EPIMENOS

Googling the Dead Sea Scrolls

2010-10-20T07:44:00.002-04:00

"The Israel Antiquities Authority and Google are teaming up to publish the Dead Sea Scrolls online."

Story at ReadWriteWeb.com.

Betrayal and Blood-Guilt

2010-10-03T19:41:00.003-04:00

Instead of the blood of the lamb being painted upon the post and lintel of their "house," the blood-money of the Lamb is thrown into the sanctuary of their house; the temple. This calls up the Avenger of Blood, Who executes vengeance upon the responsible party. Therefore their house is left desolate.

Bill Smith explains.

From Glory to Glory

2010-06-16T21:57:00.006-04:00

One must be struck by the maturation process throughout Scripture. Genesis shows us man - the first Adam - in a primordial, immature state. A keeper that hasn't kept, a conqueror who hasn't conquered. Revelation shows us man - the Last Adam - in a mature, eschatologically glorified state. An ever-faithful Son and Bridegroom, an Emperor Who goes out conquering and to conquer. In Genesis, the man is created naked. In Revelation, the Man is clothed in blinding glory.

God's second great act of creation was an expanse - a separation of heaven from earth. How often do we glaze over this, and miss the magnitude of God bringing His creation to maturity? Cosmological and metaphysical questions aside, there is a separation of "waters above" from "waters below," and a sharp distinction made between heaven and earth. On every day of creation, the Scriptures explicitly record God seeing that His work that day was good... except the second day, the day that the separation was created. Is this to suggest that this aspect of creation was bad? Of course not (Genesis 1:31). However, could this hint at a notion of incompleteness? Immaturity?

What we find at the end of the great Scriptural chiasm is telling, and glorious. In the beginning, we find heaven and earth separated. In the end, in glory, we find heaven invading earth. We find a New Heaven with a New Earth, joined by the New Jerusalem (the great Bride).

This is the great movement of Scripture, the great movement of human history: maturity unto glory. And all of this is done IN CHRIST. This is the LORD'S doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This 'New Creation' is heaven invading the earth. Christ Jesus is resurrected, ascended and glorified, the Firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29), and therefore we can say quite happily and boldly (and without fear of falling into hyper-preterist error), "Christ is the New Creation."

God and man come together IN CHRIST. Heaven and earth come together IN CHRIST. Is this not in complete, glorious keeping with the flow of Scriptural history: the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth? (Ephesians 1:10) The faithful are "new creations" because we are IN CHRIST (2Corinthians 5:17). Christ is not only our focal point, our pinnacle, in a philosophical or moral sense, He is very much the Center of all things in a very comprehensive way.

2,000 years ago, the Son of God came to end the old order of things, and inaugurate the New Heavens and New Earth; altering creation for the (infinitely) better, for all time. The last 2,000 years have simply been an outworking of that historical/cosmological change; as the next 2,000 years will be, as heaven and earth continue to come closer and closer, as God's kingdom comes and His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). This same One - whose glory blinded Paul for 3 days and sent John immediately to his knees in obeisance - this True Emperor invades this earth with His heavenly kingdom, calling out His Bride to bring heaven and earth together (Revelation 21:2-3). This is a marriage which affects all levels of existence.

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come."

Is This YOUR Worship?

2010-06-11T11:56:00.000-04:00

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Disjointed Yet Awesome Presentation by Darren Doane

2010-05-01T10:46:00.005-04:00

Christian Filmmaker? from Darren Doane on Vimeo.

Psalm 106: For Western Consideration

2010-03-12T15:28:00.000-05:00

1 Praise the Lord!
Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures forever!
2 Who can utter the mighty deeds of the Lord,
or declare all his praise?
3 Blessed are they who observe justice,
who do righteousness at all times!

4 Remember me, O Lord, when you show favor to your people;
help me when you save them, [1]
5 that I may look upon the prosperity of your chosen ones,
that I may rejoice in the gladness of your nation,
that I may glory with your inheritance.

6 Both we and our fathers have sinned;
we have committed iniquity; we have done wickedness.
7 Our fathers, when they were in Egypt,
did not consider your wondrous works;
they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love,
but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea.
8 Yet he saved them for his name's sake,
that he might make known his mighty power.
9 He rebuked the Red Sea, and it became dry,
and he led them through the deep as through a desert.
10 So he saved them from the hand of the foe
and redeemed them from the power of the enemy.
11 And the waters covered their adversaries;
not one of them was left.
12 Then they believed his words;
they sang his praise.

13 But they soon forgot his works;
they did not wait for his counsel.
14 But they had a wanton craving in the wilderness,
and put God to the test in the desert;
15 he gave them what they asked,
but sent a wasting disease among them.

16 When men in the camp were jealous of Moses
and Aaron, the holy one of the Lord,
17 the earth opened and swallowed up Dathan,
and covered the company of Abiram.
18 Fire also broke out in their company;
the flame burned up the wicked.

19 They made a calf in Horeb
and worshiped a metal image.
20 They exchanged the glory of God
for the image of an ox that eats grass.
21 They forgot God, their Savior,
who had done great things in Egypt,
22 wondrous works in the land of Ham,
and awesome deeds by the Red Sea.
23 Therefore he said he would destroy them—
had not Moses, his chosen one,
stood in the breach before him,
to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

24 Then they despised the pleasant land,
having no faith in his promise.
25 They murmured in their tents,
and did not obey the voice of the Lord.
26 Therefore he raised his hand and swore to them
that he would make them fall in the wilderness,
27 and would make their offspring fall among the nations,
scattering them among the lands.

28 Then they yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor,
and ate sacrifices offered to the dead;
29 they provoked the Lord to anger with their deeds,
and a plague broke out among them.
30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened,
and the plague was stayed.
31 And that was counted to him as righteousness
from generation to generation forever.

32 They angered him at the waters of Meribah,
and it went ill with Moses on their account,
33 for they made his spirit bitter, [2]
and he spoke rashly with his lips.

34 They did not destroy the peoples,
as the Lord commanded them,
35 but they mixed with the nations
and learned to do as they did.
36 They served their idols,
which became a snare to them.
37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to the demons;
38 they poured out innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was polluted with blood.
39 Thus they became unclean by their acts,
and played the whore in their deeds.

40 Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people,
and he abhorred his heritage;
41 he gave them into the hand of the nations,
so that those who hated them ruled over them.
42 Their enemies oppressed them,
and they were brought into subjection under their power.
43 Many times he delivered them,
but they were rebellious in their purposes
and were brought low through their iniquity.

44 Nevertheless, he looked upon their distress,
when he heard their cry.
45 For their sake he remembered his covenant,
and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
46 He caused them to be pitied
by all those who held them captive.

47 Save us, O Lord our God,
and gather us from among the nations,
that we may give thanks to your holy name
and glory in your praise.

48 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting!
And let all the people say, “Amen!”
Praise the Lord!

Psalm 134

2010-02-22T18:14:00.000-05:00

I cannot stop listening to this...

Sans Absolutus

2010-02-06T12:04:00.002-05:00

"Ultimately, without absolutes, we are left at the mercy of the strong, the powerful, and the perverse."

- Dr. George Grant

Genesis Redux

2010-02-01T21:23:00.002-05:00

"Part one of a new series from director Darren Doane. Genesis Redux will cinematically extract Genesis 1-8 through New Eyes. Building heavily on the works of James Jordan, Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart, Michael Bull and David Deutsch, GenRedux is a visual journey through the ancient texts."

Color me stoked!

Freedom From God = Fish Out of Water

2010-01-18T20:53:00.001-05:00

"When a fish tries to be free on shore or when a bird tries to be free under water then they, as it were, do what man has done by trying to be free from the requirements of the love of God. Seeking for this false freedom the sinner cannot help himself. But God, the triune God in Christ, and by the Spirit in his sovereign grace, reaches down to man to set him free."

- Cornelius Van Til
Review of De Leer van God bij Augustinus, by A. D. R. Polman. Westminster Theological Journal 29/1 (Nov 1966): 94–102. / Sigward 1966.A

Israel the Priestly Nation

2010-01-13T15:16:00.002-05:00

Pastor Smith puts it nicely:

Sin comes to a sharp focus in Israel. Here sin becomes transgression because the Law defines the lines that make sin a transgression. Israel’s position before God and for the world was to recognize this sin as transgression and deal with it accordingly. This is what a priest does. At the giving of the Law this is the purpose for which God set Israel aside, constituting her as a nation. Exodus 19:6 makes this clear: “‘And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” Israel’s vocation was to bring sin (which became transgression, an intensified form of sin) to the place of judgment, put it to death, receive life from God, and take that life to the world, making it fruitful in every sense of the word. As the world’s priest, Israel would draw upon herself the sins of the world and, in turn bring life to the world as a light to the nations. Offering gifts and sacrifices on the behalf of others is at least one of the various duties of a priest.

Israel’s priestly duty concerning the nations is most pointed demonstrated in the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths. While the Feast commemorates the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness, it looks to the ingathering of the nations into the people of God. In other words it looks toward the time when the world will be made alive. But in order for this to happen, sin must first be punished. During the week of worship, Israel was to offer up a total of seventy bulls. With the emphasis on the ingathering of the nations, it is difficult to miss the significance of the number seventy and its reference back to Genesis 10 and the Table of Nations. Israel was sacrificing for the nations. Israel did not exist for herself. She existed for the life of the world.

- William R. Smith, The Apocalypse of Faith: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3:19-29

COLLISION Outtake w/ Doug Wilson @ Columbia

2010-01-05T21:13:00.002-05:00

COLLISION: Doug Wilson outtake from LEVEL4 on Vimeo.

Song of Songs, by Leithart

2009-12-05T22:14:00.006-05:00

Christ Church - "Song of Songs," Peter Leithart from Daniel Foucachon on Vimeo.

THE GREAT DEBATE: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein

2009-11-07T17:27:00.002-05:00

Video #1

Video #2 (you get the idea...)

David Robertson on Dawkins' Morality

2009-11-07T12:46:00.001-05:00

"Honor Your Father"... in Greek

2009-11-03T20:46:00.002-05:00

Make Mine Freedom (1948)

2009-10-25T16:22:00.001-04:00

Christian Voodoo in Nigeria

2009-10-20T15:01:00.001-04:00

Sad struggle against child abuse at the hands of African Pentecostals. Story at MSNBC.

"An Evening of Eschatology"

2009-10-18T18:11:00.004-04:00

John Piper mediates a discussion between Jim Hamilton (premillennial), Sam Storms (amillennial), and Douglas Wilson (postmillennial - yeah!). Pretty interesting, somewhat lively, interaction.

Douglas Wilson did a pretty good job, though I wish he were more assertive (as he typically is). Jim Hamilton did an o.k. job, information-wise, but man was he a little obnoxious with all the interruptions. Sam Storms I thought did an excellent job, and perhaps was the best contributor overall (though I definitely agree more with Wilson's position, personally).

If you have 2 hours to kill, check it out:

"Hypocrisy in Presidential Rhetoric" for $500, Alex

2009-08-22T13:34:00.003-04:00

I know, there are bigger problems out there.

Truth is, however: rhetoric matters to me. How well our leaders express themselves, their ideas and arguments, should matter to all of us. This is not about mastery of the English language, or any language for that matter. This is about logical consistency when presenting your 'case' to the people; and about avoiding logical fallacies... especially when you're the President of the United States of America.

So what's the problem?

Speaking outside the White House on August 21, 2009 (my sister's birthday!), President Obama soberly stated concerning national healthcare reform:

"... it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are." (NPR)

The problem is that President Obama, I'm afraid, is himself guilty of "willful misrepresentations and outright distortions" when addressing supporters concerning his (many) healthcare opponents.

There aren't really millions of dissenting American voices, that's just "all the chatter and the yelling and the shouting and the noise" (AP), according to the President.

The problem, President Obama says, is really that the "special interests fight back with everything they've got. They use their influence. They run their ads. They use their political allies to scare the American people" (Big Sky Weekly). But... all these ruckus-raising town hall meetings and protests you keep hearing and reading about, aren't filled with special interest reps... they're filled with average-Joe 'American people.'

My personal fav, though, is when Obama spits out some genius fluff like, "for all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary – what is truly risky – is if we do nothing. If we keep the system the way it is right now" (Big Sky Weekly). So there you go. His opponents - by clear implication here - simply want to maintain the status quo. They want NO change in the healthcare industry.

I'm sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Equating opposition to socialized healthcare with opposing change of any kind is a complete fallacy (you logicians out there will recognize this as a "false dichotomy"). In simpler terms: just because someone opposes Obama's specific plan does not mean that they oppose change of all sorts; nor does opposition, in and of itself, warrant the label of "scare tactic." These notions are simply ridiculous, and **should** be beneath someone of President Obama's education and office.

Is it possible that there are other solutions, apart from socializing the industry? You wouldn't think so, listening to the President; but (unconstitutional) government intrusion rarely helps an industry. Many understand this, and push for change, but through more (fully) free-market solutions (click here to watch a brief Ron Paul blurb on the subject).

Donny Ferguson, the Libertarian National Committee spokesman, has even stated, "Instead of using official edicts to smear, slander and intimidate everyday Americans into silence, Democrats should listen to the majority of Americans and drop their plans for a radical government takeover of their health care" (LP.org).

In closing, if the President truly wants an "honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions," then perhaps he should work on setting a much better example...

"The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar."

2009-07-25T08:11:00.002-04:00

It's Michael Taylor. Story at The Huffington Post.

Cartoon from the Chicago Tribune, 1934

2009-07-23T16:42:00.003-04:00

Smacks of 2009.

TREES

2009-07-21T18:18:00.001-04:00

Trees can kill a man, too.

Basements

2009-07-14T16:53:00.001-04:00

They can kill a man.

Rethinking Diversification

2009-02-06T14:22:00.002-05:00

Great article on comprehensive diversification, by Catherine Austin Fitts.

"Obamaganda"

2009-02-05T16:05:00.002-05:00

Possible Wall of Nehemiah?

2009-02-04T15:50:00.003-05:00

The head of the Institute of Archaeology at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem, suggests a wall near a tower recently rescued from collapse is one of the walls built under Nehemiah (Neh. 3-6), as various artifacts (potshards and arrow heads) found under said tower date back to the 5th century, B.C.

Dig up the full story at MSNBC.com

Pope Scoring Points

2008-12-23T14:32:00.003-05:00

Pope Benny's sticking to his guns when it comes to gender roles.

Despite serious disagreements (on other matters), theologically, I can appreciate his boldness.

WHAT'S IN A NAME? (Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Pt. 1)

2008-11-30T18:06:00.005-05:00

Occasionally, the Mrs. and I get that knock at the door.

Barring one recent visit with some Mormon "elders," we're usually greeted by Jehovah's Witnesses handing out Watchtower literature, and spreading the message of their organization. I imagine most people respond with a "no thanks" and promptly close the door. Myself - this is one instance where I have no qualms about going the extra mile. The pump's already primed, you know? They're obviously hungry for spiritual truth... you just have to plant some doubt concerning their current (false) beliefs, give them the Truth, then pray for God to do the rest. I mean - not to be flippant, but - that's more-or-less what we do with everyone on some level. Right?

Current case in point: I had a discussion yesterday with a Jehovah's Witness (JW) which covered the topic of God's "name." That's a pretty important topic to JW's... after all, they call themselves by that name, right? Well... not exactly; but I digress.

The "name" of the LORD is revealed to Moses in Exodus 3, when Moses asked the Lord His name for when he spoke to the Israelites. This was a special, supremely revered name. This was the special name of the One True God; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, the command, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11), specifically refers to this name.

So what is this name? Depending on era and dialect, it looks something like the following (sorry if this offends anyone!):

The top name is written in Paleo-Hebrew (3,000-year-old Hebrew), the second in Aramaic (old Semitic language adopted under Medo-Persian empire), the bottom in Modern Hebrew (in use for the last 2,000+ years). It's spelled (goin' with modern Hebrew, read right to left) yod-he-waw-he; so the best English transliteration would be YHWH.

One popular form of the name is Jehovah. This was formulated by taking the vowels from the Hebrew word for 'lord' (adonai) and imposing them upon the Modern Hebrew Name; since Hebrew was originally written without 'vowels,' and no one is completely certain how "YHWH" was originally pronounced (though many scholars suggest 'Yahweh').

JW's, interestingly, don't dispute this origin of "Jehovah," but still insist upon it's strict usage by English-speakers. As if it's a marker of true spirituality: using God's correct Name.

While speaking with my JW visitor yesterday, we read a great deal from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publication, What Does the Bible Really Teach?, which he used to facilitate the discussion. On page 195, the third paragraph reads:

How important is God's name? Consider the model prayer that Jesus Christ gave. It begins this way: "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified." (Matthew 6:9) Later, Jesus prayed to God: "Father, glorify your name." In response, God spoke from heaven, saying: "I both glorified it and will glorify it again." (John 12:28) Clearly, God's name is of the utmost importance. Why, then, have some translators left this name out of their translations of the Bible and replaced it with titles?

On page 196:

In replacing God's name with titles, Bible translators make a serious mistake. They make God seem remote and impersonal, whereas the Bible urges humans to cultivate "intimacy with Jehovah." (Psalm 25:14)

Interesting points, to say the least.

With their position in mind, do you notice anything about the scriptures they quote on page 195 above? How about the fact that JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF is honoring His Father's Name, and yet doesn't use it at all. Not in the "model prayer" (Matthew 6), nor in the prayer before the crowd in which He was 'answered' from heaven (John 12). The Watchtower is using these verses to prove their 'point,' and yet "Jehovah" is not used therein.

In fact, God's "Name" (in any translation of YHWH) is not used in the ENTIRE New Testament. The reason isn't because modern translators "left this name out of their translations of the Bible and replaced it with titles." The reason is because translators from the 3rd to the 1st century BCE left it out.

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. When you read a portion of the New Testament which quotes the Old Testament (or Tanakh), it's quoting from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Guess how many times the name "Jehovah" appears in the Septuagint?

ZERO!!

And yet no New Testament writer had a problem quoting from the Septuagint, which substituted the word 'LORD' (Greek: kurios) for God's special covenant name, YHWH. It was understood that YHWH was being referenced, which took nothing away from the message of the apostles.

Furthermore, the name "YHWH" is not found anywhere else in New Testament Greek manuscripts. Greek-speaking Jews (certainly) and Christians (most likely) wouldn't have used the name. No apostles used the Name, at least in writing: Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude - none of them. Doesn't exist in the New Testament.

Yet, JW's have the audacity to put into print a statement like, "In replacing God's name with titles, Bible translators make a serious mistake." Were the Septuagint scholars making a mistake? The apostles? We only have God's word concerning His Son's life, death, resurrection and subsequent ministry through His apostles - because of His apostles.

Would the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the consistency and courage to say of the apostles that "They make God seem remote and impersonal"?? They certainly didn't use "Jehovah" (or even YHWH) in any of their writings!

This is just one, somewhat minor inconsistency within JW theology. It just happened to be one I dealt with very very recently, and found rather incredible.

The 'good news' is, I can offer this visitor from the Kingdom Hall something much better than what he can offer me. If JW's are truly concerned with cultivating intimacy with Jehovah, then they must become His sons, through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. This happens only through faith, and faith alone in Christ Jesus: God in the flesh.

This intimacy - true intimacy - isn't created by "using the correct name." This intimacy is created because of a new birth: rebirth into the family of God. See, I know my earthly father's name. I'm very familiar with it, and I even know how to pronounce it correctly. Nevertheless, because the of 'intimacy' of being his son, I don't call him by his name. I call him something much more special, much more intimate. I call him "dad."

Because of the what Christ accomplished in His death, burial, resurrection and ascension - I can call God the Father my Father. And what's more intimate than that?

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).

The Deficit vs. The Wealthy

2008-11-22T14:02:00.004-05:00

After reading a few recent "news" articles, I began thinking about our deficit. It's pretty bad, you know. Up to $455 billion right now (now = November 2008). Lots of people have lots of different ways they'd like to deal with it. You know what they say about opinions...

Some folks - including the recent President-Elect, Barack Obama - believe the answer (or at least most of the answer) lies in increasing taxes on the "wealthy." That's certainly one option. One I gave some thought to this morning.

I'm confident that debates on taxes in this country will continue as long as the country itself does. Nevertheless, I decided to crunch some numbers I hadn't seen crunched in any major news outlets (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, USAToday, etc.).

How much money was collected by the government in federal taxes just last year (2007)? Lots. Well over 2-and-a-half $trillion$, in fact. So, I guess the idea (held by some) is to increase taxes on the 'wealthy' to up that gigantic number a bit, so we can start making a dent in our budget deficit.

So I start wondering how much, exactly, these super-wealthy yuppies are paying into that 2.5 trillion amount. Turns out that the wealthiest 1% (that's not a typo: that's the number ONE, and a percentage symbol)... the wealthiest 1% of tax payers in the U.S. paid 36.9% of all federal tax collected in 2007. That's a fact (click the link to check me on it).

Do you know how much 36.9% of 2-and-a-half TRILLION is?? Again: lots. So much, in fact, that it's OVER DOUBLE the amount of our $455 billion-dollar deficit.

This is what the numbers actually look like:

2007 Total Federal Tax Collected: $2,674,007,818,000 (See? Over 2.5 trillion)

Wealthiest 1%: Paid 36.9% of total (i.e., $986,708,884,842)

2008 US Budget Deficit (as of November): $455,000,000,000

As anyone with a 3rd grade education could see, the "wealthiest 1%" of taxpayers actually gave this country more than double what our current budget deficit is. The solution then - as suggested by some - is to increase taxes on this tiny minority of taxpayers who already pay nearly two-fifths of what the government receives, per annum. That's 1% of taxpayers (not 'all citizens,' taxpayers) paying 36.9% of all taxes received by the federal government.

After seeing this, I have to sort of wonder aloud: is the problem really that the wealthy aren't "paying their share," or is it that the federal government couldn't successfully manage a lemonade stand? When 46% of the taxes collected from just 1% of all taxpayers could completely eliminate the budget deficit - why are we even talking about raising taxes??

Why not have the (super bloated) government tighten its belt just a bit, and learn to effectively manage the trillions of dollars it already receives from us? (Before okaying a tax increase on those who shoulder the majority of the burden.)

2008-11-16T17:01:00.001-05:00

A wise king winnows the wicked, And drives the {threshing} wheel over them.

-Proverbs 20:26

Loyalty and truth preserve the king, And he upholds his throne by righteousness.

-Proverbs 20:28

A Brit Sums It Up

2008-11-01T10:28:00.001-04:00

Found this quote from Melanie Phillips on The Spectator UK:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

Yeah. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Syrian Churches Holding Their Own in Northern Iraq

2008-10-06T11:13:00.002-04:00

An NPR article by Peter Kenyon:

A new phenomenon is spreading through the Christian towns and villages of northern Iraq: Christian security forces, organized through their local churches, are manning checkpoints and working with the Iraqi police.

Christians are usually doormats in this part of the world, so this was quite a refreshing read.

The Exalted Void

2008-10-02T08:46:00.005-04:00

Let me be right up front with you: astronomy is one of my 'weak suits.'

That being said, I got a good laugh out of Clara Moskowitz' recent Space.com article, Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble? It's a well-written piece, so this has nothing to do with Ms. Moskowitz, per se. The article more-or-less gives an alternative view to the typical understanding of 'space' and the whole dark matter/dark energy debacle. Some scientists are now postulating:

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.

The humor hits towards the end of the article. Apparently, the biggest initial objection to this theory is that it means the earth is special. Moskowitz writes that the void theory:

... negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely. [emphasis mine]

I couldn't make this stuff up. I wish I could. It's a challenge to "science" for any view to postulate that the earth is unique. I'm sorry... that's just hilarious. Is earth not unique? Does empirical evidence not support this? Isn't earth still the only known planet with life on it? Not just life - but intelligent life? Isn't earth the only known planet able to support life as we know it? Don't we have an abundance of H2O in liquid form here? Is that not special?

Anyway, I don't mean to rant. When I read statements like:

"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle."

... I just have to laugh.

No "i" in Team...

2008-09-15T16:14:00.006-04:00

One of my live ninjas - the Ox - has written a pretty good piece over at Assembly Quest entitled, Apostasy, Then and Now. I suggest checking it out.

Much of it focuses on Daniel 9, and its application to the contemporary church (especially 'Brethren'). While understanding that Daniel was writing under a(n obedience-based) Law Covenant - as a member of that covenant nation - and plenty of "disenfranchised assembly guy" stuff not withstanding, he still makes some awesome (and honest) points.

My favorite part follows (reprinted without permission):

Daniel 9 is well worth examining, but I want to point out what is to me the most outstanding feature: Daniel was personally guilty of none of the things he confessed. Daniel himself had not committed the idolatries and immoralities he confessed; he had been only a boy when taken from Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and had an impeccable track record when in Babylon. Further, he was decidedly separated from the rest of Israel while in Babylon. But despite his personal blamelessness in the sins he confesses, he insists on saying "we".

I find this striking, because my experience in "brethren" has been precisely that they see themselves as somehow blameless in the current state of things, because they "walk in separation". But Daniel---one of only a couple men of whom the Scripture recordsnot one sin---falls to his knees and says "we".

This is the great failure of "brethren" in my mind: that having seen the deplorable state of the Church, they have refused to humble themselves and confess it as "we". They've been quick to separate from sin they see, even if it means separating from other Christians; one would think that might mean they understand the seriousness of sin. But they have refused to acknowledge that we are all One Body, what one member does, all feel. Their fine-tuned rules of fellowship and separation have sprung from an admirable sense of wanting to avoid evil: but they have failed to see the big picture; we are in this together.

N.T. Wright Interview

2008-09-15T15:28:00.003-04:00

Trevin Wax, in November of last year, actually sat down with the Bishop of Durham for a lengthy interview, largely revolving around New Perspectives on Paul theology. I'm just now sitting down to read the interview at length, and found it very well done.

I must confess to a certain obsession with NPP. I certainly admire the desire to place all of Holy Writ in its historical context. Even if that means going against the status quo: since many in evangelical Christendom often see the Bible as though it were written in a vacuum, and dropped from the sky (a somewhat pagan notion, in my opinion: see the statue of Artemis in Acts 19). If we're going to champion an "historical/grammatical hermeneutic," we need to be consistent. And I can honestly say I've learned much from my study of NPP (both pro and con).

That being said, I have serious reservations about NPP, especially in regards to the doctrines of Justification, Eternal Security, and Imputation. One need exercise great discernment when opening up such material.

Nonetheless, I believe this interview with Tom Wright - aside from further revealing his winsome, likable character - allows the man to condense things in an easily digestible way for the casual reader. If your exposure to NPP is limited, this would probably be a good place to start.

Read the full transcript here.

Entrance to Xibalba Found!

2008-08-15T15:54:00.002-04:00

Of course, to get there, you have to travel a long path filled with obstacles. Including "rivers filled with scorpions, blood and pus." Yummyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Archaeological dig in Mexico; found it at MSNBC.

A wee bit morbid, I know, but I'm always interested in learning about the spirituality of ancient peoples; especially comparing and contrasting them to the Faith.

Mosab Hassan Yousef gets my vote for Bravest Man of the Year

2008-08-13T13:45:00.003-04:00

He's 30.

He was born in the West Bank.

His dad is Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a big-to-do in Hamas (yes, the Hamas).

Mosab Hassan Yousef is now a Christian, speaking out against Islam.

FoxNews has a rather lengthy, but incredibly insightful interview with the man, who has a 'unique' perspective on religion, to say the least. I found it a very inspiring read.

Brief Quote from M. Luther

2008-08-10T17:28:00.002-04:00

The Gospel brings donations. It pleads for open hands to take what is being offered. The Law has nothing to give. It demands, and its demands are impossible.

-------------------

Luther, Martin. Translated by Theodore Graebner. "Galatians Three." Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Blue Letter Bible. 27 June 2005. 17 Nov 2007. <http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal003.html>.

Personal Responsibility: Off the Hook Again

2008-07-25T17:16:00.001-04:00

If you made a top 10 list of the saddest aspects of contemporary American culture, surely somewhere on that list would be the abandonment of personal responsibility. Somehow, we’ve begun breeding generations of people who – once they bring calamity upon themselves – want to blame everything and everyone but themselves. And if not that, there seem to be plenty of people who will re-direct blame for them.

It’s a typical rant coming from anyone right-of-center, to be sure; but I’m not trying to be innovative, here… just lamenting.

This facet of our culture came to mind upon reading Ceci Connolly’s recent Washington Post article, AIDS Among Latinos on Rise. In it, she reports on the alarming rise of HIV/AIDS cases within the Latino community here in United States. Do yourself a favor and read it.

One thing I found even sadder than the fact that people mentioned in the article had this horrendous disease, was the fact that each of them contracted HIV in ways that were 100% preventable. It may not have been convenient for them, but definitely preventable.

For instance, the article mentions a man from Mexico who came to America; though, “the freedoms he sought in California quickly became his undoing.” He “sought refuge in San Diego's gay bars and bathhouses. There, he discovered friendly American men and crystal methamphetamine.”

Is that where we are, now? We need to promote awareness concerning the contraction of AIDS via drug use and bathhouses? Aside from the fact that – according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – around half of the 1 million (+/-) Americans with AIDS are men who received the disease through “sexual contact” with other men: we really need warnings that drug use, promiscuous sex, and bathhouse visitation will put you at greater risk for contracting HIV? Not to sound to callous or dismissive, but – to whom is this a new concept?

The problem is only compounded when excuses are given for their “at-risk” behavior, as if they were all helpless victims in the matter. The same Mexican man mentioned above said of his Meth use, “I had no idea meth was so addictive… It takes away your inhibitions. I started associating with people I wouldn't normally.” Of course he did! That’s one of the well-known side effects of drug abuse: a lowering of inhibitions.

Further excuse is offered, based on comments by San Francisco State University AIDS expert,

Rafael Diaz (director of the Cesar E. Chavez Institute and author of numerous books on

homosexuality and AIDS within the Latino community):

“Many are "objectified" by white men who view them as exotic. They play subservient roles to partners with citizenship or money. The "triple oppressive experiences of poverty, racism and homophobia" lead many to risky behavior, Diaz said. "People are looking for respite and relief from a sense of isolation, economic deprivation and low self-esteem. Sometimes sex is the place where men find that."”

So what are we to glean from this? That if you’re poor, discriminated against, or lonely, it’s acceptable to engage in unscrupulous – or at least, imprudent – behavior, even if that behavior puts you at greater risk for disease?

What? If I cut a mackerel in two, strap one half to my back, then go swimming through shark-infested waters – should a sympathy case be made on my behalf when a shark attacks me? Of course not… but that’s exactly what is exemplified by this article, I’m sorry to report. Those who brought calamity upon themselves are made out to be victims, instead of responsible culprits.

My wife and I have gay/lesbian friends for whom we care very deeply. We even have a gay friend who lived in San Francisco for years and frequented bathhouses! If this friend of ours were to turn up HIV positive, we would be absolutely heartbroken for him. We would be heartbroken for his pain, and the pain his family and friends would have to endure. But at the same time, there couldn’t be much sympathy concerning how he contracted the disease, because it would be by his doing.

A young girl who gets raped and contracts HIV from her rapist – that’s a victim. A child who’s sexually assaulted by someone with HIV – that’s a victim.

A drug-addict having promiscuous sex in a bathhouse? I’m not sure how that qualifies as a victim; no matter what their sense of “isolation, economic deprivation and low self-esteem.”

God help these poor souls, struggling with such a horrible disease. And God help us all in taking responsibility for our own actions.

4th Century Greek, Anyone?

2008-07-23T21:48:00.002-04:00

(Oh yes)

From MSNBC:

BERLIN - More than 1,600 years after it was written in Greek, one of the oldest copies of the Bible will become globally accessible online for the first time this week.

This is the manuscript body from which we get the NASB translation. It's the oldest complete New Testament extant. Check out www.codex-sinaiticus.net to keep up with its progress.

I know you're stoked.

First Things First

2008-07-23T21:29:00.001-04:00

Here's the news:

The God who made this earth, and everything originally found in it - since He's Master of it all - doesn't actually dwell inside anything man-made; no temples, church buildings, trinkets, medallions, books, nothing. Nor is He directly aided by human effort (as if He needed our help, since He’s the One who gives all people life, and puts air in the lungs of every living creature).

This same God [as crazy as this sounds] created one man, and every ethnic group on the face of the earth descends from this one man. The times and places they live were decided by this God, with the desire that they would seek Him, and find Him (though He isn’t too far away from any of us). After all, in Him we have life, movement, and existence; just like many people have written before, “we are His Children.”

And since we’re the progeny of God, we certainly shouldn’t believe that His Divine Nature shares anything in common (substance-wise) with any idol or statue some artist created (even if it were made from gold or silver or even diamonds).

So, God has sort of turned a blind eye towards all of our insane beliefs for quite some time [instead of just sweeping us from the earth for denying Who He is], but now tells us that everyone – everywhere – needs a massive paradigm shift concerning Him.

This is rather urgent, because God has marked a day on the calendar when He is going to judge the world (in His perfect righteousness) through a Man He’s chosen. He’s proven that this will be the case, because this “Man” was tortured to death, and yet was raised from the dead.

Who was this Man? Technically, it’s “who IS this Man,” because – like I wrote before – He came back from the dead. His name was Y’shua, but most English-speakers call Him Jesus. He is the Messiah of Israel, the Son of God, and Lord over all creation. But more directly to our point here – this Jesus died for our sins (re: all that insane stuff mentioned before about denying Who God really is), which was predicted to happen hundreds and hundreds (and thousands) of years before it actually took place, in the Hebrew scriptures.

See, this Jesus is the only Son to come from God (as in, He shares the same Divine Substance as His Father). But God loves us insane humans so much that He sacrificed His Son Jesus, so that anyone amongst us who looks to Him in faith can forgo this coming judgment (mentioned above), and receive eternal life.

That’s the basic message. What you do with it is between you and God. But you will talk with Him about it one day…

… sooner or later…

Believe It or Not

2008-07-20T18:47:00.000-04:00

We're live.