Jump to content

thilipsis

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

149 Neutral

5 Followers

About thilipsis

  • Birthday 05/11/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Indianapolis
  • Interests
    Apologetics, Creationism and especially, Bible study

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A couple of things can help, first; seals at the beginning, trumpets in the middle and vials of wrath towards the end. Like many things in Revelations they come in sevens. The imagery is straight out of the Levitical law so the appearance of the Son of Man resembles the High Priest for example. The seven golden lamps is actually the Menorah, a hallow seven peonged lamp filled with oil. Getting acquainted with the prophets is helpfull but if your patient, well worth tge time to learn.
  2. First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, it's an obvious fact that it happens. What your calling evolution is a philosophy of natural history know as Darwinism, his famous tree of life diagram goes all the way back to a single common ancestor. At every node of the tree of life you have unexplained giant leaps in adaptive evolution, the human brain is a prime example. You brain is nearly 3 times bigger then the chimpanzee and nearly twice as dense. The only way this happens is literally thousands of changes in hundreds if not thousands of highly conserved brain related genes. Ok, so the Darwinian likes to retort, that was over a period of 5-7 million years, they accumulate slowly over time. So looking at the fossil record we have skulls from apes dated right around 2 million years ago and guess what, they are about 20% bigger then the modern chimpanzee. Lucy and the Taung Child are both just over 400cc, the average cranial capacity of the modern human is 1,300 and some change. Well that gives the Darwinian at least a million years until our mythical ancestors started their migration out of Africa, no problem right? Except Turkana Boy is the famous fossil found by Richard Leaky, the cranial capacity is nearly 1000 cc and Homo erectus follows very closely. The Homo erectus fossils are often so close to modern humans some creationists consider them to be human ancestors. What we now know from comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA is that the brain related genes would have had to undergo an impossible, massive overhaul including 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes. But wait, it gets better, Paranthropos is an obvious transitional that has a mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull, called the sagittal crest. A distinctive feature prominent in the gorilla skull. Representing a million years, from 3 mya to 2 mya it has been conclusively determined that this is definitely not one of our ancestors and they are the only fossils from that time period. Then for reasons that remain unexplained the Neanderthals appear in the fossil record, usually found in grave sites not just random fossil beds with a cranial capacity 20% larger then our own from Iraq to Spain. From years of reading the scientific literature and careful consideration I think I have the explanation. These fossils represent a migration pattern of humans and apes with no indication of a common ancestor. The early humans and primates start from modern Turkey and start spanning outward, the primates taking a more southern route, some going into Asia becoming the orangutans while the common ancestor for chimpanzees and gorillas moves into equatorial Africa, paranthropos being a transitional. The Neanderthals make their way across the Middle East, Turkey and Europe and since they buried their dead, in some places the conditions were right for them to be fossilized. This isn't really all that complicated when you finally get to the bottom of it, they are putting us on and I honestly believe they know it. If you've ever heard of the Piltdown hoax it is an obvious fraud. Someone finds a human skull in a mass grave site from the time of the Black Plague and puts an orangutan jawbone with it. After a while people are figuring out that jawbone doesn't belong with that skull so it becomes necessary to find another transitional. Louis Leaky was the son of missionaries in Africa and studied at Cambridge. Dart was the guy who found the Taung Child which was dismissed as a chimpanzee for decades, with the decline of the Piltdown fraud him and Dart came up with a much more believable contrivance. The Stone Age apeman, otherwise known as Homo habilis (handy man), but there was a problem called the Cerebral Rubicon, they had to be over 600cc to be considered human ancestors (hominids). Leaky writes a famous paper called, 'The Latest New from Oldovia Gorge', and uses every feature to argue around the cranial capacity and presto, the stone age ape man myth was born. We can kind of dismiss if not abandon probability arguments for the genetic comparisons, they are simply off the charts. I don't believe there is any way of calculating the probability because as we have seen for decades with abiogenesis the likelyhood is vanishingly small. It's all over the scientific literature from the RNA world hypothesis to the genomic comparisons of Chimpanzees and Humans, they simply have a presupposed common ancestry with no conceivable cause. Natural Selection is an effect without a cause and this is readily discernible from their venerated peer reviewed scientific literature. In all pagan mythology, creation does not go back to pagan gods, it goes back to the primordial elementals, earth, air, fire or water and the first cause was thought to be one of those four. Or there is only one alternative, God created Adam and Eve in his image which Genesis 1 emphasizes in absolute terms. The Stone Age apeman myth is so prominent now in secular academics that it's not even questioned, even in our seminaries and it's all based on a thinly veiled fraud designed to appeal to a naturalistic worldview. It's nothing new, pagans did it in the ancient world and secular clerics do it now in formal education. Grace and peace, Mark
  3. The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary) It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31). Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'. Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc. The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.
  4. All I can tell you is what I have come to discern as the distinction of the Holy Spirit. It's something you have to develop over time, which is the best way I can describe it: Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest. (Heb. 3: 7-11) My problem was the incarnation, God becoming man was too much for me. Over time I came to think about the voice of the Holy Spirit as something indicating personality and I can only express this as a personal conviction. I heard his voice so real in the Psalms, distinct and at the same time in harmony with the Father and Son. There is the personal pronoun 'he' which is often cited but for me it was more about something like a sound. The Father is more authoritative, the Son more conciliatory, both saying the same thing but in ways that were discernibly distinctive. The Holy Spirit I have long thought is more personable, I hear it clearly in the Psalms, not so much in the Law. I realize this is my perception in a lot of ways but it's important. You can take the verse a lot of ways I suppose but consider this: But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. (Heb. 1:8-9) The Father says this of the Son, later the Spirit speaks. I don't have a road map here nor I pretend to have the proof text. But what I am seeing is a conversation between the members of the Trinity, sometimes with one another and sometimes concerning you. This is my take on this and I realize we all have things we work out over time. Sure, at the baptism of Christ the Father is speaking from heaven, Christ is on earth and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove. The Father isn't saying listen to him as you would me, or listen to me period, he is saying you must hear and head the words of my Son. Jesus was all the time saying he did the will of the Father and if he spoke from his authority it meant nothing. So how does that work if God incarnate isn't using the same authority as God speaking from heaven? In John 1:1 where it says the Word was with God and was God it actually means, literally, face to face. You see, for me it came down to the incarnation and the distinction between Father and Son was a very big deal. The Upper Room Discourse is an important point to consider. Look at the distinction Jesus makes between himself and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write it and I can't tell you what to make of it but it's very clear. Jesus is telling them, I am leaving and the Holy Spirit will come, but I will return. In addition he promised them the Holy Spirit would be with them forever, even though he would soon be leaving. It's simply not an easy doctrine to wrap your mind around. I can tell you what I think and how I came to believe the way I did but I think it will come down to you doing the work of learning the Scriptures. The Upper Room Discourse is a very key place to start. May God guide you in your understanding and I'm happy to discuss this at any length. Grace and peace, Mark
  5. At baptism the Holy Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove, the Father spoke from heaven. The Holy Spirit was with them because the Holy Spirit was with him. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit took charge of the church and one day Christ will return. The Apostles were upset that Jesus was leaving but he was telling them the Holy Spirit will come, if I don't leave he wont, but he will and be with you forever. Then sometime later I will return. It makes sense if you can juggle some of the confusing overlap.
  6. That really doesn't fit the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:10) “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17) There are a number of examples of this and it's very consistent. Some pretty general statements, let's see where you go with this. I assume the reference to 'God' is causing some confusion. Got to be honest here, I went through something a lot like this years ago. My thing wasn't the Holy Spirit or the Father but the Incarnation. I did all the cross referencing and for the life of me I couldn't see it for quite a while, actually a year or two. Eventually the opening verses of John's Gospel and Hebrews began to sink in but what broke through was Jesus' before the High Priest convinced me. The Trinity is one of the great paradoxical doctrines of the New Testament, the Old Testament puts so much emphasis on God being one and then with the New Testament revelation emerges with all the elements of three persons all being the one eternal God. I do a lot of debate, I can understand if you find it tiresome and tedious, you'll have to work this out over time. Just a word of advice, not interested in being confrontational here because believe me I can empathize. Find a text like the Upper Room Discourse and take some time to do a careful exposition, the cross referencing will come in time. Take as much as time as you need and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I enjoy this kind of thing, sorting through expositions is one of my favorite pass times. That's a solid point, sound Biblical support. Every now and then a point like that just needs to be allowed to sink in. “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:7-8) Grace and peace, Mark
  7. People forget the forces that forged the scientific revolution and the rise of democracy had their roots in the Protestant Reformation. I think in the wake of the American Revolution there was a religious lateral drift into a more emotive sensibility. Our seminaries have gone to seed and after generations upon generations we got wave after wave of philosophical atheism and naturalism put in theological terms. A Christian moral consensus would be a profound force in US politics except its working in reverse. That's not on elected officials it's been far too much compromise on doctrine and moral issues and that fiasco is on professing Christians selling out to the spirit of the age.
  8. The 'day of the Lord', appears to be final judgment day. It's also called the Great White Throne. The OT tends to speak of it as a day when God destroys his enemies in one final decisive battle so one wonders if this happens at the return of Christ.
  9. According to some uncustomarly detailed references from Wikipedia: "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law." (Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law.) "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars." (“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". (In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pertile, Marco 2005) "The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation." (Barak-Erez, Daphne 2006. "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.) That's a short list with quotations, for more see the references for: International law and Israeli settlements, Wikipedia. Look, I don't agree with the legal reasoning or the international consensus but it's real. Grace and peace, Mark
  10. Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith. The 12-volume series of book-length journals contained 90 essays commissioned from leading theologians and religious leaders broadly representing conservative and evangelical Protestantism. (The Untold Story of the Fundamentals, Biola University) I saw a definition of, 'evangelical', once in a Websters Dictionary it said that evangelical is an attempt to have one's thoughts begin and end with the Scriptures. At the time I thought is was a pretty apt description of a Christian but over the years I've come to realize that Christian scholarship has drifted further and further from the Scriptures as the standard for doctrine, discipline and most importantly, redemptive history. To me evangelical theology is the idea that the gospel is more then a social theory but the collective prophetic and Apostolic witness regarding God's sovereign rule in the affairs of man since the beginning. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with Liberal Theology, Darwinism and the modern bias against anything remotely supernatural. What I have learned is that modern academics demeans and deprecates the Scriptures at every turn and the final straw for me was when I learned that most Christian seminaries are soaked with a naturalistic philosophy put in theological terminology. What I intend to share here are my thoughts on the first essay in the series, 'The Fundamentals', (see BLB, Text Commentaries. R.A. Torrey). We hear all the time about Islamic Fundamentalists doing horrific things in the name of Allah and at times fundamentalist Christians can be colored in the same light. The truth is that a Fundamentalist Christian, an evangelical, treasures the testimony of Scripture and seeks the will of God. We are not suicide bombers and we are not interested in forcing people to submit to a religious code against their will. We are simply Bible believing Christians. The rise of Modernism, Liberal Theology, Post Modernism and this nebulous contrivance known as Emerging Theology has never had their roots in Biblical or traditional Christian theism. A hundred years ago there was a network of Bible believing scholars who exposed the bias behind, 'Higher Criticism', the famous JEPD theory. These are echos from that time when naturalistic philosophies were starting to pass themselves off as Christian. The strangest part for me as a Christian is that so much of our scholarship has defected to this profoundly worldly philosophy. The dominant men of the movement were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This is not an ex-parte statement at all. It is simply a matter of fact, as we shall presently show. ( (The History of the Higher Criticism, Anti-supernaturalism) What we think of as supernatural is perfectly natural for God. The Incarnation, Resurrection, miracles of the Bible and the epic panorama of redemptive history seems little more then myth and legend to the modern mind. So how does Christian theology get inundated at the dawn of the twentieth century with the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics? Apparently the trail leads back to the French rationalist Spinoza, who was an unapologetic pantheist. Pantheism is the idea that everything is God so what does that have to do with the rise of Higher Criticism? 1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. (The Fundamentals, Torrey) Ezra was the scribe who returned with thousands of Jews from Babylon, during that time the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt and complete under the authority of Nehemiah. The Old Testament canon was closed around that time, the last books of the Protestant Old Testament were composed including the Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Malachi would be the final installment but the modern scholar goes further then that. They believe that the entire Old Testament was somehow complied at that time. Thousands of years of redemptive history is dismissed as just so stories. This did not start with Christian or Hebrew scholarship, this began with the musings of a European rationalist who was really just a philosophical atheist. This goes through stages from the French-Dutch, German and then finally British American theologies that were becoming increasingly naturalistic in their orientation. 1. They were men who denied the validity of miracle, and the validity of any miraculous narrative... 2. They were men who denied the reality of prophecy and the validity of any prophetical statement… 3. They were men who denied the reality of revelation…constructed on the assumption of the falsity of Scripture. That's the gist of it and I can tell you from personal experience that it is alive and well and passing itself off as Christian on an epic scale. I've tried to make this concise and to the point in the hope of opening a discussion on the subject of Fundamentalist and Evangelical theology as it relates to Christian apologetics. This is just a sample intended to see if there is any interest in the subject matter. Grace and peace, Mark
  11. Well with every ad designed to inspire desire it sure is easier said then done. Paul is explicit that the commandment not to covet provoke every kind of a covetous desire (Rom. 7). Don't covet other people's cars, spouses or homes. How many times do we do this just driving to work in the morning? We don't erect idols of silver and gold anymore it doesn't mean the equivalent doesn't exist in the common market place that seeks to enslave us all.
  12. Rachael in Gen. 31 stole her father Laben's gods. Jacob knew nothing about It and when Laben caught up to them in Gilead she hid them. Apparently her and Leah had concerns about an inheritance and Laben considered them foreigners because of marrying Jacob. They were probably solid gold, covetiousness has always been an integral part of idolatry. Put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature; Sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire and greed. Which is idolatry. (Col. 3:5) The tenth commandment is , thou shall not covet. I sometimes wonder if its not the key to the other nine.
  13. I remember Obama when he was President elect he said the United States will be a friend to Israel. Today Netanyahu said, 'friends don't take friends to the Security Council'. I agree. Mind you, I'm a life long Democrat who voted for Obama twice but I have never understood not just Obama but America's foreign policy regarding Israel. In what world does it make sense of Israel to return to the 1967 borders? It would be national suicide and if anyone has a vested interest in the success of Israel in the Middle East it's the U.S.. Truth is we don't have a lot of allies in the Middle East and if we have a better friend in that part of the world I don't know who it would be. I don't know if moving the capitol of Israel to Jerusalem is a good idea. I mean I think it makes a lot of sense to keep things in Tel Aviv for purely practical reasons, there just isn't that much there is Jerusalem. For all it's history and obvious significance to Christians and Jews alike I think it makes a lot more sense to keep things where all the other embassies and government facilities are. I am also deeply and profoundly concerned that such a decision could turn Jerusalem, that literally means, 'city of peace', into a war zone. To be honest I feel we have betrayed Israel in this vote, I wish I could see a silver lining but what could it possibly be? I don't think Israel is innocent in the Palestinian Israel conflict but they are clearly the best of the bad guys. Let's hope President elect Trump helps the international community elevate their thinking. I'm not overly optimistic but it's about time Israel had a real friend in the Oval Office. Grace and peace, Mark
  14. Hey Shiloh, Chicken lentils soup...that does sound good. My whole time coming up I don't think I ever meet someone Jewish. Of course I heard of the holocost but that seemed like something from a distant, remote past. In my early twenties I was working for an over the road truck driver in Wash. DC. I met this Jewish guy who fled Nazi Germany and had to leave his wife behind, he said she ended up at Auschwitz. Stunned I told him sorry for your loss but he says, I didn't lose her she'll be here later. That was the first Jew I had ever met and that some pretty disturbing casual conversation. It was also fascinating to hear him tell the story. I'm a big history buff and if there one thing I'm sure of it's that the decline of Middle Eastern influence is directly related to Arab approval of Nazi genocide. And the Germans ran off all the Jewish nucleure scientists who went to White Sands New Mexico and created the most devastating weapon in history. I could go on but I'm getting to a point here. I have always been into apologetics, as a New Christian the first thing I wanted was evidence for faith and Scripture. One of the best arguments I've ever heard was by a Rabbi, they played it on Focus on the Family. He describes how for two thousand years Israel maintains it's bloodline, religion, national identity, culture and traditions. Then they return to there homeland, he says you want to see a miracke are proof for God look at Israel. Just one more and I'll stop. John Mark is credited with writing the first gospel account and one of the earliest books of the New Testament. But did you know John Mark and Barnabas where Levites and trained Scribes? The single strongest proof for the reliability of the Scriptures are the 30,000 extant manuscripts that do not divirge significantly on any point of doctrine or history. You want to know why? Cause if you say Rome your wrong. Its our Hebrew heritage. Like I say I could go on but I just can't imagine being anti-Semitic, still be a Christian, and not be filled with self loathing. It would be like calling myself a patriot and disposing the founding fathers. All believers are spiritual descendants of Abraham, you think antisemitism is Christian you don't know your Bible. The one thing I identified with the strongest is when he said I'm not a Christian because of the kindness of Christians. I've enjoyed Christian kindness before and after conversion and that's got nothing to do with it. It was ultimately the Scriptures, the most enduring of our Jewish traditions that showed me the way back to God, clothed in the righteousness of God in Christ just like our spiritual father Abraham, David and the holy Apostles
  15. Oh he just pops in to talk about fallacies from time to time, generally doesn't stay long. Grace and peace, Mark
×
×
  • Create New...