The primary in New Hampshire could see a dogfight in hte Democratic presidential primary; look for Hillary to rally the troops (already, there's talk of staff changes in her campaign).
So, Sean, who would YOU rather see take the Democratic nomination: Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton the "Inevitable"?
My gut opinion is best reflected by the words of Henry Kissinger, when he was asked about the Iran-Iraq War in the early 1980s: wouldn't it be great if BOTH could lose?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Election trail notes
A few notes from the election trail:
*Before you go agaga over Barak Obama, please follow this link to Ron Kessler's stunning story in NewsMax:
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al&promo_code=4274-1
There, you can read about Obama's pastor and some of his "interesting" racial views.
*The Clinton reign of terror over the Democratic Party may be over. Mainstream news outlets seem to be jumping off the "Hillary is Inevitable" bandwagon, as Obama picks up endorsements and young voters. Leaning on her husband's experience isn't working anymore (especially since it isn't really hers to start with). Her "natural constituency," women, are backing the seantor from Illinois instead of her. And you know things look bad when even the former president can't draw a crowd at the University of New Hampshire, with a good chunk of those attending walking out in the middle of his speech. Rush Limbaugh rightly observed that there has been a civil war in the Democratic Party between the Clintonistas and those such as Al Gore, over control of the party. Hillary may stay as U.S. Senator from NY for a awhile, but it appears (hopefully) that that's as far as she'll go.
*Before you go agaga over Barak Obama, please follow this link to Ron Kessler's stunning story in NewsMax:
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al&promo_code=4274-1
There, you can read about Obama's pastor and some of his "interesting" racial views.
*The Clinton reign of terror over the Democratic Party may be over. Mainstream news outlets seem to be jumping off the "Hillary is Inevitable" bandwagon, as Obama picks up endorsements and young voters. Leaning on her husband's experience isn't working anymore (especially since it isn't really hers to start with). Her "natural constituency," women, are backing the seantor from Illinois instead of her. And you know things look bad when even the former president can't draw a crowd at the University of New Hampshire, with a good chunk of those attending walking out in the middle of his speech. Rush Limbaugh rightly observed that there has been a civil war in the Democratic Party between the Clintonistas and those such as Al Gore, over control of the party. Hillary may stay as U.S. Senator from NY for a awhile, but it appears (hopefully) that that's as far as she'll go.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
End times speculation
I recently started an end-times Bible study on Wednesday nights in my church, and want to throw out a thought about how it will play out. If you want to jump all over me about why it's wrong, go right ahead ...
It has to do with Matthew 24:34, where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away until these things be fulfilled. Now, there are several views of what "generation" could mean here:
1) The Greek word could also be translated "race," so it could clearly state that the Jewish race would still exist when the end time events of Matthew 24 are fulfilled.
2) Another translation is that Jesus was referring to the generation of His listeners. While many of the Jews that heard Jesus' words no doubt saw a foretaste of the Great Tribulation with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (directly predicted by Jesus at the beginning of the chapter; the Christians, who remembered it, successfully escaped the doomed city as a result), the other events obviously were not fulfilled at that time, but were predicted for later in history (preterists, who believe this chapter and Revelation were only about this past event, don't like to hear that).
3) The third view is that Jesus is referring to the future generation that will see the events described; thus, it could be read "that generation" or "this generation (in question)" would see the fulfillment of the prophecies.
If we go with the third viewpoint, then Jesus is saying that the events described in Matthew 24 (and by extension in Revelation and Daniel) will occur within a generation, in rapid succession. Now, what exactly makes up a generation? I've heard it being between 33 and 40 years. Of course, a generation of people could go on a lot longer nowadays (for example, there are many still alive from the World War II "greatest generation", well over 40 years ago). I point this out in wondering about the succession of events. I've always been taught that after the Rapture (which I believe will happen before the seven-year Great Tribulation), the Antichrist would immeduately rise, after which the Tribulation would immediately commence, with Jesus' return coming at the end of the tribulation. In other words, essentially, the Second Coming would occur exactly seven years after the Rapture (and even mid-trib and post-trib views on the Rapture hold strictly to the seven-year time limit). My question is, could there not be more of a leeway in time? How long would the Antichrist be in power before the commencing of the tribulation? For that matter, would there be a few years after the Rapture before the Antichrist appears? Again, all this will happen in a generation's time, however long that is. And yes, it could simply mean that these events will occur within a generation (e.g., if the generation started in 2010, the events could begin in 2015 maybe). I'm just questioning whether we can go strictly by the "seven-year" sequence of events. This is just speculation on my part, and again, feel feel to correct me if you must.
My interest in this may have been piqued by past speculations, especially with regard to the nation of Israel's rebirth in 1948. There was a widespread teaching that the 33-year generation started then, which meant the Rapture would happen in 1981, and Jesus' return in 1988 (by the way, I still have a copy of a book by the man who wrote about the 88 reasons the Rapture would happen in 1988. It was his "sequel" to why it DIDN'T happen, because there is no zero year, the calendar jumps from 1 BC to 1 AD, and so on. Of course, he didn't mind "hedging his bets" with a lot of qualifications; "even if it doesn't happen in 1989..." blah blah blah). When that didn't happen, the beginning of the "last generation" was moved to the 1967 war, which means the Rapture occurs in 2000 and Jesus' return in 2007. Even claiming a generation was 40 years doesn't help these two theories. Now, I believe Israel's rebirth was a significant prophetic event, clearly showing that Jesus' return is near. The question I posed above regards whether everything will play out in exactly seven years, or whether there could be other timeframes in which the events will play out. Maybe the last generation will start at the Rapture. You may write me with your own question, or with your gracious corrections to my wayward speculating. Just something to think about.
It has to do with Matthew 24:34, where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away until these things be fulfilled. Now, there are several views of what "generation" could mean here:
1) The Greek word could also be translated "race," so it could clearly state that the Jewish race would still exist when the end time events of Matthew 24 are fulfilled.
2) Another translation is that Jesus was referring to the generation of His listeners. While many of the Jews that heard Jesus' words no doubt saw a foretaste of the Great Tribulation with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (directly predicted by Jesus at the beginning of the chapter; the Christians, who remembered it, successfully escaped the doomed city as a result), the other events obviously were not fulfilled at that time, but were predicted for later in history (preterists, who believe this chapter and Revelation were only about this past event, don't like to hear that).
3) The third view is that Jesus is referring to the future generation that will see the events described; thus, it could be read "that generation" or "this generation (in question)" would see the fulfillment of the prophecies.
If we go with the third viewpoint, then Jesus is saying that the events described in Matthew 24 (and by extension in Revelation and Daniel) will occur within a generation, in rapid succession. Now, what exactly makes up a generation? I've heard it being between 33 and 40 years. Of course, a generation of people could go on a lot longer nowadays (for example, there are many still alive from the World War II "greatest generation", well over 40 years ago). I point this out in wondering about the succession of events. I've always been taught that after the Rapture (which I believe will happen before the seven-year Great Tribulation), the Antichrist would immeduately rise, after which the Tribulation would immediately commence, with Jesus' return coming at the end of the tribulation. In other words, essentially, the Second Coming would occur exactly seven years after the Rapture (and even mid-trib and post-trib views on the Rapture hold strictly to the seven-year time limit). My question is, could there not be more of a leeway in time? How long would the Antichrist be in power before the commencing of the tribulation? For that matter, would there be a few years after the Rapture before the Antichrist appears? Again, all this will happen in a generation's time, however long that is. And yes, it could simply mean that these events will occur within a generation (e.g., if the generation started in 2010, the events could begin in 2015 maybe). I'm just questioning whether we can go strictly by the "seven-year" sequence of events. This is just speculation on my part, and again, feel feel to correct me if you must.
My interest in this may have been piqued by past speculations, especially with regard to the nation of Israel's rebirth in 1948. There was a widespread teaching that the 33-year generation started then, which meant the Rapture would happen in 1981, and Jesus' return in 1988 (by the way, I still have a copy of a book by the man who wrote about the 88 reasons the Rapture would happen in 1988. It was his "sequel" to why it DIDN'T happen, because there is no zero year, the calendar jumps from 1 BC to 1 AD, and so on. Of course, he didn't mind "hedging his bets" with a lot of qualifications; "even if it doesn't happen in 1989..." blah blah blah). When that didn't happen, the beginning of the "last generation" was moved to the 1967 war, which means the Rapture occurs in 2000 and Jesus' return in 2007. Even claiming a generation was 40 years doesn't help these two theories. Now, I believe Israel's rebirth was a significant prophetic event, clearly showing that Jesus' return is near. The question I posed above regards whether everything will play out in exactly seven years, or whether there could be other timeframes in which the events will play out. Maybe the last generation will start at the Rapture. You may write me with your own question, or with your gracious corrections to my wayward speculating. Just something to think about.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Well whaddayaknow?
Republicans can’t win in ’08, it’s a pending national disaster, the Democrats will sweep into power …
Hold that thought a second. In Louisiana, Republican Bobby Jindal—a 36-year-old Oxford educated son of Indian immigrants, and a traditionalist Roman Catholic—won the election for governor of that state this weekend, tallying 54% of the vote in a field of 11 candidates (Jindal’s winning more than half the votes avoided a runoff election in November).
Political analysts noted that Jindal, a congressman who narrowly lost the governor’s race to current Gov. Kathleen Blanco four years ago, got many “buyer remorse” votes because of the Democratic governor’s bungling in the Hurricane Katrina crisis. How bad was her leadership? Just try and picture New York Mayor Rudy Guliani crying in front of cameras and microphones after 9-11; sends chills up and down your spine, doesn’t it? And yet, that’s what Blanco did in the midst of the worst disaster ever to hit her state. Her general ineptness (with the one exceptional instance of using the state's natural resources boats to rescue trapped residents) led to her not seeking another term as governor.
The “buyer remorse” votes indicate that Louisiana voters know who REALLY was responsible for the chaos that followed Katrina; blaming President Bush just doesn’t wash anymore (no pun intended). Now, if only New Orleans voters had a similar clue and thrown Mayor Ray “Evacuation Buses Under Water” Nagin out of office (Nagin couldn’t even explain to NBC’s Brian Williams why those buses-turned-submarines were never mobilized to evacuate residents in the first place)…
Republican Party Leadership: Looking for that candidate who could unite the party and give you a real winning chance five years from now (should Hillary rise to power and wreak havoc on our nation)? Here he is! Or how about drafting him for vice president for ’08? Maybe I’m jumping the gun, but Jindal comes off as a truly intelligent leader (unlike the pseudo intellectual John Kerry, whose college grade point average was actually one point lower than President Bush’s GPA), who has a strong moral backbone. I’ve known about Jindal for about 15 years, after reading some articles he wrote in the ultra-Catholic magazine New Oxford Review. Putting aside any theological differences I would have with him, Jindal’s articles were sharply written and showed a deep moral conviction rooted in his Catholic faith (not the flaky “As a Catholic, I’m personally against abortion or homosexual marriage, however…” ilk we’re so used to hearing).
Jindal’s election also shows that ’08 is not a done deal for the Democrats, even with Hillary’s media machines (including Media Matters for America) humming at full speed to trash anyone who opposes her. Hillary still has high unfavorable ratings in recent polls; her party will either have to sail with “Billary II” (with Barak Obama’s shallow campaign running out of steam) or draft their Nobel Prize-winning green crusader Al Gore. It could be REAL interesting … and readers, it’s never too early to pray that God’s will be done in the ’08 election.
Hold that thought a second. In Louisiana, Republican Bobby Jindal—a 36-year-old Oxford educated son of Indian immigrants, and a traditionalist Roman Catholic—won the election for governor of that state this weekend, tallying 54% of the vote in a field of 11 candidates (Jindal’s winning more than half the votes avoided a runoff election in November).
Political analysts noted that Jindal, a congressman who narrowly lost the governor’s race to current Gov. Kathleen Blanco four years ago, got many “buyer remorse” votes because of the Democratic governor’s bungling in the Hurricane Katrina crisis. How bad was her leadership? Just try and picture New York Mayor Rudy Guliani crying in front of cameras and microphones after 9-11; sends chills up and down your spine, doesn’t it? And yet, that’s what Blanco did in the midst of the worst disaster ever to hit her state. Her general ineptness (with the one exceptional instance of using the state's natural resources boats to rescue trapped residents) led to her not seeking another term as governor.
The “buyer remorse” votes indicate that Louisiana voters know who REALLY was responsible for the chaos that followed Katrina; blaming President Bush just doesn’t wash anymore (no pun intended). Now, if only New Orleans voters had a similar clue and thrown Mayor Ray “Evacuation Buses Under Water” Nagin out of office (Nagin couldn’t even explain to NBC’s Brian Williams why those buses-turned-submarines were never mobilized to evacuate residents in the first place)…
Republican Party Leadership: Looking for that candidate who could unite the party and give you a real winning chance five years from now (should Hillary rise to power and wreak havoc on our nation)? Here he is! Or how about drafting him for vice president for ’08? Maybe I’m jumping the gun, but Jindal comes off as a truly intelligent leader (unlike the pseudo intellectual John Kerry, whose college grade point average was actually one point lower than President Bush’s GPA), who has a strong moral backbone. I’ve known about Jindal for about 15 years, after reading some articles he wrote in the ultra-Catholic magazine New Oxford Review. Putting aside any theological differences I would have with him, Jindal’s articles were sharply written and showed a deep moral conviction rooted in his Catholic faith (not the flaky “As a Catholic, I’m personally against abortion or homosexual marriage, however…” ilk we’re so used to hearing).
Jindal’s election also shows that ’08 is not a done deal for the Democrats, even with Hillary’s media machines (including Media Matters for America) humming at full speed to trash anyone who opposes her. Hillary still has high unfavorable ratings in recent polls; her party will either have to sail with “Billary II” (with Barak Obama’s shallow campaign running out of steam) or draft their Nobel Prize-winning green crusader Al Gore. It could be REAL interesting … and readers, it’s never too early to pray that God’s will be done in the ’08 election.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Columbus
In keeping with the politically incorrect observation of Christopher Columbus’ discovering the Americas this month, I thought it might be interesting to point out some interesting (and not well-known) facts about him:
*Columbus was deeply religious, and would have prayers continually recited on his ships every six hours.
*If you read modern accounts of his life, you might get the impression that Columbus just woke up one day and suddenly decided to take up sailing and get some money raised to sail west. In fact, he could well have been the most accomplished sailor and sea captain of his time, having already sailed down the coast of Africa numerous times, and sailing as far north as Greenland on other expeditions. Sailors from all over Europe, even as far away as England, were on his voyage to the New World in 1492.
*Columbus carefully investigated whether heading straight west would lead him to Asia. On the westernmost islands in the Atlantic, he found vegetation and other objects washed on the shores that could not other be accounted for, correctly theorizing that they were from land due west. He also carefully investigated reports of other such sightings, and journals by other explorers about land they found in the west.
*Historians generally agree that Columbus was seeking a westward trade route to Asia, due to the Muslim armies closing the land route by overthrowing Constantinople. What is less well known (but nonetheless recorded in his journals and correspondence) was his desire to use money from the new trade route to finance a new Crusade to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims.
*Columbus is also the first person to figure out the trade winds in the Atlantic, a major discovery for navigation.
These and other facts about Columbus can be found in The Last Crusader: The Untold Story of Christopher Columbus by George Grant.
*Columbus was deeply religious, and would have prayers continually recited on his ships every six hours.
*If you read modern accounts of his life, you might get the impression that Columbus just woke up one day and suddenly decided to take up sailing and get some money raised to sail west. In fact, he could well have been the most accomplished sailor and sea captain of his time, having already sailed down the coast of Africa numerous times, and sailing as far north as Greenland on other expeditions. Sailors from all over Europe, even as far away as England, were on his voyage to the New World in 1492.
*Columbus carefully investigated whether heading straight west would lead him to Asia. On the westernmost islands in the Atlantic, he found vegetation and other objects washed on the shores that could not other be accounted for, correctly theorizing that they were from land due west. He also carefully investigated reports of other such sightings, and journals by other explorers about land they found in the west.
*Historians generally agree that Columbus was seeking a westward trade route to Asia, due to the Muslim armies closing the land route by overthrowing Constantinople. What is less well known (but nonetheless recorded in his journals and correspondence) was his desire to use money from the new trade route to finance a new Crusade to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims.
*Columbus is also the first person to figure out the trade winds in the Atlantic, a major discovery for navigation.
These and other facts about Columbus can be found in The Last Crusader: The Untold Story of Christopher Columbus by George Grant.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Favorite songs (Pt. 2)
Keith Green, Holy, Holy, Holy (1982)
Keith Green had a great number of songs that I really liked, but this one—his rendition of the classic hymn—was used by God to solidify my belief in the Trinity, or in the words sung by Keith’s soaring voice, “God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity.”
Some time before this, I had embraced an erroneous “Oneness Pentecostal” view of the Godhead. In the variation I was (mis)taught, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three “ages” of God’s dealing with man. This led to my faith in Jesus being very unstable for a time. I still remember in 1985 when I shared this “revelation” with a friend who was a Methodist minister. He answered by pointing out the most obvious contradiction: if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were only three “ages” of God, what was the Holy Spirit doing in the second verse in the Bible (Genesis 1:2, hovering over the waters), in the “age of the Father”? And the heretical house of cards came tumbling down.
But at this point, I only assented to the Trinity doctrine, and pushed it to the back of my mind. Then I heard this hymn sung by Green three years later, the last track on his Songs for the Shepherd album (released shortly after his death in an airplane crash in 1982). For some reason, it REALLY got my attention, and forced me to totally reexamine the Trinity doctrine in the light of the Bible. What I found was that the more I examined what the Bible says on the Godhead, the more contradictory I found the Oneness view—and the more in harmony with the Scriptures I found the Trinitarian view. This, in turn, solidified my faith in the Lord Jesus, and my Christian walk became noticeably stronger as a result.
If you want to examine this issue for yourself, a good friend of mine has a blog site you can visit: www.pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com. Just several points from me on this: 1) How can Oneness proponents explain the Father and Jesus speaking in the place at the same time, such as in Matthew 3:15-17 and John 12:27-30? (Ventriloquism maybe?) 2) When I once pointed out to a Oneness proponent that Jesus prayed to His Heavenly Father, he responded that Jesus only did this as “an example” for believers. The problem with this view is that Jesus is STILL praying to His Father in heaven, on our behalf (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25 and 9:24; 1 John 2:1). 3) When Oneness proponents quote Revelation 4:2 to say there was “only one throne in heaven, and One sitting on it,” they need to read a little further down in Revelation 5:6-7, where the Lamb appears (see John 1:29) and takes the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sits on the throne (also, the Holy Spirit appears in the scene as the “seven Spirits,” signifying His fullness, in Revelation 4:5 and 5:6).
For further reading on this, Pastor Craig’s blog has some really good books. Several others I recommend are: God in Three Persons by E. Calvin Beisner, which traces the development of the Trinity belief back to the early church (Beisner also demonstrates that there was a Greek word for the Trinity used in the church in the early second century, within several decades of the Apostle John’s death); Why You Should Believe in the Trinity by Robert Bowman, which is an answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but is an excellent basic resource on Trinity doctrine; and another book called God in Three Persons by Carl Brumback. I’ve also written a booklet, The Truth About the Trinity, a direct answer to a popular Oneness tract; if you would like a copy, send me an e-mail at sk32900@hotmail.com.
Keith Green had a great number of songs that I really liked, but this one—his rendition of the classic hymn—was used by God to solidify my belief in the Trinity, or in the words sung by Keith’s soaring voice, “God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity.”
Some time before this, I had embraced an erroneous “Oneness Pentecostal” view of the Godhead. In the variation I was (mis)taught, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three “ages” of God’s dealing with man. This led to my faith in Jesus being very unstable for a time. I still remember in 1985 when I shared this “revelation” with a friend who was a Methodist minister. He answered by pointing out the most obvious contradiction: if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were only three “ages” of God, what was the Holy Spirit doing in the second verse in the Bible (Genesis 1:2, hovering over the waters), in the “age of the Father”? And the heretical house of cards came tumbling down.
But at this point, I only assented to the Trinity doctrine, and pushed it to the back of my mind. Then I heard this hymn sung by Green three years later, the last track on his Songs for the Shepherd album (released shortly after his death in an airplane crash in 1982). For some reason, it REALLY got my attention, and forced me to totally reexamine the Trinity doctrine in the light of the Bible. What I found was that the more I examined what the Bible says on the Godhead, the more contradictory I found the Oneness view—and the more in harmony with the Scriptures I found the Trinitarian view. This, in turn, solidified my faith in the Lord Jesus, and my Christian walk became noticeably stronger as a result.
If you want to examine this issue for yourself, a good friend of mine has a blog site you can visit: www.pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com. Just several points from me on this: 1) How can Oneness proponents explain the Father and Jesus speaking in the place at the same time, such as in Matthew 3:15-17 and John 12:27-30? (Ventriloquism maybe?) 2) When I once pointed out to a Oneness proponent that Jesus prayed to His Heavenly Father, he responded that Jesus only did this as “an example” for believers. The problem with this view is that Jesus is STILL praying to His Father in heaven, on our behalf (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25 and 9:24; 1 John 2:1). 3) When Oneness proponents quote Revelation 4:2 to say there was “only one throne in heaven, and One sitting on it,” they need to read a little further down in Revelation 5:6-7, where the Lamb appears (see John 1:29) and takes the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sits on the throne (also, the Holy Spirit appears in the scene as the “seven Spirits,” signifying His fullness, in Revelation 4:5 and 5:6).
For further reading on this, Pastor Craig’s blog has some really good books. Several others I recommend are: God in Three Persons by E. Calvin Beisner, which traces the development of the Trinity belief back to the early church (Beisner also demonstrates that there was a Greek word for the Trinity used in the church in the early second century, within several decades of the Apostle John’s death); Why You Should Believe in the Trinity by Robert Bowman, which is an answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but is an excellent basic resource on Trinity doctrine; and another book called God in Three Persons by Carl Brumback. I’ve also written a booklet, The Truth About the Trinity, a direct answer to a popular Oneness tract; if you would like a copy, send me an e-mail at sk32900@hotmail.com.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
North Korea: About Face
Talk about an about face: North Korea now wants to take down its nuclear program—and even wants to have U.S. inspectors come in to make sure they are in compliance. There is also an official proclamation between the leaders of North and South Korea to officially sign a peace treaty (technically, both sides are still at war under an armistice). Earlier this year, I wrote about geopolitical scientist Dr. Jack Wheeler’s assertion that China, with the 2008 Olympics coming to Beijing, won’t tolerate a nutty regime in North Korea starting a war on its doorstep. This would lead to a coup orchestrated by Beijing which, Wheeler speculated, could lead to North Korea being a vassal state to China, and being rapidly converted to Christianity. Immediately after that statement, interestingly, North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il profusely apologized to China for all the trouble it caused (including testing a nuclear weapon, which turned out to be a dud). Could this be an interesting maneuver by Kim Jong Il to get on America’s good side—to avoid a possible Beijing-inspired coup to overthrow him?
It appears President George W. Bush may release some humanitarian aid as a return gesture. Let’s pray that the president use godly wisdom to deal with Kim Jung Il and North Korea—and that God will open the doors of this closed nation to the gospel of the Lord Jesus!
It appears President George W. Bush may release some humanitarian aid as a return gesture. Let’s pray that the president use godly wisdom to deal with Kim Jung Il and North Korea—and that God will open the doors of this closed nation to the gospel of the Lord Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
