Blogs

BLOGS

Blog or Article?

Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.

Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made.  Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.

All Posts (4)

Sort by

Celtic fiddle piece and links to two new stories

Posted by Michel Archer on August 28, 2008 at 5:49pm
Yeah, started playing violin again, formed a celtic band with some kids. Here's song we managed to record on some decent equipment:http://miloark.podomatic.com/entry/2008-07-05T13_44_20-07_00And I had two stories in The Bohemian Alienhttp://bohemian-alien.net/ezine/2008/08/25/on-suing-the-undetaker-in-election-year/This first on, 'On Suing the Undertaker in an Election Year' is sort of modeled after Glenn Beck's type of humor. It deals with an undertaker, a presidential candidate, and a beer truck. (pardon the editing)http://bohemian-alien.net/ezine/2008/08/25/ghosts/And 'Ghosts' is about a group of old, WWII vets who get together and start the next American revolutionI'm going to have one more bragging right real soon. My story, 'Paint it Black' is coming out in Coach's Midnight Diner. Then I can be like, 'Well, lah-di-dah, you have to buy it at Barnes and Noble..' Lol! In the meantime, ha! I could use a part time job! Just one more broke writer...oh well.
Read more…

"What Would Martin Say?" by Clarence Jones. A MUST READ!

Posted by Steven Budlong on August 19, 2008 at 11:56am
Several years ago I had the privilege of meeting Clarence Jones. I was working on a tribute film for the man who had hired him back in the 1960's for his Wall Street firm. That made Clarence the first African American to become an affiliate member of the New York Stock Exchange.Over an eight year period Clarence had also been the lawyer and speech writer for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Clarence wrote the first seven paragraphs of the "I Have a Dream" speech. He also shaped the Civil Rights Movement in ways he has never discussed. No more. What he says will surprise you. He argues that as his lawyer and writer and close friend he has the right to answer the question still asked of him every day, "What Would Martin Say?" Clarence also believes that issues must subordinate themselves to principles. King's principles were shaped by The Word, built on the non-violent teachings of Christ, and proven viable in the world by Ghandi.I am working on a film with Clarence. It is important and vital. Please keep it in your prayers. In the meantime, pick up a copy of "What Would Martin Say?" Read it before the elections. It may help you see things about what is going on in our nation.
Read more…

Tad Geiger's list of other blogs and websites

Posted by James Tad Geiger MD on August 16, 2008 at 6:30pm
Newerhttp://thesweetsmellofsuccess.wordpress.com/http://oilmdwellnessnetwork.ning.com/1) The oilMD aromatherapy essential oil product line2) The Sweet Smell of Success:Health and Wealth Book by James "Tad" Geiger MD3) VEMMA: The best Mangosteen Juice drink in the universe4) Dr Geiger's Essential oils and Mangosteen juice Blog5) VERVE: The Insanely Healthy Mangosteen Energy Drink6) Dr Geiger's NERVE 2 VERVE blog7) Dr Geiger's aromatherapy social network: The oilMD Wellness Network.8) Dr Geiger's FORTE DIET BLOG: The Acai Berry diet program from New Vision
Read more…

"Be ye reconciled to God" and Other Contradictions

Posted by Ken & Sue Brown on August 13, 2008 at 11:54am
[Author’s note: It is my intent to post little pieces of Biblical research from time to time in the hope that there will be readers who will be blessed by them. These postings may or may not be of any particular doctrinal significance. Some of them will be, but some will not. They will be just nice things to know. Hopefully, all will add to the readers’ knowledge of the Scriptures.]“Be ye reconciled to God” and Other Contradictionsby Ken Brown2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. [KJV, as are all other scriptures unless otherwise noted]This is a familiar verse, but have you ever considered the fundamental problem with how the KJV is translated? How could Paul be beseeching those he is addressing to be reconciled to God? 2 Corinthians is addressed to the Church, believers, the born-again ones.2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:The context of 2 Corinthians 5:20 shows clearly that reconciliation is a past-tense reality for the believer.2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.Also, compare the following:Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement [reconciliation].Colossians 1: 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciledSo what’s the story? Scratch the italicized “you” in 2 Corinthians 5:20. Paul wasn’t reaching out to the Corinthian believers to be reconciled. He was simply quoting what his declaration was to the world as an ambassador for Christ. Some versions accurately reflect this. Darby and Young’s Literal Translation are both good renderings of 2 Corinthians 5:20.We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God. [Darby]in behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as if God were calling through us, we beseech, in behalf of Christ, 'Be ye reconciled to God;' [Young’s Literal Translation]Editors of some other versions, however, seem to have missed the point. Compare the following:We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. [New International Version]Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. [New American Standard (1995)]So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. [New Revised Standard (1989)]So we are the representatives of Christ, as if God was making a request to you through us: we make our request to you, in the name of Christ, be at peace with God. [Bible in Basic English]So we are ambassadors for Christ; it is as though God were urging you through us, and in the name of Christ we appeal to you to be reconciled to God. [New Jerusalem Bible]One has to wonder why the difference. I have no doubt that there were men working on each of these versions who were Greek scholars, intimately familiar with the intricacies of the language. Knowledge of Greek is a fine thing, but it is obviously not a guarantee for truth. It is not the great pinnacle of all requirements for accurate Biblical exegesis. The editors of the versions that missed the point on 2 Corinthians 5:20 were certainly capable of reading other related Scriptures such as the ones quoted above. How could they, therefore, translate this scripture in a manner repugnant to those scriptures? The Greek text could allow for their translations but did not require them.Apparently, when these men read these scriptures, they never changed their thinking accordingly. Otherwise, their translations of 2 Corinthians 5:20 would have immediately sent up a big red flag that said, “Whoa! That can’t be.” Why no red flag? Because the translations offered did not violate their belief system. When people read a scripture and choose to not genuinely believe it from the heart, changing whatever contrary belief they may have previously held, they open the door to violate yet other scriptures. They also close the door to further learning on the subject.If, for example, a person can read 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 and simply set it aside because it doesn’t agree with his previously held belief that the “dead” are already alive in heaven, what chance does he have of accurately interpreting other scriptures on this subject? 1 Thessalonians could not be any more clear that the resurrection of the dead in Christ will occur at some point in the future when he returns to gather the Church. They will meet the Lord at the same time as those who are still alive at that moment. They haven’t already met Him.1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.There were plenty of scholars who lived before Dr. Wierwille (and he frankly declared that he was not a scholar), but who never put the Scriptures together as well as he did. Why? What was the difference? Yes, God taught him, but God did not single him out at random. There had to be a reason. Why was it that Dr. Wierwille could read the Scriptures and see the truth that the dead are dead until the resurrection, when thousands of theologians before him couldn’t see the clear scriptures on this topic? Did anyone ever teach this truth between the time of the Apostle Paul and Dr. Wierwille? I suppose someone must have, but are you aware of anyone doing so? This was pretty revolutionary. Imagine what it took on Dr. Wierwille’s part to reject his past teaching and the consensus of the entire so-called Christian world in favor of believing God’s Word on this topic. And what about the holy spirit field and other matters where his understanding of God’s Word was so revolutionary? Why was it that God was able to help him learn these things that had eluded other men for centuries? Could it be simply that God had found a man who was willing to believe and change?Let’s take another example. Ephesians 1 is very clear that God has already MADE us accepted.6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;Here is Young’s Literal Translation of these verses:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He did make us accepted in the beloved,7 in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the remission of the trespasses, according to the riches of His graceYet, when the editors of the King James Version translated 2 Corinthians 5:9, they had no problem rendering it in a contradictory manner:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.The Greek word translated “accepted” in Ephesians 1:6 is the verb form of “charis,” grace. Literally, the verse says God “graced” us. He bestowed grace upon us. Translating it as “accepted” was not demanded by the Greek word, but it works in this context, showing what the grace was that was extended to us. The Greek word translated “accepted” in 2 Corinthians 5:9 is “euarestos” which literally means “well pleasing,” as is reflected by Young’s Literal Translation:9 Wherefore also we are ambitious, whether at home or away from home, to be well pleasing to him,OK, so again, what was going through the minds of the King James Version editors that they gave a thumbs-up to translating these two verses in a self-contradictory manner? Did they just not notice? That seems unlikely, but even if so, there was a reason for not noticing, a reason for there being no immediate big red flag. Apparently these two contradictory readings did not violate their belief system. Apparently, when they read in Ephesians 1:6 that “he hath made us accepted” they still held open the possibility that this only applied to us in some sense, and that there could be some other sense in which we must work to be accepted. The problem is that the verse in Ephesians does not say that. It just says He made us accepted. So are we accepted or not?A child in a loving family is always and will always be accepted of his parents. It is not likely, however, that he will always be well pleasing to them. Every child has his incorrigible moments that displease his parents, but no loving parent rejects his kid because of it. There is a difference between being accepted and being well pleasing. We work to be well pleasing, but God made us accepted in the beloved one, in Jesus Christ, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.If a person believes that he can be accepted of God and at the same time not accepted of God, then he will look no further to find the answer to the apparent discrepancy. (Of course there is a word to describe the mental condition that holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Secularists call it “insanity.” Theologians call it whatever they have to in order to maintain their belief system.)But what about redemption? Ephesians 1:7 says we HAVE redemption. Are there not other scriptures that say we have not yet been redeemed? No. Ephesians 4:30 does indeed refer to a coming day of redemption.Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.But what is it that gets redeemed at that day? It can’t be you. Ephesians 1:7 says we already have redemption (as does Romans 3:24, 1 Corinthians 1:30 and Colossians 1:14). Romans 8:22 & 23 make it clear that what has yet to be redeemed is your body (and all the rest of “creation”), not you.Romans 8: 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.Don’t confuse you with your body. Your body is not you. Your body is just where you live. I know it is tempting to look at the pictures on this Way Corps site and think that certain of us have aged significantly since you last saw us. Don’t give in to the temptation. It isn’t true. Our bodies have aged, but our bodies are not us. We haven’t aged a bit.OK, fine for reconciled, accepted, and redeemed, but Ephesians 1:7 also says we have the forgiveness of sins. Isn’t there a sense in which this is true but also a sense in which it is not true? The verse doesn’t say that, does it? It doesn’t say we have forgiveness of sins in one way but not in another. Nor does it say we have been forgiven of some sins but not others. It just says we HAVE the forgiveness of sins. We can believe this or not (trust me, it is better to believe it), but it isn’t sane to think that it is true AND that it is not true. The same truth is given in Ephesians 4:32: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.It does not say you have been forgiven of some things but not others. It just says HATH FORGIVEN you. Compare the following records from Colossians.Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you ALL [emphasis mine] trespasses;3:13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.There is nothing in the seven Church Epistles that in any way comes close to contradicting these verses. Quite the contrary, there are many more verses which corroborate them. We were dead IN our sins but now are dead TO them. That is what the Epistles say. There is not a single verse in all the Church Epistles that so much as alludes to the believer needing to do or say anything to gain God’s forgiveness. The Epistles say we already have it. I can think of two verses outside the Church Epistles that would seem to say otherwise, but there must be (and there is) an answer to the apparent contradiction. Unfortunately, those who are willing to hold two contradictory views at the same time will not even recognize that there is a problem, let alone seek a solution.Avoidance of self-contradiction doesn’t take a scholar, just people who are willing to believe the Scriptures exactly as they are written. Are we already reconciled to God or do we still need to be called unto reconciliation? You can’t have it both ways, as the editors of the King James Version (and others) seemed willing to accept. Have we been made accepted by God or do we still need to do something to become accepted? Both can’t be true. Have we been redeemed or not? Do we have the forgiveness of sins or do we still need to do something to obtain God’s forgiveness? Is the old man dead or do we still have to deal with him? Which is it? It can’t be both. Have we been made the righteousness of God in him (in Jesus Christ) or do we still need to do something to get cleansed of our unrighteousness? Holding both views defies reason. The Trinitarian who believes that Jesus is a man and he is God while acknowledging the truth of the scripture that says God is not a man, has closed himself off from the land of reason and thus from further learning on the subject. Accurate Biblical understanding requires that we not choose a path repugnant to reason.Dr. Wierwille wasn’t the first to be willing to change his mind upon seeing truths in God’s Word, and he isn’t the last. He never claimed to know all of the truth. Will we continue to learn more? It will happen only when we have the courage to go to God’s Word and believe exactly what it says. I have nothing but respect for Dr. Wierwille. I believe his words when he said God spoke to him in an audible voice, and told him He would teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he would teach it to others. Dr. Wierwille answered God’s call, but what about us? Are we exemplifying the same courage he had and the same drive and hunger for the truth?
Read more…

Donate

Latest Blog Posts

Most Popular Blog Posts

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives