Jesus Wept. Why?

The shortest verse in the Bible is John 11:35, Jesus wept.

My question to the reader today is - Why?

1] Was it because Lazarus died?

2] Was it because the people were crying?

3] Was it because of the unbelief of the people?

What Do Theists and Atheists Have In Common?

I believe I have found what atheists, theists, and any other 'ists' seem to have in common.

None of us very much like our beliefs/thoughts/ideas/convictions questioned, and we don't mind telling the offender so.

I wonder if there is really such a thing as "agree to disagree".
I doubt we could agree there is such.

Sure we say, "We will just not talk to the other side", yet we still spend our time talking about the other side. So we really haven't agreed to disagree, but have decided to disagree behind their back so we don't have to listen to their point. This way we get to talk and make fun of them without any recourse or test of what we are saying. This helps us to feel free to sling railing accusations without actual support or facts to back up our claims.

Interesting...

Side/their/them - simply meaning anyone we personally disagree with.

Just a tid-bit to think about.

update: Hmmm... What about an agnostic? I have never spoken to one that I know of. Would they hold this common that us 'ists' do?

A “Jesus” Returns Wearing 666?

A mere (apparently unregenerate) mortal man by the name of Dr. Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, 61 years old, banned in 3 countries, showed up in Orlando claiming to be Jesus Christ reincarnated.

You can view the article here.

His Claims:

Miranda said millions of people worldwide have tattooed their bodies with "666" in recognition that the second-coming of Christ has taken place, according to the report.

Miranda said he is known as God in at least 30 countries.

News Claims:

Local 6 reported that he was born in Puerto Rico and admits to being a recovering heroin addict. He also spent times in prison on drug and petty theft charges.

Miranda is the founder of the Miami-based Growing in Grace Ministry.

I am not sure which is worse: The claim or the following.

Evangelical Atheist – Say What?

Recently in my last post the term “evangelical atheist” was mentioned by a commenter.

Personally I don’t like the use of “evangelical” and “atheist” together, but I didn’t coin the phrase and people will say what they want to say. Of course, I don’t go around calling myself an “evangelical Christian” either. I simply use Christian or Baptist.

I tried to do a little surfing to find the term to see what I could come up with. The reason is because it is most often heard from atheists that they want Christians to keep religion to the church, their homes, and themselves and to reframe from proselytizing (their word). So I found the term “evangelical atheist” interesting because in it carries the meaning that they are indeed atheists which go about to proselytize/convert theists to atheists; which would go against what atheists are telling Christians to stop doing.

Here is the article and a small bit from it:

None of this means, however, that there aren't some atheists who really do want to convert theists. What everyone must remember is that this does not indicate that such atheists are just trying to convince themselves. There are many Christian evangelists who spread all over the world to convert people to Christianity, but are they all trying to convince themselves as well? I doubt many Christians would accept such a conclusion, but if so then they shouldn’t claim that it's true about atheists.

In fact, some atheists think that theism, or at least religion, causes a great deal of harm in society, so they try to get people to change their minds. This isn't much different from someone having strong political convictions and trying to get others to change their minds and agree with them. An advocate for laws against abortion or gun control isn't trying to simply "convince themselves" — they are, instead, trying to improve society by promoting particular ideas and/or arguing against others. An evangelical atheist who argues against theism and/or religion is doing much the same.

So two things:

1] Before atheists scream at the Christian for obeying the Word of God and witnessing to every creature, please call off your own from witnessing that God does not exist; or simply except both exist and when a Christian knocks on your door simply say I am not interested.

2] As a Christian take into account that some people may not want to hear the gospel message. I am not saying don’t witness, I am saying when they say they are not interested, don’t cram it down their throats. We don’t convert people, God does, we simple present the gospel message to those that may accept or reject it.

Christians vs. Atheists – Does God Exist – Debate

Apparently on May 5, 2007 at debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" (who apparently did not want to give her real name) took place at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City.

The debate is to air on ABC News Now tomorrow afternoon and Nightline tomorrow night on Wednesday, May 9, 2007.

Informing articles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360&page=1
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1972/Patrick_Burwell

I haven’t seen the debate, but according to the link above, “Kelly” had a “wardrobe malfunction” that was most inappropriate for such a place (church) and situation (intellectual debate).

Interestingly it seems that this Brian Sapient and “Kelly” are a part of the following:

“The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube.”

In my opinion, it is one thing to claim to be an atheist by which you believe there is no God, but to coherence teens (or anyone) into “denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit” – which an atheist claims not to believe exist – there must be a deeper agenda. Yes, I believe, an underlying purpose must exist for such a motivation to move a group.

Tune-in and let’s see what we can glean from this.

What Heaven Is That : Genesis 1:1

I was recently in a discussion, actually a different topic and it moved to a discussion about Genesis 1 and heaven. I mentioned I believe Genesis 1:1 is talking about the creation of heaven where God is and earth where we are.

I was told “You really need to find a good commentary brother. You have apassion for God, but you need some help in how to interpret the Bible”, which is fine, but the majority of things I believe have come from books, preachers, and/or teachers of the Baptist type. So, there is probably only a small portion of ideas I may hold that originated out of thin air (for a better quote) from reading the Bible without any previous knowledge of such from another person.

I have been told that “the heaven” in verse 1 is “the deep dark expanse of outer space...where the stars, the moon, the planets, the solar systems, etc., are located”. Also that “the firmament” of day 2 “was the area which held the water described on day 2”.

I was also given this:
Strong's,
Extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
Expanse (flat as base, support)
Firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
Considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
It does not exist to day, because it's part of what God used in the flood, later in Genesis.

Let me say that I do believe the firmament separated water above and below itself as scripture claims in Genesis 1:7 and I do believe that the waters above the firmament were used in the flood of Noah’s day. YET, scripture does not say the firmament held the water, but that the water was “above” and “below” the firmament.

I was also asked “you think the birds fly in the same firmament as the one where you’ll find the sun, moon and stars? I take it you never studied astronomy andthe different ‘spheres.’”

Here is my reply:

This is why I am being confused by what is being said.

In verse 1 it is said that God created the heaven and the earth; therefore they come into existence. So, at the beginning, we have "the heaven" and "the earth".

In verse 6 God creates a firmament between the waters and calls this firmament "Heaven" (8).

So now we have "the heaven", "the earth", and "firmament" (called heaven).

In this same firmament now called heaven (8) (not the original in vs. 1, for vs. 1 was already created in the beginning) he places the sun, moon, stars, etc. (14-18). In this same firmament we see fowl flying (20).

I am unclear as to how one can say the firmament can be removed without removing also the sun, moon, stars, etc. that God placed there. In vs. 14-18 God clearly puts the sun, moon, stars, etc. in the firmament that is created on day 2, not in the heaven created "in the beginning".

I also fail to see how the firmament created in verse 8 can be the same heaven in verse 1, whereas we don't take the mention of earth in vs. 1 and then in vs. 2 as two different earth's being created.

The closet thing I can pull is as it says "the firmament in the heaven" meaning the firmament (called heaven) is in the midst of the heaven He created "in the beginning".

So I pose the question here to the reader:

Is the heaven created in Genesis 1:1 where God lives or not? In your opinion, of course.

Do You Believe In Evolution?

A Transcript of: The Republican Presidential Candidates Debate (May 3, 2007) from nytimes.com gives the recall of the debate if you missed it (which I did).

The question: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?”

Three of the ten hands went up:

Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo

Senator McCain added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Mr. Huckabee said: “he is not opposed to teaching Darwin's theory” later, here.

Me, personally, I was amazed that only three hands were raised, but hey, I really don’t know these guys.

What about America?

From pollingreport.com:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 28-29, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. OR, Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
God Guided, 30%

God, No Part, 13%

Created, Present Form, 48%

Other/Unsure, 9%

"Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?"
Yes, 48%

No, 39%

Unsure, 13%

My questions are for the “God Guided” above with the question, “Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”.

If God is the Creator, why would it take Him over millions of years to guide a process from less advanced forms of life? How can you trust in a God that you believe cannot even create what we see today but can only produce less forms of life and guide them as they grow themselves? Would that not mean that the creature is equal or greater than the Creator that could not create it in the state by which it has come now on its own? What purpose would (did) it serve?

Is this coming from Christians? From Christians that believe the Word of God?

Sorry, but am I the only one that finds this strange?

Thoughts Opposing Homosexuality = Hate Crime?

In a recent article at BPNews.net, here, the House just passed a law, by a vote of 237-180, for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It appears that the Senate believes it will pass when brought to them, but Bush has the power to veto.

Interesting:

Current hate crimes law protects traits such as race, religion and national origin, but the bill's opponents say the new legislation would grant protection based on lifestyle. They also say it would move federal law toward punishing thoughts and beliefs, since the motivation of a person charged with a hate crime would have to be evaluated. In addition, some critics warn it eventually could result in suppression of speech that describes homosexual behavior as sinful.

Two concerns I have:

1] “protection based on lifestyle”
If indeed protection is granted on the basis of lifestyle, where would it stop? Would there then be protection for bestiality also in the near future? Are we as Americans really ready to protect every lifestyle there is?

2] “punishing thoughts and beliefs”
If this comes about, not only Christians, but anyone not in line with the law makers would suffer. It would be as easy as one saying, “You think homosexuality is wrong, well then you have the potential of harming them so we must lock you up.”

Scripture is clearly against homosexuality. There is no doubt for anyone that believes the Bible that homosexuality is immoral and a sin according to God [Leviticus 20; Romans 1]. BUT I AM NOT PROMOTING THE HARMING OF ONE.

I am not speaking about whether a homosexual can/will get saved; I may on a different post.

Here I am talking about the preaching, teaching, and thinking opposed to homosexuality. Is it really to be considered a hate crime? I believe it can be used as such, but not limited to always.

There are those that use the Bible teaching against homosexuality but go to extremes by taunting them, physically or emotionally hurting them, etc., but by enlarge it is not real Christians or what Christianity is all about.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, if the government limits the free speech of proclaiming the Scriptures concerning homosexuality (as in some countries), be sure the message of the gospel will soon bring forth persecution also, as maybe a “hate-crime” against atheists and agnostics.

Does Pro-Life = Christianity?

Over at my neighborhood atheist blog vjack posted a topic entitled: Christian Terrorism: Alive and Well.

The post is from an article, here, which speaks of a bomb found outside an abortion clinic in Austin. The bomb was found and disarmed and no one was hurt, but the claim from the blog is that this is Christian Terrorism because it was at an abortion (i.e. pro-choice) establishment.

A later posted article, here, by a commenter gives the name of the person and where they are from:

Paul Ross Evans, 27, of Austin is charged with three federal crimes that accuse him of using weapons of mass destruction, attempting to damage a building used in interstate commerce and attempting to damage a facility because it provides reproductive health services.

In 2003, Evans was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an aggravated robbery at a Lufkin Whataburger.

To me it looks like this guy has more issues than claiming to be a pro-life Christian being called to terrorize abortion clinics with the use of bombs.

My point is this: Does Pro-Life = Christianity?

What I mean by this is just because a person claims to be pro-life (meaning the life of the child be saved) and not pro-choice (meaning the choice of the mother take precedence over the life of the child) does that automatically mean that person is a Christian? I personally do not believe the two words to be synonymous. I believe a person can be pro-life without being a Christian, for there are people who claim to be Christian that are pro-choice.

Also, if one nut decides to place a bomb at a building, whether they claim pro-life or Christianity, should that be Christian Terrorism? I fail to see the logic in such name calling. Yes Christians (more than not) believe that abortion is wrong, but we do not find scriptural support to disobey the law and plant bombs to kill the doctors, women, and babies (which we claim pro-life) to die.

By this I believe Pro-Life does not equal Christianity, nor does an act of terrorism by an individual equal Christian Terrorism.

Wedding Crashers

I recently saw a show on television called The Wedding Crashers. No, I’m not talking about the movie, which I did not see, but a show with real weddings and real brides and grooms which ask these people to really crash their weddings so they will be remembered.

This post will mostly be for a stimulus of some verses in Scripture I find most interesting.

Matthew 22:9-14

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I believe most consider this to be the marriage supper of the Lamb, which is only for the saved people, hence the wedding garments. I have heard it said that “Friend” could refer to Judas since Christ called him “Friend” when he betrayed Him.

Granted there are two ways to look at these verses:

1] As a parable, but then I ask what exactly does this “Friend” signify?

2] As literal, but then I ask who exactly is this “Friend”?

Anyone got a clue?

Sure this isn’t necessary knowledge for salvation, but can’t we enjoy the Bible?

Trustworthy Siblings? (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus)

Vaticanus:
Believed to have been written in the 4th century, it appeared in the Vatican Library in its earliest catalog of 1475.

Sinaiticus:
Believed to have been written in the 4th century, it was found (shown to) by Constantin von Tischendorf the Monastery of Saint Catherine, at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt, in 1859.

Both of these Codexes are part of the Alexandrian text-type family, also called Neutral or Egyptian. Westcott and Hort used this family and relied heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their 1881 The New Testament in the Original Greek.

Before Karl Lachmann first in 1850, and Westcott and Hort’s Greek, the Byzantine text-type was used, as through the Reformation with Tyndale and the Bibles which followed.

Interestingly virtually all modern translations, since the Kings James Bible, have come from the Alexandrian text-type family. Or I don’t know of any from the Byzantine text-type.

I have heard countless times in reading the phrase “oldest and best manuscripts” by the lovers of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. What exactly does that mean anyway?

Things that I think need to be taken into consideration:

[1] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written on vellum, whereas the Byzantine text-type was papyrus, which could explain why they have found earlier “dated” copies.

[2] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not used for over a thousand years, whereas the Byzantine text-type has been used through clearly visible times of God moving.

[3] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are believed to be from in Egypt (where scripture claims for God’s people not to go), whereas the Byzantine text-type is believed to be from Antioch (where we see the first use of Christians).

If virtually all modern translations use the Alexandrian text-type, which are supposedly the “oldest and best manuscripts”, why is it that they vary (some more than others) more often than the Byzantine text-type translations (within themselves), they have not caused such great awakenings such as found with the Byzantine text-type, they claim to have made it easier to read and understand but the churches nor its people (as a whole) have come closer to God with a richer understanding and love for the things of God?

Why is it that no new translation wants to touch the Byzantine text-type when history has proven it has done wonders for the cause of Christ?

Three Cheers for William Tyndale

Just a little history, for I really don’t know much at all. Just ask anyone that knows me.

Raise your hand if you have heard the name William Tyndale? Well, if you use a Bible, which I hope you do, you should know the name.

Tyndale is known for his translation of the Bible which was the first in English translation from the Hebrew and Greek Texts. John Wycliffe’s “morning star of the Reformation” translation was from the Latin Vulgate in the 1380s.

Tyndale’s New Testament from the Greek was printed in 1526 and fourteen of the Old Testament books were translated from Hebrew into English by the 1530’s; which assumingly made him the first to translate Hebrew into English.

Myles Coverdale, a close friend of Tyndale, translates the rest of the Old Testament Tyndale was unable to complete, relying mostly on Tyndale’s earlier drafts, and publishes the first complete English Bible, the Coverdale Bible, in 1535. Tyndale was in prison for 15 months, ending in his strangling and burning at the stake on October 6.

John Rogers in 1537 published the Mathew Bible, under the name Thomas Matthew, which was made of Tyndale’s Old Testament and New Testament (1534-1535), Coverdale’s Bible, and a small amount of Rogers’ own translations.

Thomas Cranmer in 1539 commissions Coverdale to publish a large pulpit Bible thus introduced the Great Bible, also based highly on Tyndale’s work, chained to every pulpit in every church.

It is claimed that over 85% (some state 2/3 to 90%) of the 1611 King James Bible’s New Testament and first half of the Old Testament is taken directly or related to Tyndale’s translation work. Claims have been made that the Geneva Bible translated in 1560 (first verse divisions) holds even closer to Tyndale’s work than the King James Bible does.

Some distinctions from Tyndale and the KJV translators are the words:
Tyndale - congregation - elders - love
KJV - church - bishops - charity

To God be all honor, praise, and glory for using a man of His choosing to translate His very Words from the Hebrew and Greek into our English language that we may know Him through the Scriptures.

• William Tyndale
• Ronald Mansbridge: The Percentage of Words in the Geneva and King James Versions taken from Tyndale's translation.