Laughing Heaven make Spock-Heaven start to look good. I thought we were aiming more for (Laughing Jesus) and less (Nelson gloating).

Furthermore, it does Jesus’ humanity a great disservice to say that Jesus never laughed, as if laughter was somehow sinful. Jesus was 100 percent God and 100 percent man. Does God laugh? He must! Ever seen a platypus? … Ever seen yourself? He saved you and me both! That is perhaps the most hilarious and sobering thought of all. And laughing at ourselves, even unkindly, when we mess up helps keep us humble. Surely He laughs at us too, even while being serious and holy. And we give Him glory for it.

I wonder if He is having a good chuckle right now at this very conversation and all of us in it? Wouldn't surprise me

I bet he is laughing at us. I also love your examples, Dr. Ransom. Your point about his saving us is very good. I’ve been thinking a lot about Dufflepuds lately and that at times we must look a lot like Dufflepuds to God. (I don’t mean that we have only one leg and are hopping around but that we are doing / thinking silly things ). I think of him sitting up there watching us, laughing and saying, “There they go burying boiled potatoes again.” (Obviously, he would fill in the potato part with whatever silly thing it is we are doing but can’t see that it is silly.) I’ve recently started reading the Bible through again. I’m in Genesis and have actually been reading the footnotes (I didn’t realize what I was missing.). Many of the names of people are a play on words. Also, we must not forget that Isaac means “laughter.” Studies have shown that laughing is beneficial to people’s health. (Unless of course one has laugh induced asthma as I do. That really is a pain. ) It does not seem logical to me that something that is good for people is sinful in itself. Sure it can be used in a sinful way, but it can also be used for good.

I do hope you will think about this further, and not just proceed (um, as before) to keep repeating the same assertions, or move on to a new topic, and thus maybe miss out on something the Spirit might be trying to tell you — something new and unpredictable, something He has tried to say in the Scripture He inspired.

Not to seem rude but would you mind taking a little of your own advice? I’ve asked you questions a couple of times see this post and as far as I can tell you have not answered.

I think the Nicene and / or Apostles’ Creeds are very important. I got a little confused by what others were saying about them, but here’s what I think. Obviously the creeds are not more important than the Bible, but I think they serve well as a basic summary of Christian beliefs. I feel that they must be a true and orthodox interpretation because Christians regardless of place in history, denomination, etc. use the creeds (as far as I can tell from my limited knowledge of the history of Christians and other denominations). Christians have disagreed and even to the point of physical fights over other parts of the scriptures, but the creed has remained intact. Should we focus on the creed and exclude all else? Of course not, it is a starting point and not an end.

This is kind of just hopping in randomly, but you guys are talking about God having a sense of humor? Well of course. I would say God experiences every single human emotion there is, including laughter. We wouldn't be made in his image than.

Whether or not God's 'humor' is anything like ours or not I can't say, but I do think that knowing the joy of God would help out a lot of gloomy Christians. Have you noticed how a lot of times we become overly interested in things like dying to the world and ourselves to the detriment of things like falling in love with Christ and rejoicing in new life? We make ourselves great tragic heroes on the stage of God's kingdom; great, self-pitying fools strutting about the dark and empty theatre of the world, flinging military verses at ourselves and each other, and for what?
So that we might attain happiness in a better world. But shouldn't we be great lovers instead? For every lover is already dead to himself and alive to the beloved. Should we not die to ourselves for the love of God now, and for his Kingdom, which is already established in every corner of creation, rather than for hope of future reward? It is a good thing to look forward to heaven, but it is a far better thing to look forward to heaven and rejoice in being a child of God, and a citizen in his kingdom right now. Rejoice in God, for he delights in us!

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He laughed, he cried, he may have got stomach aches. Frankly, I'm disturbed by all the sullen paintings of Christ. Yes, he was a Man of Sorrows but He was a three-dimensional being. I've always seen Him as someone who would have shared a good joke, had a good time, while recognising the fallen nature of the world and a need for hope through Him. God invented laughter. They say laughter is the best medicine. We can then assume that God is the best Doctor, ever.
It disturbs me to think that God didn't laugh, that there is no place for laughter in the Bible and that Christians shouldn't laugh. What a horrible existence that would be!

Hey back, Pattertwigs Pal. No, that’s not rude at all, because it did seem like I was ignoring you before. Either I missed your questions entirely, or I saw them and then got distracted and forgot them. That’s been known to happen.

With that in mind, I wish I had said this before in my paragraph to 220, recognizing that it could be that she has forgotten what was said before and gotten distracted.

Anyhoo, I’ll play a little catchup, with another repentance here for not getting back with you at the time. This goes back to the topic a few weeks ago, about hymns or songs with lyrics that don’t match up with Biblical teaching. My point is that while surely God can use even a less-optimal song or hymn as a means of accomplishing His will, that doesn’t mean we turn into undiscerning fatalists who will also use anything to try to “get” to someone, the same way God is able to do.

As an example, I asked what if there was a hymn that talked about forgiving people so you wouldn’t be guilty of sin when you died and thus go to Purgatory (which to many Christians is an un-Biblical concept). The root idea is good: it’s a song encouraging forgiving attitudes, of course. But the song’s motivation would not be good, because it promotes wrong ideas. The same is true about the real-life song discussed at the time, which encouraged evangelism (a good thing) because if we don’t, then we are going to be sorry in Heaven (not Biblical!).

Anyway, I had to set that up, partly for my own review and partly so it wouldn’t seem so abrupt here. In response, you, Pattertwigs Pal, had asked:

I have a few questions about this description / scenario. First, when you are talking about the Hymn you would want banned are you talking about one based on Ephesians or one that says you will suffer if you do not forgive other’s sins?

In the example, it was the same hypothetical hymn, a song that would encourage forgiveness (as the Ephesians verse said) and also say if you don’t, you will suffer in Purgatory or might become unsaved, etc. The forgive-others part is absolutely Biblical. The part that denies the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for those who are truly His people is not.

Next, I thought Protestants didn’t believe in Purgatory or were just using that as a hypothetical example?

We don’t — or at least, it’s not part of orthodox beliefs. (Some, such as Greg Boyd, do in fact advocate a kind of Purgatory, and still try to stay within the evangelical camp! making me wish we, too, could have a kind of “pope” — maybe John MacArthur — and kick them out. Yet I think such a setup would bring even more problems.) So yes, I was using it as a hypothetical example.

Again, this is why I don’t pick on Catholics overmuch; I’m not saying that would be wrong, but I see so many errors on the Protestant side that I stay busy here (I hope always doing it with love, even tough love). And of course, I’m trying to deal with the errors in my own thinking! Both “sides” have issues. For Catholics, I believe one large error is implying (or saying directly) that Christ’s sacrifice was not enough; it needs to be re-presented (as jbc clarified) at the Mass for it to be effective. For Protestants, one error is believing that our main motivation for evangelism is so we won’t be directly responsible with “blood on our hands” in Heaven. For me, I’m concerned with the latter error more than the former, though I believe talking about the former is vital.

Finally, isn’t their more to forgiving sins of others than just what is in that verse from Ephesians? I’m sure I’ve heard that we are required to forgive the sins of others in order for our sins to be forgiven. (This is based on the Lord’s prayer

Forgiveness should be a naturally occurring attitude for Christians, out of gratitude that God has forgiven us of far worse sins. (I’ve spent a lot of time during the past couple of years re-learning this, and I’m still working on it!) A lot of verses in the Sermon on the Mount (or Luke’s “sermon on the plain”) seem to have if/then meanings about how to live, but the whole context indicates Jesus was saying this mainly to His disciples, telling them about Kingdom living. All of what He says — turn the other cheek, do unto others, avoid hypocritical judgments, etc. — are things that are impossible to do without Him. That includes forgiving others.

One helpful elaboration on what Jesus said is found here:

There are no unforgiving people in the kingdom of God. But then who can be saved? With men it is impossible, but not with God (Mark 10:27).

[. . .]

Forgiveness is not a work by which we earn God’s forgiveness. It flows from a heart satisfied with the mercy of God and rejoicing in the cancellation of our own ten million dollar debt (Matthew 18:24). With man it is impossible, but not with God. “Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 7:19). But the plant which endures does so because it is planted by God (Matthew 15:13). No one can boast in his self-wrought merit before God (Luke 17:10); and it is not the rigorous following of rules but a poor spirit and a total reliance on God’s mercy which attains a standing before God (Luke 18:9-14; Matthew 5:3).

Pal, you had more questions at the top of this post that I also failed to get back to you about. I can do that a little later today if you wish, or via PM. Just let me know! And again, so sorry to have missed those before.

Hey back, Pattertwigs Pal. No, that’s not rude at all, because it did seem like I was ignoring you before. Either I missed your questions entirely, or I saw them and then got distracted and forgot them. That’s been known to happen. ...
Pal, you had more questions at the top of this post that I also failed to get back to you about. I can do that a little later today if you wish, or via PM. Just let me know! And again, so sorry to have missed those before.

No problem, about missing them. I'm glad I didn't seem rude. Yes, I still would like answers to those questions at the top of that post. (The ones about your quote). It doesn't matter to me if you do it here or via PM. Thanks!

I think that this discussion should be broken into two categories. First, should funny and slanderous depictions, ideas, and anecdotes that don't take God seriously be considered good? Answer, absolutely not. Anything that doesn't take god seriously is just not funny no matter how funny it is. Second, does God have a sense of humor and does God want happiness for his people? Answer, definitely. Why did Jesus die on the cross if he did not want happiness for his people? If not, then he died on the cross for some mysterious and selfish reason of his own and that would not only make him not funny at all but a contradiction to himself. As for God's sense of humor consider the story of Gideon. God tells him to go down into the enemies camp and that one of enemy would actually predict their own destruction. I'm laughing already but consider Gideon's army compared to the one that he is up against... and one of the enemy is going to predict their own destruction. When the enemy does predict their own destruction what is the form that it takes; "I saw a round loaf of bread come rolling through the camp". The other guy interprets it and says "I know what that means, that is the sword of Gideon". Can you imagine Gideon at this point; "round loaf of bread=sword, round loaf.... sword.... huh". At that moment in time Gideon was probably tempted to not take God seriously but as you should know the rest of the story God came through for the Israelites. Can you see what I mean though, and that God does have a sense of humor?

Jesus and laughter in this thread ... wow

Some commentators have noted that there is no biblical record of Jesus laughing. I have problems with such an image anyway, as I’ve already explained and others have ridiculed. If you don’t have such a problem, fine. But I also have problems with those who equate being serious-minded [which most in this forum are] with being dour, dull, or sad-faced. I think Jesus was serious-minded. I honestly don’t think He ever laughed. Again, if you disagree, fine. At the same time, I don’t think Jesus was dull or sad-faced or resembled the hypocritical Pharisees in any way. Yes, Jesus was 100% human. But let’s not make Jesus so human that we forget He’s also 100% God. When the disciples returned from their mission and told Jesus the demons were subject to them, “Jesus rejoiced in spirit” [Luke 10]. What was His reaction? Thankful prayer.

Does God not want us to laugh? Of course not. As Pattertwig pointed out, Isaac means "laughter." And Abraham and Sarah laughed when told they would have a son [Gen 17:17, 18:12]. Yes, I'm sure they probably thought the idea of a couple ages 90 and 100 would have a child pretty funny. But what was God's response? "Why did Sarah laugh? Nothing is impossible with Me." [Gen 18 free translation ] Also, I like Watz's account of Gideon and his 300 overcoming the Midianites. Yeah, pretty cool. And as many of you have pointed out, there are plenty of Bible verses on laughter and mirth. What's the theme of Philippians? We should rejoice in the Lord. And what about this in Nehemiah? "The joy of the Lord is your strength" [8]. But I hesitate to equate joy with humor or laughter. We can have deep, abiding joy in the middle of great stress and heartache, when laughter seems completely inappropriate.

Is laughter a sin? No. I laugh at family members’ jokes and at comical situations. I laugh during Wednesday night services sometimes. Some old saints have a good sense of humor. They've seen it all. But I’m still wondering how much excessive laughter is a modern phenomenon. [Also note that demons laugh. I wonder why.] How often did saints of old laugh? How often did they pray and cry? In some past generations, excessive laughter was a sign of frivolity and worldliness. People who frequently attended amusements were thought in need of salvation. Today people love watching sitcoms and listening to Christian comedians [an oxymoron in my book]. Maybe we should pray more and watch TV less. Jesus is coming. No one laughs in Revelation. No one. Because nothing in that book is funny. The angels and 24 elders are too busy humbling themselves and worshipping Christ. They’re too busy witnessing God’s righteous judgment on sinners. Think about all the theophanies and visits of angels in the Bible: Hagar [Gen 16], Abraham and Sarah [Gen 18], Jacob wrestling with the angel [Gen 32], Balaam [Num 22], Joshua meeting the Captain of the Lord’s host [Josh 6], Samson’s parents [Judg 13], David and the angel with a sword [2 Sam 24], Isaiah seeing God high and lifted up [Is 6], Ezekiel seeing the 4 living creatures and God on the throne [Ezek 1], Daniel and a vision of a “heavenly messenger” [Dan 10], Zecharias [Luke 1], Mary [Luke 1], and John [Rev 1]. All these times, what are the people’s reactions? Laughter? No. Humility and a sense of sinfulness. My point? As someone noted in Ecclesiastes [3], there’s "a time to weep and a time to laugh." There's also a time for serious prayer, worship, and soul-searching. And right now, based on world events around us, I prefer the latter.

I discovered a book online yesterday called The Laughing Jesus. The authors argue against religious fundamentalism and for Gnostic spirituality. What are your thoughts on this?

What if it is possible to awaken to a profound state of oneness and love, which the Gnostic Christians symbolized by the enigmatic figure of the laughing Jesus? ... Discover for Yourself Why the Gnostic Jesus Laughs

If Jesus was so desperate to get people to believe Him, why hide the meanings in parables? Why say the same thing in dozens of different ways, often using hyperbole and humor to get the point across? Why was He so serious, yes, but also so confident about it? Yes, Jesus was serious, but He was also in charge. He knew what He came to do. He could preach repent-and-believe in different ways, often indirectly, and keep going, with time to spare, without being so desperate.

Jesus knew people's hearts. The disciples asked Him, "'Why do you speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand'" [Matthew 13:10-13]. The mysteries of the kingdom are hidden truths, hidden in plain sight. The spiritual man sees it; the natural man misses it [1 Corinthians 2:11-14]. Jesus didn't use parables just to be clever.

wisewoman: Have you been around children lately, pre-school and primary age? They’re much more sensitive than teenagers and adults: storms, earthquakes, hypocrites, pedophiles, etc. Yes, children have a sinful nature, but many gravitate toward good, humble people and seem to reject those who aren't. They understand and accept the gospel without arguments. Jesus wants us to be childlike in our faith [and adults in understanding]. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise” [Matt 21:16; cf Ps 8:2].

I have unsaved family members with small children. So my reaction to the topic of children and original sin is not “oh goody.” It’s the earnest prayer, “Lord Jesus, take them now or save them [and their parents]. Don’t let these children grow up in a heathen environment.”

TBG: You’re still not acknowledging what many church historians have, namely that Acts is considered the beginning or birth of the visible church. It consists of wheat and tares, which Jesus will separate when He returns. The visible church is the church as an institution. The invisible church is the true church, the body of Jesus Christ. And why consider the Nicene Creed, or any creed or doctrinal statement, the only orthodox interpretation of Scripture? Do you think the Spirit’s work among His people in creating statements of faith in every age since has been unorthodox? Do you think the church has degenerated doctrinally and spiritually? [By the way, I sat in on a historical theology class yesterday and the lecture was on the “Great schism of 1054.” Now I know what filioque means. And I think I prefer the Eastern Orthodox. ]

Are you saying that the Nicene Creed is all that counts for salvation?

What do you mean? No creed "counts for salvation." No creed saves. Jesus Christ alone saves, by our God-given faith in His blood.

(edited)

I hope TBG won't mind me speaking for him for a moment. I don't think he was saying that the Nicene Creed was the 'only' orthodox creed, but rather was saying it was a very important one.

The problem I have with the whole 'invisible' church idea is that it makes it very hard to find. You can't point and say, "There it is." If you ask various Christians where the true Church is..they all say there is one but are hardpressed to say where.

Christ wouldn't have gone through all went through to have the Church be hard to find and 'invisible' as it were. If the Church is a reflection of Christ is has to not only be Spiritual but Visible, just as He was "..the image of the invisible God."

JBC

jbc003: check out Wikipedia on "invisible church" and "visible church". It's imperfect but a starting point. I think the discussion on the difference between the two goes back to St. Ignatius and St. Augustine.

Visible: wheat [true believers] and tares [unbelievers, hypocrites, etc]. Read Jesus' parable on the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:24-30. And in Matt 13:37-43 Jesus explains the meaning of the parable to His disciples.

(edited)