The Shack

Introduction:
The Shack is a movie written by William Young, based around the main character Mackenzie Phillip, whose daughter (Missy) was abducted during a family vacation camping in the wilderness. There was evidence of the daughter being murdered in a shack in the mountains. This is where the author begins to bring in Christian beliefs mixed with theological ideas into the movie. We live in a very visual society and Young attempted to present biblical truths using human visuals for the trinity.  He also used nature to present human frailties and struggles.

Point 1: Is God a Man or a Woman?
In the Shack, William presents God as 3 images. God was once a man and a woman. Possibly, the author presented God as God, the Holy Spirit and the
Son. This makes it very heretical. Although we study the New Testament in class, in the Old Testament in Genesis 1:27 it says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he  created them." Mathew 6:9 states that the first person of the Trinity is Our Father. This also gave a vision that God can be in human form. I believe that Young made God in a feminine image because his father use to abuse him and he figured if God was in a male imagine, he would not think he loved him or cared for him because his biological father didn’t. A woman is more genuine.


Point 2: Gods Race throughout the movie
In the three divine trinities, he uses three different races. God was a black woman, the holy spirt was an Asian woman, and the Son was a Jewish boy. Revelations 7:9 explains how every nation, all tribes and peoples and languages, stood before the throne. This could have been the reason William used different nationalities to prove that God accepts all races.

Point 3: Jesus Walking on Water
John 6:16, the Bible talks about Jesus walking on water towards the boat of his disciples. Young creates a scene of Jesus walking on water towards Mack while he was sitting in a boat. In the biblical story, Peter is
called to keep his eyes on Jesus and then he could walk on water.  This story was supposed to be a representation of faith.  In Mack's portrayal, it was also a representation of faith in the persona that was supposed to be Jesus in the movie.

Point 4: The Garden
I liked how Young presented the Garden. The Garden represented thoughts that were clouding up Mack's mind from thinking about God. He allowed his problems to take over. Young presented this to show that this separated Mack from God. But this also taught the audience that the Holy Spirit is used to renew your mind as reflected in Ephesians 4:23 NLT.  I liked when Mack said it was a mess and Sarayu said "it is you."  We very seldom if ever want to admit to the mess in ourselves or our lives and the fact that it took someone else to bring that to light is quite in line with life as it is now.

Point 5: Mack's Punishment?
Did God punish Mack for murdering his abusive father by having his daughter abducted and murdered? Hebrews 12:6 says "For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” I agree that God does punish sinners but does he really take it that far? In the movie when Mack suggested to God that he punishes, God said he does not punish but only works in situations that are bad/evil.  I am not sure if I fully agree with this line of thinking simply because in the Old Testament the word wrath is often used in describing God's feelings toward Israel when they were disobedient. This is however a New Testament class so in the New Testament the word wrath is not used as much if at all. Also, Jesus took on the sins of mankind which probably means he took on the punishment.  Mack was asked was he the judge throughout the movie to show that we cannot judge life because we do not see the whole picture as God does.  The movie never mentioned that God judged or punished.

Conclusion:
I do believe that Young for the most part stayed in line with our text. I feel that he tried to present a visual presentation of the words written.  I do not feel that his characterizations were a good match for portraying God.  The actress that portrayed God did not seem to represent a godly figure.  On the other hand, the actress who portrayed the Holy Spirit presented a compassionate and caring manner about her character.  The Bible speaks that the Holy Spirit is our comforter and she projected that feeling in her performance.  The character that represented Jesus was acceptable in the fact that the Bible presents Jesus as a friend to mankind and he acted like Mack's friend in the movie. Jesus walking on water was much related to our text as it is in the Bible. The Garden was a great visual of the thoughts that were cluttered in Mack's mind, but it was a bit confusing at first. This was related in our text but not how Young used it. Mack's punishment was not truly a punishment. God was trying to heal him from what had happened in his life not punish him. All in all, this movie had good points that were related to our text and points that just didn't make sense to me. I enjoyed this movie!

Is Peter the true Author of 1 and 2 Peter?

Did Peter Write 1 and 2 Peter?

Who is Simon Peter?

Simon Peter was one of the original twelve apostles called by Jesus Christ.  He became a strong leader in the early church. In Matthew 16:18 was referred to by Jesus as a "rock."  Peter was a Galilean fisherman who along with his brother Andrew became an apostle of Jesus Christ.          1 Peter and 2 Peter carry his namesake however there is a question among scholars if Peter was truly the author of 1 Peter.

Arguments that Peter is not the Author

To consider whether or not Peter wrote the book of 1 Peter one can first return to his initial call from Jesus.  He was called while out on the water fishing.  Fishermen are not known for their intellect: not to say he was not an intellectual.   If we read in Acts 4:13 however he was acknowledged by the crowd as an "unlearned" man.  Eric Eve makes a valid argument against the author being Peter because of its literary content and how it was written.  It would be difficult for an unlearned fisherman to have a command of the Greek writing of that period.

A second opinion that reflects doubt in Peter being the true author of 1 Peter comes from the observation of E.G. Selwyn who used a parallel between 1 Peter and 1 & 2 Thessalonians to substantiate a belief that Peter's authorship came from an indirect source.  This source named by Selwyn was Sylvanus, a traveling companion of Paul's.  This insinuates that Peter was not written by Peter but influenced by the secretary who was transcribing it.   Chiming in on a similar belief is Daniel Wallace.  He believed that Peter may have had an anonymous scribe writing for him but his suggestion was not Silvanus but Luke, another traveling companion of Paul's.

A third point brought out by Paul J. Achtemeier is that there is a lack of references to the life of Jesus.  According to Achtemeier, one would expect to hear more about the personal experience of walking with Jesus from someone who actually walked with him.  He points out the use of first and second person writing when it should have been consistent with just the first person if Peter was the author.  It is believable that if a person was writing they would speak from a personal perspective while if someone is relaying an experience or idea of someone else they would not speak in the first person. 

Argument that Peter is the author of 1 Peter

The first support that Peter is the author of 1 Peter comes from 1 Peter 1:1 where he states that this is Peter and a letter from himself.  Michael J. Krueger states that scholars and theologians are now just accepting the case of pseudepigraphy of the books attributed to Peter.  This acceptance however does not constitute fact or truth. 

https://youtu.be/OGaj4j_az98

Conclusion

Authenticity demands a great deal. When dealing with scriptures and years of revisions, this authenticity is even harder to obtain.  Because the Bible is a spiritual, a great deal of its acceptance comes from simple belief. The answer to whether Peter wrote this book is more than just a simple yes or no.  As we have studied about variants, the question is whether this variant is crucial to believing. For instance, the argument that it is written in first person or second person is not crucial to the event taking place or the statement being true.  It is a variant but it is not a discrediting variant.