Two days have passed since the Mayan calendar ended and just as I predicted, the days started getting longer. The world hasn't come to an end. That reminds me of another end-times prophecy "expert" whose prediction will probably be proven false in another eight days. Jack Van Impe used to be a pretty good evangelist but he finally went off the deep end with his prophetic teachings. Back in about 2001 he declared that the Lord had shown him that He would return between 2002 and 2012. Well, we've got a week to go.
Since no one knows the day nor the hour it always irritates me when people set dates because I have an idea that even if somebody got it right, God would probably change the date just to prove him wrong. Van Impe, not wanting to sound like a date setter, hedged his bets with a ten year window, but apparently he got nervous about it because back around 2004 or 5 he had a new revelation in which God told him that Jesus would come back before 2018. Well, I always hate it when they start saying things like that because now he's claimed every possible date for the next six years which means we'll have to wait at least that long for the rapture! I was really hoping I could count on it happening sometime in the next year before our country falls completely apart with the inept vacationing leaders we've got. (Heavy sigh!)
On a lighter note, we've finally reached Christmas Eve. Ethan's been begging me to let him open his presents for the last five days, but tonight he'll finally be able to do it (our family tradition has always been Christmas Eve). Tomorrow of course is Christmas, the day we celebrate the Lord's birth. You may have heard preachers or people say through the years that we really don't know when the actual day of Christ's birth is. We had "Christmas in July" once in our church to compensate for that.
You may also be aware that the Jehovah's Witnesses and other very strict groups, even some Baptists I've met along the way, don't celebrate Christmas because the December 25 is actually the date of a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice and all that. The Druids worshipped trees therefore the practice of putting up a tree is pagan. Well, I've done a little studying on the subject and here's what I've come up with.
Right off the bat, the winter solstice is December 21, so unless the argument is based on general timing and nearness to the date, Christmas is not the same day as the Druid holiday. Druids were around from at least 200 BC in England, Wales, and France, but the Druids as a religious practice mostly died out around the 13th century. There has been a revival of interest in the last 250 years or so. The opera composer, Vincenzo Bellini may have helped revive the interest with his opera, Norma, about a Druid priestess, first performed at La Scala December 26, 1831.
The Druids worshipped trees as part of their practice, but they also made human sacrifices. The word, Druid, comes from a Latin root referring to the oak tree. The Druids had a calendar that was divided into 22 segments, each honoring a specific type of tree. None of the trees even remotely resembled an evergreen tree. The modern practice of a Christmas tree actually has nothing to do with the Druids. It began with Martin Luther about 500 years ago, who saw the shape of the pine trees as resembling a star, and so added lights to it to show that the Light of the World had come.
As for the actual day of Christmas, there is a formula to figure it out. The Day of Atonement in the Jewish Calendar comes on September 25. Since that is the only time in the year that the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies, that had to be the time when Zacharias encountered the angel who told him his wife would bear a son. Assuming that an excited Zacharias, old as he and his wife Elizabeth were, went home and got things started that night, it would have been around March 25 when Mary came to visit Elizabeth in her sixth month. Assuming again that March would have been the time the angel brought the news to Mary, the 25th to be exact, go forward nine months and you have December 25. So really, we have every reason to believe that December 25, if not the exact day, is very close to the exact day of Jesus' birth.
Along with that you may have wondered where the Twelve Days of Christmas came from. Well, although the western church accepted December 25, the Eastern Orthodox church accepted January 6 as the day of Jesus' birth. The difference is 12 days. The Twelve Days of Christmas came about as an effort to reconcile the differences between the two dates. The twelve days were referred to as "Holy Days," which over time has come down to us as "holidays." So in essence, even though the ACLU and the American Atheists are pushing to remove Christmas from any greetings, even if you say "Happy Holidays," you are still giving a Christian greeting, and the mockers don't even know it!
So celebrate away. The date is accurate, the tree represents the Light of the World, and it is a Holy season. HAPPY HOLIDAYS, but especially,
MERRY CHRISTMAS.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Let's Blame the Guns
The bodies of the innocents in Newtown weren't even cold before the leftist ideologues were crying for more gun control. The president said we can't go on like this. Yesterday brain dead Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill tried to throw a guilt trip at the NRA. Even Bill O'Reily said last night there is no need for "assault weapons." China is now calling for the disarming of all Americans. Oh boy would they like that.
How about handling your own weapons problem; three multiple murder knife attacks in public schools in the last month. Mind your own communist human rights violating business first before you start sticking your hypocritical mouths into our affairs. Hey, O'Reily, the so-called assault weapons are not automatic military weapons. They may look military, but they operate like any other hunting rifle. So why stop there? If you want to ban single shot semi-automatic weapons, why not ban all of them? Why be a hypocrite about it?
Hey, Claire. Get your head out of the stinking sand and face reality. The NRA didn't do this, neither did it create an atmosphere for it. The lunatic involved, as those involved in all mass murders, was not a member of the NRA. Your hero Bill Clinton banned "assault rifles" in 1994. The two delinquent boys who shot up Columbine and murdered 12 in 1999 used "assault rifles." The ban didn't work! Gun control is dealing with symptoms not the cause. Now your false messiah, BHO, wanting to ban all guns, actually said something intelligent, although he doesn't even know it. We can't go on like this, he said.
He's right. We can't go on denying scriptural truths like Thou shalt not kill, and prohibiting these truths from being taught in public schools, and then making appeals for Bibles to give to murderers in prison. You want to change the atmosphere, start changing it when they start school, not when they've wasted their lives thanks to a godless culture teaching them they are only animals on the top of the evolutionary chain. How can leftists expect anyone to think they give any serious thought about life when they are silent and approving of nearly 4,000 abortions that go on every day in America? Hypocrites all. The lowest, most vile of all hypocrites.
Did anyone see the statement by liberal Hollywood star Samuel Jackson? He said it's not about the guns, it's "about people who aren't taught the value of life." I was amazed at that coming from him, but he is absolutely right. This is a cultural problem. We have a culture that is failing to value life. Wake up Barack. Wake up Claire. Wake up Alan Colmes. Wake up Juan Williams. Wake up Planned Parenthood. Wake up Harry the rat Reed. Wake up liberals. The answer is not banning guns, it's changing the culture, and that will only happen when people learn the truth of God's Word and turn their hearts to Christ.
How about handling your own weapons problem; three multiple murder knife attacks in public schools in the last month. Mind your own communist human rights violating business first before you start sticking your hypocritical mouths into our affairs. Hey, O'Reily, the so-called assault weapons are not automatic military weapons. They may look military, but they operate like any other hunting rifle. So why stop there? If you want to ban single shot semi-automatic weapons, why not ban all of them? Why be a hypocrite about it?
Hey, Claire. Get your head out of the stinking sand and face reality. The NRA didn't do this, neither did it create an atmosphere for it. The lunatic involved, as those involved in all mass murders, was not a member of the NRA. Your hero Bill Clinton banned "assault rifles" in 1994. The two delinquent boys who shot up Columbine and murdered 12 in 1999 used "assault rifles." The ban didn't work! Gun control is dealing with symptoms not the cause. Now your false messiah, BHO, wanting to ban all guns, actually said something intelligent, although he doesn't even know it. We can't go on like this, he said.
He's right. We can't go on denying scriptural truths like Thou shalt not kill, and prohibiting these truths from being taught in public schools, and then making appeals for Bibles to give to murderers in prison. You want to change the atmosphere, start changing it when they start school, not when they've wasted their lives thanks to a godless culture teaching them they are only animals on the top of the evolutionary chain. How can leftists expect anyone to think they give any serious thought about life when they are silent and approving of nearly 4,000 abortions that go on every day in America? Hypocrites all. The lowest, most vile of all hypocrites.
Did anyone see the statement by liberal Hollywood star Samuel Jackson? He said it's not about the guns, it's "about people who aren't taught the value of life." I was amazed at that coming from him, but he is absolutely right. This is a cultural problem. We have a culture that is failing to value life. Wake up Barack. Wake up Claire. Wake up Alan Colmes. Wake up Juan Williams. Wake up Planned Parenthood. Wake up Harry the rat Reed. Wake up liberals. The answer is not banning guns, it's changing the culture, and that will only happen when people learn the truth of God's Word and turn their hearts to Christ.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
The Fruit of the Vine
I am working on a Masters at Liberty University Online. One of the classes I'm taking is Survey of the New Testament. We are required weekly to post a 500 word essay on particular questions having to do with our reading. Last week my post was on I Timothy and the requirements for pastors and deacons. A second assignment each week is to respond to other posts made by the class and enter into discussions on the subjects. Kind of a class participation.
One of the class members answered my post with favorable comments, but especially appreciated that I was not "legalistic" concerning drinking as he liked to drink wine. Now, I try not to be legalistic about anything because we do have liberty in Christ, however, that liberty is not to be a stumbling block to others, and I do have strong convictions on this subject, as much from real life experience as from scriptural principle. So here is my response to my fellow class member. It is lengthy, but I hope you'll wade through it and please let me know what you think. Please also accept this in the spirit of love and concern in which it is intended. This is not a condemnation of anyone who disagrees, but I hope it will make you pause and think, and to change your mind.
My position on drinking for a Discussion Board post for Survey of the New Testament at Liberty Online University, 3 December 2012.
Hello,
Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad if my post was helpful to you. However, I think you misunderstand my position on drinking alcohol. I try not to be legalistic about it because I have Christian friends who do drink now and then and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. I have also known chaplains and pastors (no Baptists that I know of) who also take a drink now and then, but I am dead set against it and I'll tell you why in a moment. Although I am passionate about it, I try to teach my position through gentle persuasion with verses like Proverbs 20:1, because the issue at hand seems to be getting drunk, not just the drinking itself. But here are a number of things to consider.
You mention Jesus turning water into wine. True, and yet the wine the Bible talks about is only fermented. The alcoholic content was much less then than what modern distilling processes create today. Plus, the King James Version of the Bible is very indiscriminate when it speaks of the fruit of the vine. Wine, juice, even in one instance the vine itself, are all translated wine so it seems you have to read into it a little bit to determine whether or not the passage is speaking of a fermented or non-fermented drink. I would think that it would take an awful lot of wine to have gotten someone drunk in those days which would be indicative of someone who had no control over his imbibing.
That being said, I was told once by a flight surgeon when I was in the military (and I've heard Christians who follow this advice say the same thing), that a little shot of wine every day is actually healthy for the body as long as you don't have stomach problems. It is not good for a bad stomach, and I also had a flight surgeon tell me that once when I was having some stomach problems. (The argument that Paul told Timothy to "take a little wine for his stomach's sake," makes it okay is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Timothy most likely held such strict convictions against drinking that he got sick from bad water, and Paul was telling him to drink "wine" to kill the amoebas.) There was a very well known preacher among independent Baptists, whose name I will not mention, who had a very large church in Virginia Beach. He was told by a doctor to take some wine for his health when he was already in his 60's, and started taking a drink of wine every night. But then it became two and three until one night he was arrested for driving under the influence and it ruined his ministry. There was nothing intentional on his part, but once he got started he apparently couldn't stop it.
That brings up the point of alcoholism. Some people are able to hold a whole lot more than others. Some people are alcoholics and can't hold anything. I had a step-sister who was an alcoholic. I tried to help her over and over, but you can't imagine the damage she did to her family and friends when she started drinking. All it took was one drink and she went out of control. The thing is, nobody knows how much they can take until they try it. Unfortunately, if you are an alcoholic, all it takes is one drink to get you hooked, and the only way most people will find out is if they try. I have a pretty strong constitution, but I choose not to even try. I don't want to take the chance of finding out that I can't handle it.
This is where the idea of pastors and deacons being "blameless" comes into play. I think being blameless has to do with not doing anything that anyone could possibly construe as being improper or unChristian. You may not have a conviction against taking a drink, but depending on where you are, another Christian who knows you and who does have a conviction against it may see you and be offended, or someone who is not saved may see you and point the finger at you in accusation because many unsaved people don't expect to see Christians drinking. In that case you've hurt your testimony.
I guess the bottom line is, I have seen too many people like my step-sister who have ruined their lives with alcohol. I was a pilot in the Marine Corps and Navy, and spent five years in the Philippines at Subic Bay where the entire industry of the Navy town, Olongapo, revolved around bars and prostitution. I had to deal with more sailors who got drunk, got arrested, and ruined their careers than I care to think about. One sailor in a drunken stupor had beaten up his wife. The shore patrol was called and when they came to arrest him, he poured gasoline on his gate and his shirt, and held a lighter out to keep the sp's away. When he finally lighted the fence on fire, it spread to his shirt and burned him so severely that he died a couple days later. Another time a pilot friend of mine, after a night of binge drinking, took a flight the next day when his head still wasn't clear. He wound up having an engine fire approaching NAS Coronado in bad weather, flew a terrible approach, missed the runway and ejected too late and died. I had another very dear pilot friend, who was Catholic and not a drinker, who was killed on the highway by a drunk driver who came sliding across a median head on into his car. The crash also killed his three children and left his poor wife crippled without a family in a moment of time. She was still in intensive care the day of the funeral. And now I have tears in my eyes remembering it.
I try not to be legalistic, but I am dead set against drinking alcohol of any kind, whether it's beer, liquor or wine. I hope you can understand why and I hope that I can persuade you to see my position.
One of the class members answered my post with favorable comments, but especially appreciated that I was not "legalistic" concerning drinking as he liked to drink wine. Now, I try not to be legalistic about anything because we do have liberty in Christ, however, that liberty is not to be a stumbling block to others, and I do have strong convictions on this subject, as much from real life experience as from scriptural principle. So here is my response to my fellow class member. It is lengthy, but I hope you'll wade through it and please let me know what you think. Please also accept this in the spirit of love and concern in which it is intended. This is not a condemnation of anyone who disagrees, but I hope it will make you pause and think, and to change your mind.
My position on drinking for a Discussion Board post for Survey of the New Testament at Liberty Online University, 3 December 2012.
Hello,
Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad if my post was helpful to you. However, I think you misunderstand my position on drinking alcohol. I try not to be legalistic about it because I have Christian friends who do drink now and then and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. I have also known chaplains and pastors (no Baptists that I know of) who also take a drink now and then, but I am dead set against it and I'll tell you why in a moment. Although I am passionate about it, I try to teach my position through gentle persuasion with verses like Proverbs 20:1, because the issue at hand seems to be getting drunk, not just the drinking itself. But here are a number of things to consider.
You mention Jesus turning water into wine. True, and yet the wine the Bible talks about is only fermented. The alcoholic content was much less then than what modern distilling processes create today. Plus, the King James Version of the Bible is very indiscriminate when it speaks of the fruit of the vine. Wine, juice, even in one instance the vine itself, are all translated wine so it seems you have to read into it a little bit to determine whether or not the passage is speaking of a fermented or non-fermented drink. I would think that it would take an awful lot of wine to have gotten someone drunk in those days which would be indicative of someone who had no control over his imbibing.
That being said, I was told once by a flight surgeon when I was in the military (and I've heard Christians who follow this advice say the same thing), that a little shot of wine every day is actually healthy for the body as long as you don't have stomach problems. It is not good for a bad stomach, and I also had a flight surgeon tell me that once when I was having some stomach problems. (The argument that Paul told Timothy to "take a little wine for his stomach's sake," makes it okay is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Timothy most likely held such strict convictions against drinking that he got sick from bad water, and Paul was telling him to drink "wine" to kill the amoebas.) There was a very well known preacher among independent Baptists, whose name I will not mention, who had a very large church in Virginia Beach. He was told by a doctor to take some wine for his health when he was already in his 60's, and started taking a drink of wine every night. But then it became two and three until one night he was arrested for driving under the influence and it ruined his ministry. There was nothing intentional on his part, but once he got started he apparently couldn't stop it.
That brings up the point of alcoholism. Some people are able to hold a whole lot more than others. Some people are alcoholics and can't hold anything. I had a step-sister who was an alcoholic. I tried to help her over and over, but you can't imagine the damage she did to her family and friends when she started drinking. All it took was one drink and she went out of control. The thing is, nobody knows how much they can take until they try it. Unfortunately, if you are an alcoholic, all it takes is one drink to get you hooked, and the only way most people will find out is if they try. I have a pretty strong constitution, but I choose not to even try. I don't want to take the chance of finding out that I can't handle it.
This is where the idea of pastors and deacons being "blameless" comes into play. I think being blameless has to do with not doing anything that anyone could possibly construe as being improper or unChristian. You may not have a conviction against taking a drink, but depending on where you are, another Christian who knows you and who does have a conviction against it may see you and be offended, or someone who is not saved may see you and point the finger at you in accusation because many unsaved people don't expect to see Christians drinking. In that case you've hurt your testimony.
I guess the bottom line is, I have seen too many people like my step-sister who have ruined their lives with alcohol. I was a pilot in the Marine Corps and Navy, and spent five years in the Philippines at Subic Bay where the entire industry of the Navy town, Olongapo, revolved around bars and prostitution. I had to deal with more sailors who got drunk, got arrested, and ruined their careers than I care to think about. One sailor in a drunken stupor had beaten up his wife. The shore patrol was called and when they came to arrest him, he poured gasoline on his gate and his shirt, and held a lighter out to keep the sp's away. When he finally lighted the fence on fire, it spread to his shirt and burned him so severely that he died a couple days later. Another time a pilot friend of mine, after a night of binge drinking, took a flight the next day when his head still wasn't clear. He wound up having an engine fire approaching NAS Coronado in bad weather, flew a terrible approach, missed the runway and ejected too late and died. I had another very dear pilot friend, who was Catholic and not a drinker, who was killed on the highway by a drunk driver who came sliding across a median head on into his car. The crash also killed his three children and left his poor wife crippled without a family in a moment of time. She was still in intensive care the day of the funeral. And now I have tears in my eyes remembering it.
I try not to be legalistic, but I am dead set against drinking alcohol of any kind, whether it's beer, liquor or wine. I hope you can understand why and I hope that I can persuade you to see my position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)