Does Your Education Fly?: A Personal Commentary On Education, Tubees and Ming

Most forms of math beyond the training of, say, the 8th grade (beyond pre-algebra) are perfectly useless to the vast majority of people; yet, the public education system inists on training people well in what they will never use, and when they could be spending their education dollars -- YOUR Dollars -- on something they might actually use later.

This excludes scientists and logicians, of course. But the average grocery shopper, once having mastered the infamous "word problem," can manage to balance the checkbook just fine -- if, that is, Americans were actually to do that. For the most part, they only save about 5% of their total income. It used to be 20%. We are going further into debt, and have (on balance) no savings at all in many cases -- even though the bank account says otherwise. This happens when your liabilities outweigh your total asset value.

401k's can -- we learned in 2000 -- easily compress into 201k's almost overnight -- okay, over year.

Bottom line: The excessive induction of students into the world of math like imaginary numbers does nothing to foster real education. It wastes time and money. Even if I believed in public education (an oxymoron for the most part) I would want the money spent better. Even medical doctors use very little math beyond passing their exams in med school. They just throw it at the labs, and let them figure out the math.

Little math is required to obey a "Speed limit 55" sign -- and Americans who can do math quite well pay no attention anyway. Let's be honest. If you drive, you know this. The New driving math is that "55 - police officer present + board meeting imminent = 75."

And that's on a slow day. In truth, the size of your car and gas prices figure into the equation, so that it's a little more -- but only a little -- more complicated than this. High school students taking calculus should be viewed as obviously excessive. Leibniz even had great trouble with calculus, which first recieved its formal (contemporary) shape at the hands of Sir Isaac Newton. See how fun the history of the sciences is already?

My argument is that math should be optional -- strictly taken as an elective -- by the choice of students after they have passed pre-algebra (which isn't necessary for most of them anyway either). Maybe after fractions and decimals, we should permit elective status to all math courses.

Students who enjoy it can continue; those who hate it can take more history instead, or skilled reading and writing courses. I have yet to meet a student who knows "too much history," while many suffer basic deficiencies in this area. If you still have to "explain" who Aristotle was to an eighth grader, someone has had way too much math when she should have been studying history.

Most adults probably cannot name one of the Holy Roman Emperors -- who influenced history at least as much as Christopher Columbus in many cases. Such men ruled over (by influence if not direct governance) all of Europe -- the world leader for the centuries covering the modern world. Here, "all" means simply the greater part.

In any case, the industrial revolution, Mercantile Capitalism, and many other aspect of western history having an extraordinary impact on our day-to-day lives receive cursory attention, while imaginary numbers (a phony math if ever there was one) -- what is the square root of a negative number anyway [this question amounts to a confusion of proper functions on my view, not a new math] -- recieve about as much attention as legal history of the U.S.

Brown v. board of Education and a few other high profile cases like the "Scopes Monkey Trial" make it into the history texts. These simply pepper the texts to help explain the cultural milieu -- if I can be so bold as to wax French -- of the time period under consideration, and nothing more. They are decorative, not investigative.

In any case, you get the point: less obscure and useless math training, and more history, especially history of technology (because it is anything but useless) and the sciences, legal history, and the history of the important ideas which shaped the Western World we live in, should occupy the space of high school texts.

Their reform is long overdue, and the pie-in-the-sky "let's have every kid be a scientist" Enlightenment view has got to go. Some will be, and most will not. Some will be lawyers, and some will not. The overemphasis upon the sciences is what lopsides public education in favor of specialized forms of math.

The operating assumption behind this -- scientific realism -- has long been falsified by the history and logic of the sciences themselves. We need to quit pretending. If students prefer music and the arts, they should be allowed to substitute courses in the history of art and music -- including listening to classical pieces or viewing many of the best paintings (classically understood -- someone has to set the standards), they should be permitted to follow their own skills, talents and interests.

No student should be allowed to escape high school without the practical knowledge of the local legal system, and how to get things done via legal means. For one, this would reduce the number of violent interactions from people who know no other way to accomplish the more unpleasant side of human interactions.

Litigation is not pretty, but neither is surgery. All students should know the PRACTICAL rudiments of: 1. The stock market (investing options) 2. wallet management 3. Ordering your life efficiently (time and resource management) 3. Basic math 4. Basic history of technology 5. at least one practical skill (auto-shop or electronics repair courses are examples). 6. CPR and what to do in various emergencies 7. Self-defense (crime rates are simply too high to ignore this) 7. Basic legal options (how to start your own business, prepare a will, and the like).

If this is starting to look like the "for Dummies" book series, that's only because "high school" ignores almost all this -- real world preparation courses -- instead living in an "enlightenment bubble" about 200 years out of date. This leaves high school students almost totally unprepared for the real world they will encounter when high school ends. Then what?

Then some go on to college and pick up some of these skills, others they learn on their own. By the time they finish college, they have the skills they could and should have had around 10th grade, and more knowledge in many areas than they'll ever use.

Some of the other popular myths common today are: 1. Older people know what they want from life [They just give up and settle for what seems "reasonable" given the ugly circumstances] 2. Most people are doing it right by the time they get older (most in America retire in relative poverty - about 96%) 3. The way the system is cannot be changed so you should just learn to get along with it and not try to change it (This is not stated but always assumed in your education). This is simply false, and more obviously so all the time. 5. History is relatively unimportant since it just deals with the past (old stuff). The truth is that no one area can better insulate one against lies and pop fads, and all manner of ideological mischief, except studying the Bible itself. This is because in history we see the way God orders life (providentially), and how nations rise and fall in direct relationship to how they handle -- accept or reject and in which ways -- God's law.

6. Logic classes are only for more advanced students, and should be left to colleges. [No, actually logic is inescapable and people argue from the time their are young. We are all doing logic LONG before college, we just need help doing it well, rather than poorly. Teenagers love to argue, and parents should take full advantage of this feature to teach them to practice well what they already enjoy. If you wait until college, chances are good they already believe so much nonsense, your job will have become unmanageable. Logic should replace math, with history, after 8th grade for most students. No one has ever been too logical, or handled history too well.

The Bible confirms both of these two last points. Josiah's rediscovery of Israel's past sparked the reformation of his time, and the apostles almost constantly reasoned from the Scriptures, proving that Jesus is the Christ. Apollos was over the top, and even his opponents knew it. A man well-schooled in the two topics only can learn with great insight any discipline, since every discipline has a history (developed over time to become what it now is) and has a set of logical basics and established ways of relating these basics one to another [rules of the game, so to speak].

These are the disciplines -- in addition to the basic listed above (which for the ladies might include home economics if their parents wish it -- everyone should know how to cook at least a few dishes) which the Bible affirms as most elemental to true education:

1. The Bible Itself. Every student should have a thorough understanding of HOW to read it properly; know what it is -- as a divine (transformative) international legal code which self-refers as the Gospel and Law of the Lord. Learning to read it well means learning the literary-canonical approach which will aid them in critical read of all historical documents.

Students should learn the literary hermeneutics appropriate to the Bible (given its genre), and the logic of the Bible's system of theology (Westminster Standards). Then they should learn the basic themes of each of the major books, and something about their contents.

2. History and Historiography (the philosophy of history and historical writing). This should emphasize studying the historical situation of the writings we have left to us from the ancient world (and medieval period), and how we learn what we know from them.

Then it should include elements of proper historical research, source usage, how to confirm or falsify evidentiary theories, critical reading of source documents, and cross-examination of sources in light of informal logic.

Students should also learn (over many years) the basic outline of the history of the West first, and electively later, of the other regions of the world.

3. Logic. This should include selected readings in systematic theology, emphasizing what was learned from informal logic studies. Specifically, students should learn to apply these principles to controversial topics of debate, with an eye to studying the Biblical viewpoint, and cross-examining would-be competitors.

Later, students should master an introduction to formal (propositional) logic, the biblical philosophy of logic, and the history of the development of logical systems in the West. This prepares students, together with their other courses, for the next academic discipline.

4. Rhetoric. This should introduce students to the elements of speech structure, preparation and delivery in light of the sermons of the Bible -- notably the rhetoric of Jesus and the apostles, but not excluding the prophets -- and several of the classic speeches of ancient pagan oratory. They should also have some introduction to the history of rhetoric as it developed in the West and its use in legal contexts today.

Legal rhetoric has particular uses in studying the sermons of the Bible, which is a legal or covenantal document. Practicing speech-making and delivery notoriously improves a student's personal confidence and ability to interact with others in a productive and discreet fashion.

5. The history and philosophy of the sciences should be studied separately when students are significantly advanced (late high school years). This would include many field trips to see, taste, touch and handle, as much of what they learn from their texts as possible. Science studies should not be done primarily in a lab, but observably in the environments native to the topic studied as much as possible or convenient.

Students should be encouraged to study the natural world (according to their current lessons in the history of this or that science), see gemstones in the rough, watch animals interact, flowers grow, bees pollinate, etc. This was what Solomon did. Lab work is not excluded; it is just more expensive. But an introduction to controlled experiments (of various kinds) should be part of this study. Making this as fun as possible is probably more important in the long run that what is actually learned. Enthusiasm is the best teacher.

Time would be the best teacher, except that it unfortunately kills all the students. Enthusiasm enlightens and "enlivens" them instead. Model rockets and propulsion rank high on my list. I can't get to excited about balancing equations no matter how hard I try. It isn't that difficult, but it's not much fun either. Now cutting an aluminum can in half and filing the rounded edge, that's SOMETHING because once you cut out the can's face after that (with a simple can opener applied to it's inside facial edge), you find out that these babies can FLYYYYYY.

That's right. It's Bernoulli's principle in a can, and basic aeronautics on a stick. And they really fly. All you need is an aluminum sprite can, or coke - whatever -- a saw which can cut metal -- a can opener and a student with a decent throwing arm and fast legs to chase it!! I call them "Tubees." There is no official name for this flying invention, and I am not sure who invented it first if it wasn't me. Caution: you may actually have to drink 12 ounces of a caramel-colored beverage known to eat a hole in the earth half way to China to begin this experiment.

Now THIS is science. No child should be without a flying coke can at some point in his academic career. Just watch out for the sharp edges. You can always wear gloves to toss them, which you can buy for $1.00 at the local dollar store. You need to put a football-like spiral spin on them upon the "finger release." This is what really sends them into a graceful and lengthy flight pattern. If they do not fly as well as you'd hoped, try shortening (filing down or sanding) the length of the body. It should be about 2/5 - 1/2 the length of the original can.

6. An overview of Legal history for comparative purposes with God's law should be part of the education of students in their later years of high school also. Comparing and contrasting should be required of students at every stage of education and all levels. This is the most basic way in which humans must reason to get along well in this world.

This amounts to studies in comparative legal systems and this history of how these systems developed.

7. History of economics. Students should learn the biblical view of free market capitalism, and its philosophical competitors, various forms of Socialism and Communism. This will necessarily overlap with legal history, with respect to property rights, landlord-tenant relations, estates and probate, wills and testaments, and the like.

This can be taught at a very introductory level when students are younger. This also can form the practicum on do-it-yourself legal forms. The students (with the teacher's assistance) could even start an incorporated business, limited liability company or some other project of like kind (depending on the laws in your state or country).

I have already posted articles and blog entries online to faciliate highly efficient reading, researching and writing to jumpstart your education. Do not forget to use the power of the net. Technology rules. Ming rules too. Do not forget the power of Ming (to outlive us all). He must be doing something right. Ming should be studied -- marine biology can form part of your history of the sciences curriculum. It's only a suggestion, but you could even start your own fan club -- with Ming Studies. If you do this with a straight face, you just might get a research grant from a nearby university, whose staff at once has an interest in sea life and has a fair sense of humor. In education, when in doubt, just Ming it.

Ming has the bling.

"By What Name Or Authority?" The Petrine Sermon of Acts 3 in Canonical Context

This represents a brief introduction to the meaning of Acts 3:11-26, and its consequent sermonette to the leaders of Israel at the time, Pharisees and Saduccees both, from Acts 4. Here, they act in the place of the Lord Jesus, filled with the Spirit of Jesus, and stand literally in the place of Solomon (Solomon's Porch). But they do miracles like Moses and Elijah. Everything they do and say, they do by the authority which Jesus gave them, and by His Holy Spirit. This summed up in Peter's response as he says it was not by our power or holiness - but One alien to us in both cases. It was from heaven, where Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110).

Thus Luke presents Jesus as One greater than Moses, One greater than Elijah, One greater than Solomon, and One greater than King David.

And as the lame man [recall Mephibosheth who ate at the table of Solomon's father] which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

[This is why the Bible calls them "signs and wonders," which were used of God to draw attention to the apostles to confirm their message (the Gospel) and do good among the people to teach them of the tender mercy of the One in whom Paul and Peter would call men to place their trust; the verb "wondering" is no accident].


And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people [standing in the place where Solomon used to preach also:],Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?


[What they heard: "Don't look at me, I don't have any supernatural power of my own; it's borrowed; this is from the power -- Name -- and Holiness of the Messiah, Jesus, the Holy and Just One"]


"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he [Pilate] was determined [tried many times] to let him go.

[What they heard: "That wicked pagan Pontius Pilate was better than you," "You chose Barabbas instead of God's Son, favoring a serial killer and insurrectionist over Messiah, how godly are you?"]

1. Interestingly, Peter says they "denied Him," as also Peter had denied Jesus three times, and was forgiven; Peter's language, based on his own experience then anticipates the mercy they are to receive upon their repentance

2. Peter calls Jesus the Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, meaning that Jesus is both the Son of God and the promised Seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations would be BLESSED. Again, Peter's language anticipates mercy (blessing) even while he proceeds to hammer the Gospel home in very forceful and indicting terms.

3. In case you missed it. Peter is indicting his audience, calling them not sons of Abraham, but of the devil, murderers of the Messiah, the Son of God. But God raised Him up and glorified Jesus to vindicate Him and convict you. This is not a seeker-friendly prosecution.

4. Pilate had, Josephus tells us, many times in the past brought idols near the Temple vicinity. Once he brought in a big golden eagle to thrill the Jews with a sign of Roman power and idolatry. There were heavy losses in the ensuing riots. Pilate was a pagan and proud of it by his record. Yet he sought to release Jesus, while the Jews had him killed. This means that Peter is calling the Jews worse than the worst of unbelievers. First-century Jews -- esp the zealots -- were not Rome's biggest fan club.

This is what I mean by "not a seeker-friendly prosecution." It amounts to a "scum of the Empire" indictment.

Peter Adds:

"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you"

[What they heard: "Does the name OJ Simpson ring a bell? Charles Manson? You people are Adolf wicked."]

1. By calling Jesus the Holy and Just One, Peter has identified Him as both the Messiah, and as the source of power and holiness by which this man was miraculously healed.

2. They had pressed for the release of Barabbas when they should have acquitted Jesus; Barabbas was what they had accused Jesus of falsely many times -- an insurrectionist, or today we say "insurgent," a terrorist. This probably means that Barabbas had taken up arms against the Roman empire in some bloody uprising, and was captured. He was probably a zealot. Jesus had not done anything against the empire, and went about healing its citizens and peasants (not all of whom were Jewish persons. Some were Syrian or Phoenician). The so-called "good thief" was scheduled for execution alonside barabbas, showing that he was neither good nor particularly a thief, but an insurrectionist of the "Barabbas party." But, he turned out to be one of the good guys in the end -- by the grace of God.

Strangely, his crucifixion fell on both the worst and best day of his life. This is not the best way to enter the kingdom of heaven, but it beats the alternative. God does truly work in mysterious ways.

Peter continues:

"And [You] killed the Prince of life, whom God hath [first, ahead of the others] raised from the dead; whereof we are eye-witnesses [sufficient to convict you before God].

"Archegos" [Prince, author, pioneer, Chief, etc] is really difficult to translate and I never feel good about my translation of it no matter how hard I try or how nuanced my efforts. Arche is first, primary or beginning (or beginner depending on context). The suffix -gos amounts to "one who." "One who begins" can refer to an architect, if what he begins is a construction project, it might be an engineer who drives a train of many cars in length -- he is in the lead car and so would be in Koine the train archegos. I can list many kinds of persons in today's world who would or might fit the bill:

The head of a department at work; any military officer who leads his unit into battle; any company whose name or brand serves as a type of industry superstar -- McDonald's would likely be the archegos of the fast food industry, and Starbuck's for the whole new coffeeshop phenomenon (Peet's has better coffee, and Panama Bay Coffee Co. probably has the best beans of all).

The sense of "archegos" as used by Peter carries the Semitic flavor of the Feast of Firstfruits, as the tithe was to be the first part given (chronologically) and the best part of all you had. This teaches that we may only give God the very best. It should be perfect and from above, like the law of the Lord, and Spirit of the Lord, whenever possible.

Calling Jesus the archegos of life appears to be a play on the notion of firstfruits -- which would have been used to feed the poor.

The suffix "of life" indicates that Peter refers to the resurrection (eternal life) unto glory. Paul's use of like thought he expresses as "the firstfruits [i.e. tithe] of them that are raised from the dead." This is precisely what Peter means. But one sense is added, since it portrays the Lord implicitly (or by connotation at the least) as a kind of food, like the animals which would be sacrificed were for the priests.

In what sense one might feed on the risen Christ is not here made clear, but much more shocking and overt statements of this kind appear in John's Gospel. This most likely displays one way in which the Lord's Supper subsumes within itself all the sacrifices of the first Testament, here with specific reference to the Feast of the Firstfruits, which would have been the Pentecostal "Ingathering." Peter is preaching in light of the Jewish holiday calendar.

He might have simply said, "Jesus will gather in people to be his own from every nation, and these shall enter in as He did. He went first. Others will take up their cross and follow Him in resurrection unto life. He is the first and best part [Archegos].

2. Peter's point is deliberately ironic and reads somewhat like "You killed the Author of Life," which is (for irony) like stealing a Bible, only far worse in its effects and ethical implications.

3. God has raised up His Son, the Seed of Abraham, of whom it was promised would be for a blessing to all nations. The claim "God raised up Jesus" was not a mere fact to be publicized. It was an indictment of those who killed Him, and a vindication of Jesus in the sight of all that God had reversed the ungodly verdict, overruling the sentence. The Jews and Romans authorized representatives put to death the Lord Jesus. This amounted to the entire world, both Jew and Gentile in bibical (federal) thinking. [Peter is still indicting. He does not let up the whole time, until they repent].

Paul argues this openly in Romans, that the whole world is held guilty by God under the law, so that there can be no excuse on Judgment Day for failing to believe in the Messiah.

Peter adds:

"And his Name [authority, power] through [the healed man's] faith in his [Christ's] name [holiness, goodness] hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know:

[What they heard: You can't weasel your way out of this one, you know I am right]


"yea, the faith which is by him [faith from God] hath given him [healed guy] this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."

Comments: The "yea" means "indeed," "not only is this the case, but also." Here, Peter drives home the point that not only did Christ heal this man but He gave the man the faith which functioned as the instrument through which the healing came.

This puts Christ in the place of the Almighty, making Christ the source and goal of one's faith, a point which would not have been missed by his fiercely monotheistic audience.


A man is saved by grace, and that grace comes to him by faith in Jesus -- in his power and holiness -- meaning the saved man believes that Jesus CAN do it, and is righteous and just in so doing, and that His authority is from God.


This faith is not something you can conjure up if you "just imagine" hard enough, or click your heels together 3 times. God either grants one the faith to believe unto salvation or not. This is not popular among Arminians, but faith is not a work; it is a gift; and no man works for a gift (you cannot earn charity). Faith to believe in Jesus comes from God. Left to your own devices you would be -- well, left to your own devices -- faithless.

Peter continues:

"And now, brethren, I know that ye did it [killed the author of life] in ignorance, as did also your [equally guilty] rulers. But those things, which God before[hand in the all the Holy Scriptures] had shewed [prophesied] by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled [the propecies concerning Christ that you should kill Him, and He should rise again][in Jesus].

Repent ye therefore [because Christ is risen], and be converted [to Christ], that your sins [just named] may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the [returning] presence [i.e. parousia] of the Lord. And He [the Father] shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive [retain] until the times of restitution of all things [at the end of the millenium, when all His enemies will have been made a footstool for his feet], which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began [esp. from Psalm 110][ regarding the time when the world will end -- as we know it in the estate of sin and misery].

For Moses truly said unto the fathers,"A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, [a powerful miracle-working faithful prophet] like unto me [Moses]; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say [teach] unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people [this happened at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70].

[One of those things Jesus commanded was, "when you see armies surrounding Jerusalem, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains." If they did not obey, they were indeed cut off completely. The Romans showed no mercy, as Romans are wont to do].

Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel [1050 B.C.] onward, as many as have spoken [in the Bible], have likewise foretold of these [last] days [of the Old Covenant era, and the beginning of the New].

Ye are the children of the prophets [so God expects you to know this stuff], and of the covenant which God made with our fathers [like Abraham] [so you, his decscendants are responsible for it by way of covenant with "you and your seed after you"], saying unto Abraham,"And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Unto you [Jews] first God, having raised up his Son Jesus[from the dead and seated Him in heaven at Gods' right hand], sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his [murderous] iniquities [for you killed the prophets and stoned those sent to you, like your fathers].

Comments: As Peter was saying this, it was in fact being fulfilled. Jesus had poured out His Holy Spirit from heaven, and Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, was just now delivering this message from the Spirit of Jesus. Peter was offering, in the name of the Lord Jesus, the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant to his audience. It could not have been delivered to them by Airborne Express on a more simple and elegant silver platter, right in front of them, there it was.

The blessing. This would be for Peter's audience, and Israel or Esua moment. Melchizedek was extending the bread and wine to the Men of Israel who had killed him, just as He had to Abraham many centuries before. All they had to do was repent and be baptized by the grace of God, having believed Peter's message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham and Firstfruits of them that are raised from dead.

Acts 4:7-12

And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, by what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost [this is mentioned because Christ promised that they were to take no thought in advance what to say, but that when they spoke before rulers and kings, the Holy Spirit would give them utterance; it hearkens back to Acts 2] said to them, Ye rulers of the people [chief priests], and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed [miracle] done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel [This suggests that a crowd had gathered; Peter now raises his voice to let the crowd in on the conversation. Peter is not just answering now; he is preaching] that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead [showing that you murdered an innocent man], even by him doth this man stand here before you whole [which means you are REALLY in trouble with God].

This [man you killed] is the [prophesied corner-] stone [of the True Temple] which was set at nought of you [Sadducee] builders [who are known for boasting in the Temple], which is become the head of the corner[stone of the new Temple]. Neither is there salvation in any other [Name but Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given [by God] among men, whereby we must be saved.

What they heard: God only gave one Savior to all men. And you killed Him. But God raised him from the dead, as the foundation [similar to Archegos again] or cornerstone -- Peter's name means "Rock of foundation" according to Jesus in Matt 16 -- which Peter here calls the Lord Jesus citing Psalm 118.

Peter has declared to those who glory in the Temple that the One they killed was raised by God to be the basis of the New and better Temple of God. This probably primarily targets the Sadducees in the audience, though the Pharisees saw themselves as dependent upon it also, for there was only one priesthood and sacrificial system appointed by God. They did not sacrifice anything in the synagogues -- only in the Temple.

The phrase "neither is there salvation in any other name," begins with "neither." This links the passage to an earlier concept - that of the Temple. Salvation and Temple form two concepts with only one primary common denominator -- if you put the two concepts together in the Jewish mind, you get "sacrifice" as the logical consequent.

Salvation needed Temple sacrifice. This both Pharisee and Saduccee believed. Indeed, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. so the phrase, "Salvation in any other name" means Christ "became" -- he doesn't say how -- the cornerstone of the New Temple by way of His once for all sacrifice which replaces all others.

In other words, in the act of killing Him, Peter's audience replaced their own temple with a New One, of which Jesus had become the basis by his death and [consequent] resurrection. But they did it in ignorance -- not on purpose. God did it on purpose. The Psalm Peter alludes to ends with "The Lord has done it and it is marvelous in our eyes."

Who -- did it? I though Peter said THEY did it? Doesn't Peter keep on saying this? But they did it "according to the counsel of God's foreknowledge and purpose." It was God's will to crush Him. Only when you crush a ripened grape does the wine -- new wine - begin to flow to the people. They did it in ignorance, but the Lord has done it to install Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone, heir of all things, and ruler of the nations. It was attended by miracles -- the temple curtain was rent in two, the earth shook violently, and the clouds darkened the sky from about the third hour.

It was - in the sense of marvel as miracle -- a marvelous event which installed Jesus as the Chief cornerstone. The miracles of the resurrection, and which Jesus performed after it, make it all the more marvelous.

"In our eyes." This phrase expresses the perspective of the apostles and prophets, the dominical foundation of the Church. In OUR eyes means they were chosen as EYE witnesses to the resurrection and ministry of Christ, from its beginning until his forty day teaching spree in Jerusalem. It is marvelous in our eyes for John said, "Many other wonderfull things Jesus said and did, but if I were to try to record them all the world could not contain the volumes."

John was an eyewitness to many marvels. So were the other apostles. Paul lists the 12 AND Peter as those to whom Jesus appeared in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-8). You simply do not forget something like this. Peter had seen Jesus transformed in an instant to the sun's radiance, standing with Moses and Elijah.

These men killed Jesus, but God has done it by resurrection to install Christ as the New Temple's foundation by apostles and prophets He sent. They performed their miracles, Peter answered the Sadducees, in the Name of the Builder of the New Temple, of which this formerly lame man had just become a part.

Back then, they did not have the phrase, "In your face." But if they had, this would have been it. Peter and John had power from on High, from heaven which the Temple signified. By killing Jesus these men had established the New Temple half-way. God did the rest.

Jesus had said to his opponents: "Destroy this Temple and in three days will I raise it up." This translates: "Do your worst." But the Temple of which He spoke was His own body. Peter had said the same thing: by killing Jesus' body -- God's perfect sacrifice -- they had eliminated the need for the levitical priesthoods imperfect and now-useless sacrifices.

They had -- in the most important ways I can think of -- utterly refuted themselves, and their entire sacrificial system. Jesus was now in charge of the Temple and its absolute standard. The cornerstone's purpose was to set the architectural standard for the rest of the Building. Those who trust in His sacrifice enter the New Temple. Those who do not, are left in the court of the Gentiles as unclean. Jesus is now the standard for entry.

He became that cornerstone by their prophesied execution of Him, and God's prophesied resurrection of Him. God operated here strictly by lex talionis. The blessing of the Abrahamic covenant now rests with Jesus -- raised from the dead as Melchizedek the High Priest - to impose upon those of whom he declares it, every spiritual blessing in Christ.

This blessing was here associated with a formerly lame man, the offspring (after a fashion of Mephibosheth). Likewise, this man had been invited forever to eat at the Lord's table, very much like the table of Showbread in the Temple, from which only the priests could eat.

Mephibosheth was no longer lame, but he still ate at the table of David's Son. It was the name of Jesus of Nazareth that had made Him whole, Who is the Chief and Standard of the New Temple. The Levitical Priesthood was put to death in Christ's death. And He was raised - and all those in Him - to the life of a new priesthood. The Lord Jesus intended to bless them by turning them from their inqiuties, as was the duty of the priest to bless the people in the Name of the Lord.

This blessing comes by the preaching of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. The Lord has done it, to this very day, by apostles, prophets, evangelists and ministers. And it is marvelous in our eyes.

Obama Inhaled: Let Me Be the First To Say -- "Who Cares?"

It would appear that certain morbid reporters are still asking the "inhaled question" of political candidates, as though voters actually care about what they did or did not do that was really stupid in high school. For some reason, the doorbell ditching question just doesn't make the list, which is odd because that's alot more fun than losing your memory temporarily. Whoopie cushion questions apparently are forbidden, and from my point, just as relevant.

Why does smoking top the list of dumb teenage exploits, and not say, DUI's, or any number of other sins of youth? Maybe older Americans who skipped the whole hippy-love-drug sixties are starting to feeling like the missed out. I dunno. What they missed out on was brain damage, and a variety of other self-destructive behaviors, put to really bad music.

Obama says he inhaled because "that was the point." At least he has follow-through. There is a verse from the Proverbs which says that the sluggard buries his hand in the dish, but will not bring it back again to his mouth." You are not supposed to bury your hand in the dish - this is an act of gluttonous grabbing -- me first. But if you do smoke, at least have the follow-through to inhale.

Otherwise, people remember that not only did you do what you should not have (you are never absolved by doing illegal things in a lazy manner), but that you didn't even have the basic know how to do the job right. It wasn't just illegal; it was incompetent too your honor! Can I go now?

I like Obama. He is not afraid of the question; he "just handled it" and told the truth in an age when it's the most you can do in many cases just to ask for your representatives to lie to you IN ENGLISH. 10 to 1 Obama knows exactly what "Is" really means. I don't think he will ever get elected to the Whitehouse. He's honest and intelligent. That's two strikes already. But you gotta admire his determination.

Here is the article caption of Obama handling the question right, and, here the rule applies well that no good deed will go unpunished.

"Obama: Yes, I inhaled—that was the point"

AUDUBON, Iowa (CNN) — Earlier this week in New Hampshire Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke candidly about his past experimentation with drugs and alcohol in high school, and on Saturday—after a question on medicinal marijuana—Obama was prodded a bit further and asked whether or not he had ever inhaled.

"I did," the senator from Illinois said to light applause. "It's not something I'm proud of. It was a mistake as a young man."

The question was a reference to a line made famous by former President Bill Clinton who, while admitting to trying marijuana, said he did not inhale. "I never understood that line," Obama continued. "The point was to inhale. That was the point."

On the campaign trail on Saturday, GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney said Obama's earlier comments set a bad example for young people."

Read Article? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Comments: Mit says it sets a bad example. Well, Mit, tell us about the history of Mormon polygamy and what kind of example that sets. Oh I know. In 1882, the Mormons quit practicing polygamy because they are "so godly," and obeyed the U.S. government's mandate to cease and desist, or get driven into Mexico. If Mit had been running for president in 1879, we might end up with two or three first ladies. They may have family values, but how extended that family is, is something of an open question. The complied because they had to, and after the practice got their founder killed.

This is not the best religion to join and speak of setting good examples. The false prophet (and looking-glass seer) -- he was fined for this -- Joseph Smith died in a shootout in a jail at Carthage, Illinois -- not too far from Barrack's hometown. Mit had better be careful because those jailhouse records still exist, and Obama could do some very interesting research, like the late Dr. Walter Martin did.

Dr. Martin was known as the foremost expert on pseudo-Christian cults in his day and carried the "Bible Answer Man" title to some fame in the Evangelical world. His title was well earned.

I think we'll just call Mit's comment a Carthaginian misfire and leave it at that, a simple case of "just blowing smoke." Does it even really matter?

Like Cheeseburgers? Let's Make It Hot

Now and again, this or that strain of the now infamous (and quite deadly) E. coli bacteria shows up in a beef shipment. Word on the street is you need to cook your burgers at above 160F to make the bacteria defunct if you happen to get a bad sample. I cannot think of any good reason NOT to do this in the first place. 160 is not really cooking something. The steamed milk at Starbuck's has to be this temperature. If you order your coffee -- which is not to be cooked -- extra hot, you get 180.

My take? Barbecue it over an open flame. It tastes far better, you get the burger actually COOKED (not just thawed at 160), and the whole backyard smells great. So it's Autumn. So what. Your barbecue can't tell time, and the lighter fluid can't even spell (which means it would vote Republikin if possible). Here is the article which commands you in the name of the E.Coli damage control medical team to cook your hamburgers, so they don't look red anymore. Okay, but it's your liver transplant. The Associated Press wants you to know that:

"A company voluntarily recalled nearly 96,000 pounds of ground beef products after two people were sickened, possibly by the E. coli bacteria, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said Saturday.

The recalled ground beef products were distributed in seven states.

The beef products by American Foods Group include coarse and fine ground beef chuck, sirloin and chop beef. They were distributed to retailers and distributors in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Virginia. The problem surfaced after an investigation by the Illinois Department of Health, which was looking into two reports of illnesses.

The bacteria is E. coli O157:H7. E. coli is harbored in the intestines of cattle. Improper butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat. Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can destroy the bacteria."

The whole article is found here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/25/beef.recall.ap/index.html

Comments: No, I don't work for Burger King or Wendy's, but charbroiling rules.

Of Chemistry And Way Cool Words To Know

Today's word is "amphoteric" (Say "am-fuh-TER -ik"]. This describes things like iron, metals or other substances, which react with other chemicals as either an acid or a base, depending on reactive conditions. Wiki examples include some kinds of zinc and aluminum.

An acid simply is something "acidic," which often means anything -- when dissolved in water or some other liquid -- with a pH balance lower than 7, and a base is higher than a 7. This makes 7 the "neutral" pH descriptor.

Pure water is a 7. And slurpees are pretty close. This means the further (in either direction) you get from a 7, the less likely you are to want to drink it.

Coca-cola is unrated because, should it receive a rating, we would find out that it is amphoteric, and can rank as either a 1 (like battery acid), or about a 12 (like ammonia or bleach) on the pH scale -- meaning, given enough time, it could eat a hole through the earth half way to China.

Black holes are places where astronauts spilled their cokes into an unsuspecting galaxy. Bad things happened to their inhabitants. Scientists will tell you that there are no inhabitants in black holes. Gee, I wonder why.

Here It Comes: Ready Or Not -- $100 Oil

Last week's record high of $96.24/ barrel is expected to be overtaken soon as many are taking out positions -- call options -- with prices ("Strikes") well above 100.00. FT.com reports a run on call options used for hedging -- insurance call purchases -- of up to $250/ barrel.

This means people are beginning to panic. But they are panicking properly by buying insurance against that which they see coming. If the price drops, the most one can lose is the price of the contract. This unique feature makes options very safe. Some 75-80% of all options contracts expire worthless, but this does not mean that no one made money on them. Several owners can make money on a single contract changing hands before the final holder is left with no chair when the music stops (expiration transpires).

This means that only 20% of contract holders actually take delivery of the good underlying the contracts.

This rush on oil contracts will probably have a gold and silver counterpart, and this means the U.S. dollar will likely drop further against other major currencies, even though it has lost an astounding 34% of its total value since 2001. This means a loaf of bread costing $2.50 in 2001 now costs about $3.75, using your chopped up dollars.

This is really bad and shows the effects of U.S. involvement abroad for an extended period. I hate to say "I told you so," but ..... I am still telling you so. The Iraq war is bad for the world economy, bad for the Middle East, its bad for our European neighbors, and its bad for America. Meanwhile terrorist enrollment climbs to well over its pre-Iraq invasion levels.

Reality check: how's the program going? If even one person enables Jack Cafferty to find these statistics, he is going to have a field day with them (I am sure he has researchers).

When oil hits the 100 mark, it would be worthwhile to tune him in. He is sure to have a few great one-liners ready to launch.

Want to read about the mad dash on oil calls? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5a8517a-8bdd-11dc-af4d-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Quote of the Week

"If I were George Bush, I would fire me." -- anonymous

(I heard this a while back on Jack Cafferty's show from a caller-in, but I have no idea who he was).

Perhaps not too many people know who Jack Cafferty is, of "Cafferty Files" fame on CNBC. But they should; he is really funny, and his job is, basically, to vent his frustrations carefully enough to avoid offending too many people on the CNBC staff, but to invite as many intelligent ventors as possible to contribute to his show. He reads some of the better-expressed opinions on the air, always the hardliner votes, no matter which direction they lean.

No one ever has ever wondered about how Jack feels on any one topic. Mostly, he berates stupid politicians and policies very cleverly. I probably agree with Jack about half the time, but laugh about 95% of the time. He has every senior citizen's dream job. They pay him to be crochety.

If he had his own radio talk-show, I would definitely listen in. Many of his criticisms bear excellent logic, and he almost always offers the justification for his critiques. He isn't a ranter, so much as a teacher with attitude. He has serious points to make, but makes them humorously.

It's downright funny. You can read up a little on Jack (and see his pic) at the CNN situation room site here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/blog/

Chinese Stock Market Overtakes Britain's As Third Largest

Petrochina is a very large oil company -- one of the largest in the world with a $1 trillion (US) valuation. This outstrips Exxon Mobil Corp. and General Electric Co. combined. China's economy continues its longstanding rally, as it's economy grew at around 8-9% again last year. And the economists continuing denying that this is possible. Thankfully, none has yet called China a Democracy.

The article summary on Petrochina's growth reads:

"The rally makes PetroChina shares four times more expensive than those of Exxon, even though China's biggest oil producer has a quarter of the revenue. China's stock market was valued at less than $1.1 trillion before tripling this year and giving the communist nation four of the world's 10 biggest companies, even after today's 5 percent tumble in Hong Kong stocks."

To read more on this topic, click here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQyRJI72Kor8&refer=worldwide

If these number do not make a great deal of sense, then just take this away from the article:
China is still growing like a monster, and is beginning to overtake some of the top ten major players in the West. This should frighten you. U.S. foreign policy simply is not working, and neither are most economic policies of western nations.

What we need: Less failing. More Bible.

Extreme 2 Mile Long Pileup on N 99 In California's Central Valley

You've heard of a Snafu (situation normal all fogged up), well, this is it. Over 100 vehicles crunched their way into the newspaper headlines with this extraordinary accident on northbound highway 99. Pray for these people because -- if I know insurance companies -- they are going to need it. The funds are always less than needed and they come too late. It's just an ordinary way of things. The Fox News article caption reads:

FRESNO, Calif. - Collisions on a foggy freeway Saturday resulted in a pileup of as many as 100 vehicles and the deaths of at least two people, the California Highway Patrol said. The collisions included nine big rigs on northbound Highway 99 just south of Fresno, CHP Officer Scott Jobinger said.

"It looks like we had a chain reaction crash in that fog," Jobinger said.

[The article adds:] "Wrecked vehicles were scattered for at least two miles along the freeway as crews worked to clear the wreckage ..."

Here are the rest of the details if you wish: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_on_re_us/freeway_pileup

If I may be so bold as to offer a little advice? Pay attention. READ this article and take it to heart. DO NOT DRIVE IN THE FOG. I know you have a million good reasons why you should. But I have over a hundred on my side, and they can ruin your life. It simply is not worth it.

If you still have doubts, please re-read the article. Thank you.

I Believe In Jesus, So I Believe In Capitalism

Many today remain skeptical that the Bible -- a book "of religion" actually conveys the ideals and doctrines one might use to make a case that it actually favors a particular kind of economic system. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) wrote a constitution which in fact specifies that the Bible favors no particular economic system.

Doctor Gary North has spent the better part of a very scholarly life disproving just that claim. I surely will not here attempt to recapitulate all the details of his bibical case for capitalism (but I will recommend his books at http://www.freebooks.com/). Nevertheless, I will show in brief from the Word of God that its well-known doctrines do in fact imply one kind of economic framework, thus denying in principle all others.

The Bible clearly teaches doctrines compatible only with free market capitalism, and even specifies the precise limits of just how "free" this market economy ought to be. It's ethical teachings form a legal and socio-economic framework when carried to their logical conclusions, and applied where they themselves teach they ought to be applied.

The Bible has the final and authoritative answer to all social theoretical questions, all of them. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces any people. The Proverbs tell us this, and they teach kings how to rule a society, a people. It was written by kings for their children -- future kings. This means it necessarily possesses a social and economic doctrinal set.

First, God has given Christ "all authority in heaven and on the earth." Before Christ condescended from heaven, He was already King of Heaven. This is not new. What is new is the last part, specifying that He (since His vindication three days after his death at the hands of the whole world -- Jew and Gentile alike) properly inherits all things. For it is written, "The meek shall inherit the earth," and again, "God gave to men the earth" (Psalm 24:1).

These men who will inherit it, with Christ, the Heir of all things, come from every tribe, tongue and nation, both male and female (Gen. 1:26). The conquer what becomes their portion of that inheritance by the grace of God found in the Gospel of Christ. This they declare as priestly evangelists in training. They inherit in the resurrection what they conquer in this life by the Gospel, rising as kings to impose the law of the Lord as the law of the land.

At least that it what the book of Revelation says. The Psalms and Proverbs said it first though. In short, God's people do what Jesus did. This does require, however, a little change in our understanding of "meekness" since the Lord Jesus thundered against the wicked powers of his day. In this regard, he was little different than all the prophets. But that is for another time.

God's sovereignty in Christ implies that He rules all things, and Christ the king favors the righteous in his ruling, and withstands the wicked. God works "all things together for the good of them that love Him." This implies the postmillenial thesis.

Christians must inherit -- win, succeed, obtain victory - over three things: the world, the flesh, and the devil. This victory is guaranteed, and Christ Himself is the surety (guarantee) of that promised success. He accomplished this already in principle, but its historical outworking remains. This is why the Bible teaches Christians to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (i.e. with extreme caution, circumspectly, not recklessly).

Thus, success in all things -- the blessings of the covenant of grace -- Christians possess fully only in the resurrection unto glory. Yet, the Bible teaches that a Christians initial salvation (justification and regeneration) is continuous with the rest of his salvation. He simply "works out" what he already is and has in order to grow in sanctification (holiness, to be like God).

For God is at work in His people causing them to will and to act according to His good pleasure, and He who began a good work in them will complete it til the day of Christ Jesus. God, therefore, over time even overcomes their own stubborn tendencies to rebel, and subdues the flesh to his holy purposes. There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord -- not from the world, not from the flesh, and not from the devil (see the book of Job).

So the sovereignty of God in Christ, plus the goodness of the rule of Christ toward His people, plus the doctrine of the continuity of salvation in Christ, these three taken together imply that Christian begin to inherit from the moment they are saved. That inheritance continues until they finalize it in the resurrection.

Why then do not all Christians grow progressively more wealthy over time? The answer is found in the order of God's priorities for his people: holiness first, then happiness. But He wants both for them. Nevertheless, sometimes He postpones the one for the sake of the other. In the end, the greater sanctification NOW leads to the greater final blessing later.

Let us revert to the book of Job. Why did God allow -- even bring to bear - curses upon Job and his household? In every case, it was for the purpose of Job's greater sanctification. The odd thing is that Job is introduced to us as "a man who fears God and shuns evil." But Job has issues. He tries -- for one thing -- to live a righteous life on behalf of his own children. He sacrifices for them almost compulsively to insure that they do not go astray in their hearts. This is not Job's terrain. It is God's. Job was righteous and loved his house, but He did not trust in God's sovereignty (yet). Neither did Jonah (He didn't trust the fish either).

Job, in short, was a man both of faith and fear. And God sought to purge him of the one in order to establish the other -- to overcome the flesh in Job, and to silence the world of complainers against him (both against Job on the one hand and God on the other), and the devil whom God had invited to a debate. Satan recognized God's challenge for just what it was: God was taunting Satan. And Satan took up the challenge God knew he could not resist. The Lord played him like a fiddle.

Thus did Job portray the Lord Jesus by way of type, where Satan was again seduced by his own pride into supposing he might defeat God. The "defeat" he brought about was his own. That is called "Lex Talionis." Some 1,200 years (or so) after the life of Job -- Job was not a post-exilic book -- and Satan had learned nothing about the infallible Sovereignty of God. His pride would not permit him to learn what others had clearly seen - including Job's friends. One wonders at what distance Satan stood from the conversation God had with Job in the later part of the book. Surely, he knew of it soon after if not at the time (for he was given to roaming to and fro throughout the earth -- Lord later said of this roaming "Seeking whom he may devour", where devour means to "kill, steal and destroy" - the ultimate vandal).

So we know that Job inherited over time, but that inheritance was not smooth and even. It was however, continuous. His type shows that God's people inherit good things from God -- mixed with trials and tribulations. But the very long end of Job's life was one of peace and great wealth and prosperity. He died "Old and full of years," satisfied with his life.

Proverbs 11:30 shows a continuity between heaven and earth for the righteous: "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner."

Matthew 19:27-30 has Peter inquiring of the Lord Jesus:

" ... Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."

Here, it is plain that Jesus specifies just what the receive a hundred times as much OF -- the same that was mentioned by Peter in the question -- "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands." Does this not sound like the book of Job again? Here, the Lord suggests a continuity between this life -- what Christians give up in order to follow Christ -- and what they recieve "in glory" (everlasting life is a life of glory, like that of Solomon, only far greater).

The resurrection is not about "things" for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. But wisdom is to be acquired in the acquiring of all other things. So possessions are not "the point," but they do come with wisdom. Little could be clearer from the life of Solomon - the richest man in history, and its wisest up to that point.

The glory-life of resurrection simply greatly empowers dominion, since the dominion mandate attends humanity in the nature of the case. God is sovereign, and created man in His image, making him a secondarily-sovereign agent. Man is appointed to rule over all under Christ, which 1 Timothy 2 calls Him "The Man" (meaning the second and better Adam).

Thus, we see the aquisition of property -- having and using cool stuff, with houses and land -- form a part of ordinary humanity. Capitalism is "human" economics. Capitalism is based upon work and trade. The Bible teaches both. Salvation is free to men because it must be. There is no way one can earn it. But even that is to be "worked out," with striving. "Strive to enter the narrow gate" the Lord Jesus commanded.

Life -- any life well lived -- necessarily contains a good deal of proper striving (after righteousness and wisdom). This is why eternity is described as "rest" for those that enter the narrow gate. It is rest from striving after that which God commands. The striving does not cause the inheriting of righteousness, but you cannot inherit unless you strive like you mean it. Your three enemies will fight hard to keep you out of the kingdom, so you must fight hard to inherit. This is true for all Christians. The world, Jesus said, loves its own, and so the wicked do not have to fight against that system. They do not have the same strife the Christian does.

But then, from this very short discussion, let us deduce a few things about Capitalism from the Bible's other teachings.

1. God is sovereign and sovereignly gave to men the earth.
2. Thus, the Lord Jesus became a man to inherit it (For Satan had aquired it by stealth).
3. He rules all things in favor of the righteous, and promises them more "good things" (of the kind we are now familiar) in the resurrection. We know resurrected people can eat, since the Lord ate broiled fish and honeycomb, so food is on the menu in the resurrection still.

4. God commands men to rule the earth, and to tend it, as Adam was commanded in the Garden of Eden. We are supposed to acquire land and build it up (improvements) like the Proverbs 31 woman. She buys and sells. So did Solomon.

5. The Bible commands men to fill the earth and subdue it. This is part of being human, not some part of being Christian per se.

6. The Bible commands men to serve (make and produce things other people want) and trade. Goods and services form the backbone of a nation's GNP. This is basic capitalism 101.

7. Above all, we are to seek wisdom. "In all your getting," Solomon commands his children [i.e. God commands His children] "get understanding." Without this, the possession of goods and services mean nothing, since one cannot manage them well. Give a fool a great deal of money suddenly and you will have a dead fool. Give a fool a great deal of wisdom suddenly, and you have a man fit for a great deal of wealth suddenly.

8. Wisdom consists in the strategic acquisition and distribution of wealth in such a way as to advance the Gospel of Christ and its attendant virtues, of which faith, hope and charity are chief. This is what it means to say, "for the glory of God and good of men."

9. The proper limits of free market economies are set by the law of the Lord (the international standard of wisdom). This would include prohibiting the manufacture and sale of idols, conducting business on the Lord's Day, prostitution or pornography of any kind, slavery, and the like. It would also limit taxation to no more than 10% total in any national case, and would require some behaviors. These include aiding and abetting your neighbor's welfare and prosperity, as though it were your own (i.e. so called "Good Samaritan" laws).

10. All these teachings of the Bible are wholly incompatible with any form of Communism or Socialism. Communism forbids private property, where the dominion mandate commands this (and the eighth commandment presupposes this since you cannot steal what no one owns). Socialism, the control of the distribution of goods, places total control -- but not ownership -- of the nations assets in its hands. The Bible understands ownership to include control, thus refuting all forms of socialism.

The apostle Peter said to Ananias, "While it [the land he proposed to give away] was yours, was it not in your power to do with it what you will?" The authoritative example of the apostles shows that even when "everyone had everything in common," that the control of their assets only fell under Church jurisdiction AFTER it was freely donated -- NOT by compulsion from the state or Church.

Therefore, we may safely conclude that the Sovereignty of God, His gracious donation of the earth to us, our derived soverignty under Him, the dominion mandate, the wisdom mandate, our continuity with the resurrection, the Great Commission's doctrine of inheritance which Jesus taught, the biblical prohibiton against theft, it's command to love our neighbor as the self, and the many several other related doctrines of the Bible -- clearly convey the logical force of a command which amounts to free market capitalism.

This consists in the right of men to pursue the dominion and wisdom mandates by work and trade within the social and economic limits specifed by the law of the Lord. Because I have obligation to love my neighbor, I also have the obligation to help him do what God commands him.

Only free market capitalism can fulfill, without obstructing, the two greatest commandments. If it is hatred of my neighbor to steal from him, it must be love to help him prosper and advance the cause of his personal wealth. This is why the OT says, "If you see your neihbor's ox stuck in a ditch, go and help him pull it out." Therefore, God commands free-market capitalism, and forbids all forms of socialism and communism.

This is not a new commandment, but an old one. Even the Westminster divines, among those Puritans who gave us (eventually) the stock markets, have free-market capitalism clearly built into the Larger and Shorter Catechisms on the duties commanded and forbidden under the eighth, ninth and tenth commandments.

These read:

Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.[162]

Q. 75. What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth, or may, unjustly hinder our own, or our neighbor’s wealth or outward estate.[163]

Q. 76. Which is the ninth commandment?

A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[164]

Q. 77. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name,[165] especially in witness-bearing.[166]

Comments: One's wealth and prosperity depends to a great extent on his or his company's reputation. McDonald's has built up (earned) a certain reputation. To deliberately undermine it would differ in no material aspect from stealing, since the effect would be to deplete its resources.

Q. 78. What is forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name.[167]

Q. 79. Which is the tenth commandment?

A. The tenth commandment is, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.[168]

Q. 80. What is required in the tenth commandment?
A. The tenth commandment requireth full contentment with our own condition,[169] with a right and charitable frame of spirit toward our neighbor, and all that is his.[170]

Q. 81. What is forbidden in the tenth commandment?
A. The tenth commandment forbiddeth all discontentment with our own estate,[171] envying or grieving at the good of our neighbor, and all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his.[172]

The Puritans sure could spot an implicate of any proposition or proposition set. They properly infered these answers from the commandments, given the rest of their canonical context.

Commandments 8 through 10 are then properly refered to as the trifecta of biblical, free-market capitalism -- if we allow for the irony that the Bible forbids "trifectas"(i.e. gambling, since it necessarily includes coveting -- fast money won perchance with [theoretically] unlimited potential).

Therefore, I believe in capitalism as an article of the Christian faith, not simply because it has turned out to be better for people, because "it works," or because the majority likes it. God commands the dominion and wisdom pursuits. Biblically-circumscribed capitalism is not some mere tradition of men. This is why it works so well. But we ought not to favor what has good short-term consequences merely for the benefits. That is pragmatism, and James plainly teaches that we are to shun such fleshly and demonic "wisdom."

I believe in capitalism because I believe in Jesus. The promotion of free-market capitalism simply amounts to promoting the Christian economic system, as one part of the Christian worldview. It should not be treated entirely in isolation from the rest of the biblical outlook, though this may be necessary for the purpose of limiting one's teachings for the moment.

But any one proposition, doctrine, or set of teachings we must eventually situate within the whole worldview to properly "contextualize" (this is what people often mean by this very awkward term) it, to see it within a more balanced picture of the way it relates to the other Christian doctrines we are more familiar with.

Christian capitalism simply forms one of the many sets of doctrines within the biblical framework. It is an article of the Christian faith, the faith of Jesus, and should be treated as such in any Christian teaching context. This means that advocating any form of Socialism or Communism amounts by the force of logic to teaching another religion which seeks to compete with the Gospel of Christ for the allegiance -- and wallets -- of men.

As such counter-biblical economic theories and systems properly form apologetic targets for the biblical apologist. This means Keynesianism, Social Security programs (which amount either to Ponzi or Pyramid schemes), and other counter-biblical policies are fair game.

And not just any form of "Capitalism" will do. The ten commandments and their canonical qualifications are highly specific as to which kind of capitalism the Lord has commanded. This means I am not advocating Libertarianism, although I would prefer much of its platform precepts to those of the Republicans (pragmatist Capitalism) or Democrats (pragmatist Socialism). And let the reader notice -- as I have mentioned before -- the postmillenial nature of Capitalism.

The fact that Islam, for instance, does not allow one to charge interest on loans truncates its ability to grow and take dominion (thankfully). Here, it fails the postmillenial economic test. Jesus commanded of the wicked and lazy servant, "YOU should have put your money at interest with the bankers...."

The Lord Jesus is a capitalist of a very biblical kind, a practical Man who seeks profitable servants, who forgives the debts of those unable to pay who seek it of Him, who puts up surety for His people [with the full faith and credit of heaven and earth], and who specificies in His Word just how He expects His people to manage their money.

This means that I am not a Socialist or a Communist for the same reason I am a theonomic Capitalist: I believe in Jesus, and in the faith He commands.

And now for a very unscientific postscript.

Capitalism buys shares of "goods, services and contracts" [companies], not "chances." The mutually-consenting nature of gambling does nothing to mitigate its evil, since coveting is a form of false religion, the worship of chance and money. This is a commonly-misunderstood aspect of free-market capitalism with biblically-specified limits.

Christians do not want money -- and men ought not to want money -- gained in ways the Bible forbids. They should seek money to which God hs promised to add his blessing. The favor of God brings wealth, and God adds no trouble with it. Thus, capitalism seeks to acquire -- since God command us to acquire -- but properly construed it seeks to acquire for the glory of God and the benefit (both short and oh-so long-term benefit) of men.

It seems clear enough -- given the Bible's teachings and the confessional dicta based upon them from the Puritans -- that the RPCNA should give real consideration to amending its Constitution in this regard. There is no shame in reformation, but rather glory, the inevitable destination of believers in Jesus from every denomination.

But the ones with better confessions and greater understanding (like the RPCNA and almost any denomination with three letters or more) have a special obligation to conform their standards to their better knowledge. For they lead God's people at the head.

Though not on a one-for-one basis, Presbyterians tend to rate their denominations by numbers of letters the way others do their hotels with stars, making the RPCNA something of a five-star denomination. So they will want a very clean lobby. Fair or no, people expect more from hotels with more stars.

If your denomination believes in capitalism, this means the elders take their Bibles very seriously. If they have not come this far yet, give it a little time, and send them a link to this post. And don't forget to pray for them. They need it almost as much as you do.

The Quest For the Historical Jesus: Insights From the Aramaic Biblical Textual Features and Joachim Jeremias

Back as far as the early 1970's, serious studies of the language used by Jesus and the disciples most commonly were well underway. Joachim Jeremias was, to some extent, at the forefront of such studies, having noticed the uniqueness of Jesus' form of divine address, teaching his disciples to call Him "Abba," in studying the Aramaic basis for the "logia" sayings of Jesus, and the many Aramaic idioms which pepper the NT.

Don't smirk. This funny name comes with excellent scholarship.

He noted quite helpfully several characteristic ways Jesus spoke. These he called Jesus' "prefered ways" of speaking. He held that

"The idiom underlying the sayings of Jesus is to be defined as part of the western branch of the Aramaic family of languages ... More precisely, it should be said that the mother-tongue of Jesus was a Galilean version of western Aramaic." (New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. Charles Scribner & Sons, New York, 1971, pp. 3-4).

He cites as exemplars for study, Mark 5:41 ("Talitha Koum(i)") [also Mt. 5:17b in rabbinic tradition] -- which is "Little girl, arise!," the Psalmic cry from the cross ("Eli, Eli, lamasabacthani") -- "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34), and a number of other individual words, and Aramaisms (idiomatic expressions from that tongue underlying the Greek translation of them) used by the Lord Jesus.

Jeremias argues, "This evidence shows yet again how untenable is the theory that Hebrew was used as an everyday language in Palestine, and especially in Judaea, in the time of Jesus. That is not to deny that Jesus knew Hebrew. The report in Luke 4:16-19 that He read the Hebrew lection from the prophets (haptara) in the synagogue service presupposes this" (ibid., 7-8). Jeremias quickly adds:

"... In view of the number of Hebraisms [He used], we must reckon with the possibility that Jesus spoke the words of institution in the sacred language" (ibid., 8).

The Lord Jesus characteristically used the divine passive. Here he spoke of God without mentioning His Name, or titles, as Rabbinic Jews did customarily to show reverence for the Lord. If you did not mention the divine name, you could not abuse it. This shows a verbal caution known in the Bible as "the fear of the Lord," which is the beginning of wisdom.

Of those customs in which the Pharisees and Saduccees adopted conventions which conformed to the principles of the Word, the Lord Jesus followed custom. An example of the divine passive would be the phrase "born from above" (or the Gk. "gennaethe anothen") found in John 3. Here, "from above" specifies the direction of heaven, where God's throne is. But it never directly mentions the Lord of that throne.

This is called in language patterns a "circumlocution," meaning literally, to "speak around." Jeremias notes that the Lord Jesus 'had no hesitation in using the word, "God,"' but that he characteristically chose alternatives when He deemed such overt mentions unnecessary, or if the mention of His Name was not wholly appropriate to the occasion. Most often, He spoke of God's feelings and actions in paraphrases.

Some of the more common circumlocutions He employed include the substitution of "heaven" for "God." These included references to "the kingdom," " the kingdom of heaven," simply "He" without specifying God further; sometimes, as when speaking of the author of Scripture, He simply refered to the voice of the Lord in the Scripture, as in "It is written," or "It says."

The easiest use of language for such terms comes from Greek rather than Aramaic, but the circumlocutive pattern remains. This is an Aramaic linguistic custom which underlies the Greek text.

Jeremias, who has quite a long list of dominical circumlocutions, explains their importance directly:

"The great number and variety of circumlocutions for God which occur in the sayings of Jesus is striking. even when we note that some of them occur only once or twice ... even more notable than the number and variety of these circumlocutions is the strong preference [of Jesus] for one of them, the 'divine passive' [voice]. A great many of the sayings of Jesus only make their full impression when we realize that the passive is a veiled hint at an action on the part of God. Thus, e.g. Matt. 5:4 might appropriately be rendered, "Blessed are those who mourn, for there is One who will comfort them."

Interestingly, "there is a limited section of the literature of Palestnian Judaism of the time of Jesus in which the 'divine passive' is firmly established: apocalytpic literature. It occurs frequently for the first time in the book of the prophet Daniel ... it can be said that the divine passive remains one of the characteristics of the apocalyptic, even if that is not exclusively its domain."

In other words, the particulars of the speech of Jesus, his peculiar use of "Abba," (Father) and his special preference for the divine passive [and several other features] are consistent with his favorite self-reference, as the Son of Man. The Lord Jesus did not only see Himself as the Danielic Person called by this title, his linguistic patterns show that his identity as the Son of Man were so deeply rooted that even the more minor details of his speech patterns show this.

This is utterly consistent throughout the Gospels and does not change. This means that the most "early" (Palestianian and Semitic) features of the Gospel accounts already show Jesus as a fully human and fully divine Person from the apocalyptic portion of the First Testament. This explains just why the earliest embedded Aramaic-based poems -- which formed the dominical and apostolic "pattern of sound words" (the catechism of the earliest Church) -- all begin with an extremely high Christology. This Christology was rooted in the linguistic features and deeds of Jesus IN THE FUTURE and in the resurrection.

This Christology originated with Jesus Himself, not with the apostles. More to the point, it originated with Daniel, or the One who gave Daniel his prophecy. Hebrews tells us that Jesus was enabled to endure the suffering of the cross "For the joy set before Him." This refers to His future, more particularly, his resurrection and ascension future as the Danielic Son of Man, who ascends to the throne of God, and sits down at the Right Hand of Power.

Jesus kept his eyes fixed squarely on this prophecy of reward for the Messiah's earthly ministry, and all his deeds and speech patterns show this. This self-identity formed the basis of the original, ecclesiastical pattern of teaching. That is why both sets of features show up in the Greek text -- both with Jesus and with the apostolic teachings -- as underlying Semitic features we call "Aramaisms."

Notably, Daniel chapters 2-7 were written originally in Aramaic, not Hebrew, like the rest of the Older Testament (minus a very small part of Nehemiah). Daniel's book, as it were, prophecies the -- how do I say this -- "biblical Aramaicity" of the personal identity of the Messiah, which comes from an "Aramaic thought-structured" book. And the Son of Man appears in chapter 7.

Much more can be adduced in favor of this position, so I plan to continue to expand upon this post, if the Lord wills.

This much I can say: the Gospel accounts show a kind of meticulous accuracy in the least details of our Lord's speech habits, which confirm his identity as the glorified, divine Son of Man, and show that the high Christology of Daniel is that Christology which appears in the apostolic, catechetical pattern for the whole Church.

So that pattern has both a prophetic element embedded within it (from Daniel) and an historical element since we learn of the Son of Man much more fully in the Gospel accounts themselves. Thus, when Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding in Cana, John summarizes this as the first time at which he "revealed his glory." The Gospel of John begins with Jesus as "the light of men," a picture utterly consistent with the Danielic Son of Man, and with His Glorious Person in the resurrection.

Thus do the Gospel accounts progressively show forth, as it were, hint after hint (like the pieces of a puzzle coming together) of His full revelation as the Son of Man, which shines forth fully only at the end. The apocalyptic counterpart to Daniel in the NT, the Book of Revelation, thus portrays Christ as the King of Kings, and High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, which offices are consummate in the glorified Son of Man, who walks amidst the churches.

None of this undoes the fact that all Scripture is inspired of God, and useful to His people for its intended purpose. Instead, I contend, God has left a deliberate trail (actually several) throughout the Old and New Testaments, that we might know the Lord Jesus historically and personally, and see Him as He viewed Himself (truthfully), in light of the Holy Scripture.

The "Aramaic trail" from at least Daniel forward lands squarely in the Gospel accounts, follows through Acts in the earliest sermons (Chapters 1-12), and in the history of the church councils, and in the ministry of Paul (esp. with respect to his letters). The embedded Danielic Christology of the sounds words eventually finds its culmination in the Lord Jesus as seen in the Revelation.

Because of its prophetic and historical roots, it forms a way for us to see just how the Gospels came to portray him as they do. In other words, it forms the skeleton of any real effort to develop a biblical form of NT criticism. This, for obvious reasons could never be divorced from the whole Bible, which I bid everyone regard this as another form of argumentation for the position known as "Theonomy," in which all of the Bible is for all of life.

This includes all of historiography. So I will briefly answer the historiographic question which a group from certain quarters keeps proposing: Who is the Historical Jesus?

The answer from the biblical-historical method is this: Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of Man, One greater than Solomon, the King of glory, the Son of the Living God. He is the historical Jesus, the One for whom you have long been searching.

Quest over. Or else just beginning.

Of N.T. Wright, Pluralisms, And The Art of Conceptual Whistleblowing

Hermeneutical pluralists, as we know, wish to tell us just how hard it is, by which they mean (of course) how impossible it is, to know what this or that text in the Bible "really" means. They would have us know that we are really just reading our own prejudices into the text, and pretty much reaping just what we sow.

The proof for all this literary mayhem? "All those different (conflicting) interpretations out there." Well, here is a helpful little quote I ran across from a New Testament scholar of some note, which he did not intend to be used to make the following point. But it does anyway. What we imply by what we say, or write, is not always what we intend. Implications follow from what is said or written (whether we like them or not).

Keep the hermeneutical pluralists putative justification in mind when you read this, and it might - oh it just might - prove fascinating:

This is from N.T. Wright's book he co-authored with Marcus Borg, called The Meaning of Jesus. At the beginning two chapters, each scholar takes a turn to discuss how we know about Jesus, and how the source materials for knowing about Him are handled. In this context, Wright says (p. 21):

"Mutually incompatible theories abound as to where, when, and why the Synoptic Gospels came to final form. Since there is no agreement about sources, there is no agreement as to how and why the different evangelists used them. If, for instance, we believe that Matthew used Mark, we can discuss Matthew's theology on the basis of his editing of Mark [i.e. Mark's Gospel]. If we don't believe Matthew used Mark, we can't."

Now consider the claim of the interpretive pluralist, and then consider the plight for contemporary (non-canonical) New Testament criticism. Often the pluralist will also advance some view of Jesus as "historical" over against the canonical one. Do you see a problem here?

The platforms from which one might launch his various objections to the objective knowability of the truths of the Christian canon often turnout to be their own worst enemies. This is the problem of the circular firing squad. All you have to do is duck to win.

A few examples? These come from your local college campus.

1. Slavery is wrong.
2. There are no moral absolutes.

One of these might be true, but not both.

A. A woman has a right to control her own body (this is used as a justification for abortion).

B. There are no moral absolutes.

These are not logically compatible either. For proposition A (immediately above) assumes you have the objective moral obligation to acknowledge the rights of other people. Why simply respond to proposition A with "so what," all so-called rights are "just conventions" since there are no moral absolutes (remember?).

i. You just have faith

ii. we have reason on our side.

This notably assumes that no faith is also reasonable. But this is not proven, so it is simply an article of faith. As it turns out, all forms of reasoning have basic beliefs not provable from those basic beliefs themselves (with one very auspicious exception).

For knowledge-theory geeks: This is in short a version of Kurt Godel's "incompleteness" theorem. But Godel's stricture falsely assumes that all knowledge is of the same kind (theoretical), and this does not allow for the possibility of revelation (non-theoretical knowledge).

I. Christians should be more tolerant. [Either that or "Atheists" should be Christians]

II. There are no moral absolutes. [Why then OUGHT Christians to do anything?]

1. All religions are equally valid.
2. Some religions are not tolerant

The above pair would imply -- if we assume that tolerance is good -- that all religions are equally valid, unless they are not the ones I find tolerant. (i.e. some religions are more equal than others).

a. Evolution is true
b. You should not plagiarize papers or cheat on science exams.

The truth of "a" implies that people are merely animals. Animals are not morally responsible to do anything. They just do what they do. Therefore, b is false if a is true. This means your professor -- given a -- has no reason to penalize you for denying "a" on your exam or in your papers.

Now let us return to the pluralistas. Not everyone is a pluralist, hermeneutical or otherwise. Since all sorts of non-pluralistic views exist, why should pluralism be assumed true -- given its insistence that multiple competing theories imply the inability to know theory or interpretation which is true? How can the pluralist know his pluralist interpretation of (unknowable) reality is correct?

Now put the pluralist thesis next to some of our candidates:

1. When mulitple interpretations exist, we cannot know
2. There are no absolutes

But some people believe there are absolutes, generating multiple ethical interpretations of reality. This would mean that the pluralist cannot know the truth of proposition 2.

A. When mulitple interpretations exist, we cannot know
B. Evolution is true

But some people are creationists. This generates the multiple theoretical interpretation problem. Therefore, given A, the pluralist cannot know if evolution(ism) is true.

a. When mulitple interpretations exist, we cannot know
b. Science yields true theories

But every science has multiple competitors (or could) for any one theory. Therefore, given a, we must logically deny the knowability of b.

It turns out that it is always possible to deny the pluralist thesis in any context, historical study (as with the N.T. Wright quote above), the sciences, or in legal studies. This denial generates a competitor for pluralism, sufficient to overcome it in each case, on its own terms.

This pretty much makes the pluralist something of a rhetorical punching bag. Don't blame me for the vulnerability of silly arguments. The truth statuses of propositions already have their boundaries set by God in the light of nature. The logically-necessary propositions (which includes all biblical propositions taken together) form those boundaries. I just deliver the message when folks step across the boundaries -- though not nearly so clearly as N.T. Wright.

Whistle-blowing can take many forms. This is the conceptual kind of whistle-blowing. It has a long and glorious history too, like other forms of rational scrutiny. Only my targets, or perhaps patients, are more modern.

N.T. Wright and the Quote of the Week

The Meaning of Jesus, p.18:

"The guild of New Testament studies has become so used to operating with a hermeneutic of suspicion that we find ourselves trapped in our own subtleties [later Wright jokingly calls it a "hermeneutic of paranoia."]. If two ancient authors agree about something, that proves one got it from the other. If they seem to disagree, that proves one or both are wrong. If they say an event fulfilled biblical prophecy, they made it up to look like that. If an event or saying fits a writer's theological scheme, the writer invented it. .... Anything to show how clever we are, how subtle, to have smoked out the reality behind the text. But, as any author who has watched her or his books being reviewed will know, such reconstructions again and again miss the point, often wildly. If we cannot get it right [as with book reviews] when we share a culture, a period, and a language, it is highly likely that many of our subtle reconstructions of ancient texts and histories are our own unhistorical fantasies, unrecognized only because the writers are long since dead, and cannot answer back."

Overcoming The "Jesus Seminar" (And Most of Their Friends) With The Criterion Of Palestianian Environment

The Criterion of Palestinian Environment (CPE), as we have discussed a bit earlier, indicates that many of the linguistic features of the Gospel accounts arose from a predominantly Aramaic-speaking environment. We should count these as "early" according to the CPE timeclock. Such embedded Aramaic features reside in pericopes likely to be authentic or historical for their "primitivity" (of early-Church origin), as the Seminar's idea of legendary growth (and "literary accretion") behind the two-source theory of Gospels development holds that the trend of Gentiles flocking to the later Church altered (Hellenized) its linguistic and ideological character.

Now I have already shown from the "Counterproductive Features" of the Gospel accounts (and the NT more generally) that the Gospels defy any assumed trajectory of legendary growth. This means that the CPF criterion itself refutes the CPE criterion. But just go with it. Assume the veracity of the latter. This way we get to see in action how even false theories can generate very fruitful results, the minor thesis of my former treatise (O Theophilus) on the topic of the biblical philosophy of science.

For more information on that topic, you can visit: http://www.amazon.com/Subduing-Science-Reformation-Natural-Philosophy/dp/0739203584/ref=sr_1_1/103-8986227-6085407?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193423215&sr=1-1

Now J.P. Moreland -- a Christian professor of theology and philosophy somewhere in Southern California I am told -- has written a fancy little textbook called Scaling the Secular City, which has some helpful information in it regard the CPE. He noted there that the NT contains (sprinkled throughout it) a significant number of early Christian creedal affirmations, written in poetic form. These revert easily to Aramaic, and show forth a high Christology, a view of the Lord Jesus as God incarnate, a supernatural miracle-working Christ, prophesied in all the Older Testament Scriptures.

Dr. Moreland lists a few of these as: Romans 1:3-4; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff, 15:3-8; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-18; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:8)

Here is the link to a brief related article by J.P. Moreland:
http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000262.cfm

I would add that these clearly formed the basis of teaching new converts, and even of training ministers, elders and deacons by way of catechizing them with these exgetically identifiable literary units. The Bible calls them a "form [pattern] of sound words."

2 Timothy 1:11-14 has Paul refer to the Gospel, he says,

"Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing [the Gospel] which was committed unto thee [also as an Evangelist] keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us" [prophets].

This letter is not simply from one Christian to another, but from an apostle to a prophet, both of which are Evangelists. Timothy received his special calling to this extraordinary office by the laying on of apostolic hands. Timothy is a deputized apostle [Evangelist] and as such has a special requirement to guard and protect the Gospel [as an entrusted deposit] he preaches, which he learned from the apostle Paul, who catechized and trained him, giving him a pattern of teachings, or "form of sound words." These were apostolic, and mimick the precise teaching of the Lord Jesus found in the post-resurrection narratives of the Gospels. For instance, Luke has the Risen Lord specify to his disciples twice -- once to the two on the road to Emmaus, and once to the twelve -- that Christ had to suffer and rise "according to the Scriptures," which phrase appears verbatim repeatedly in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 -- an originally Aramaic pericope and creedal statement of the early Church.

This shows that these conspicuously early creeds prove both dominical and apostolic. Paul says to Timothy "which thou hast heard of me," meaning "learned from me," showing that Paul received them from the apostles by way of the Lord Jesus intact, and passed them onto his disciples the same way. This also shows what we already knew: Paul has read Luke's Gospel, the writing of his close friend (which he quotes -- Luke 10:7 -- to Timothy also, cf. 1 Tim. 5:18-19). And Luke had read many gospel accounts (Luke 1:1-4), as he says, which we must assume Paul knows also. Paul was a "need-to-know" friend from Luke's standpoint, being an apostle who likely oversaw his writing projects. If Luke knows Mark (and he does), Paul has likely read Mark's Gospel -- and the others Luke knows -- in the interest of maintaining orthodoxy in Christian circles. Paul gives every indication that he hates false teaching, invoking "anathemas" upon those who would spoil the Gospel.

This "pattern of words" does not envision a new form of teaching, as the ten commandments, themselves formed a single literary unit by the pen of Moses, and in Hebrew comprise "The Ten Words," or simply "the dabarim." Moreover, Solomon used the term "word" in precisely this same sense, with each Proverb being a "saying of the wise," and a "word of wisdom." Eccelesiastes (12:9) says Solomon "set in order" (just as did Luke his Gospel) "many proverbs" (a.k.a. the Book of Proverbs). A canonical proverb is a special kind of "word of wisdom."

Proverbs 1:6 likewise equates the "words" of the wise with their "sayings." The stated purpose of this canonical book consists in aiding one "To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

The creeds, catechisms and confessions of the Church of the Lord Jesus carried forward this dominical and apostolic tradition, only they used and systematized what was already delivered to them. Nevertheless, these Hellenized (translated into Koine) Aramaic creedal statements summarize the most important information about the Lord Jesus found in the Gospel accounts. They are by all accounts quite early [even by those not accepting the Criterion of Palestinian environment], Aramaic-based, single units, of excellent poetry, and they are Christological in content.

These also form a powerful united -- did I mention multiply attested and christologically coherent? -- testimony that the Gospel of John merits no such late date as radical scholarship would assign to it on the basis of its "high Christology," which shows -- they say -- "too much mature reflection on the nature and Person of Jesus as the Christ" to have come from the earlier Church. Nor is this Gospel nearly as "Greek" as they suppose on behalf of their counter-historical excuse for their characteristically late dates.

Some have imagined these to be songs of the early Church without warrant. Even if they such a warrant did exist, there is no evidence anyone used them in public worship.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 forms one of the more obvious exemplars native to this catechism. Paul introduces it as a summary of what he preaches ["Christ crucified"], saying:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory [remember] what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

This uses the Aramaic name for Peter, or Simon (Cephas), and names only the two apostles Paul met in Jerusalem (confirming his testimony in Galatians 1, his earliest Epistle). The Epistle deals with the earliest question of controversy in the Church, the relation of circumcision to the Gospel of Christ. This confirms the early status of the embedded Corinthian pericope by multiple attestation and coherence.

A brief aside: The Word of God consistently shows such features as indicate that God has actually anticipated every possible future assault on His Word. This is why the criteria advanced by the Seminar consistently refute themselves in light of, and when applied to, biblical teaching and features. This is because God has done just this. Solomon wrote: "There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan [no pseudo-historical, criteriological construction?], which can succeed against the Lord."

This means that the Bible contains a kind of "built-in" ability, when rightly handled, to overcome all opposition to the Gospel as God intended. Just as Stephen and Apollos spoke by a Spirit which their opponents "could not resist," so the Word of God has a peculiar apologetic feature which I think it not profane to describe in the vulgar tongue (as the apostles themselves often speak very bluntly) as a decided propensity for "forensic whoopass." It innately leads one to overcome opposition to its sacrosanct verities when one submits to its teachings wholeheartedly and in earnest. Though I do not directly offer this as any sort of proof, I personally find this absolutely fascinating as a mark of truth and grace upon the once-for-all-delivered faith of Jesus inscripturate. There simply is nothing like this Book called humbly "the Bible," in all the earth.

Now this form of sound words treated just earlier, was "according to the Scriptures," or based on the prophetic teachings of the First Testament about the Lord Jesus. The apostles corporately composed it, as The Risen Lord taught such doctrines to them for forty days, expounding all things concerning Himself, and teaching them of the Kingdom of God to be scribes fully trained, who might bring forth many treasures, both old and new from the Scriptures. Luke describes this extended (40 days, presumably all day, since the Lord Jesus is very diligent and does all things well) didactic training of the apostles.

These -- this pattern of sound words -- represent some of those gems from both Testaments. This is part of the same "apodosis," or apostolic corpus of dominical tradition which Paul committed to the Corinthians in quoting the Lord Jesus concerning his last supper with them as a mortal (1 Cor. 11-14). This shows that the early Christian Church did what Rabbis always do -- they MEMORIZED the traditions of their teachers verbatim. Neither the Lord Jesus in the resurrection, nor the converted apostle Paul ever stopped being a Rabbi.

Once someone is born (or raised) from above with the gift of teaching, it never quits. The gifts an calling of God are without revocation. Crucial terms to look for in spotting this form of sound words are "received...delivered," which conveys the transmitting (of biblical truth) work of a rabbi and their students. They memorized and kept unchanged (accurately "remembered") sacred teaching, passing it on to the next generation of rabbinical students.

This signifying pair (received, delivered) does not always appear where the apostles or prophets cite the apodosis, or holy deposit committed to them. But when it does appear, the apodosis follows in each case.

In 1 Timothy 3, we encounter a short "saying of the wise" with the above noted characteristics, enabling it to pass the CPE. Here, after giving the qualifications of elders and deacons, Paul refers to the Church as "The Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of Truth." He then proceeds to quote the Church, by citing its "form of sound words," saying (v. 16),
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifest in the flesh

Note: this characteristically Johannine phrase refutes the late-date for John's Gospel. Paul and John share the same theology.

justified in the Spirit,

[i.e. "vindicated by the Holy Spirit" = raised from the dead by the Spirit]
seen of angels,

preached unto the Gentiles,

believed on in the world,

received up into glory."

This pericope is shocking for several reasons.

1. It follows a prophetic pattern from the Psalms, and forms a sketchy list of Christologically important events from the Gospels. This follows the pattern set by Jesus in his teaching that the Christ first had to suffer, and then enter his "glory" -- the last word in this unit -- "according to the Scriptures" [or here, "Psalms" -- the early Church's hymn book]

2. It is early, and deliberately "poetically structured" (almost symmetrical, as one can see from my "lining out" of the text)

3. It was given by the apostles in Aramaic, and it is quite bare (not theologically ornate).

4. Most notably, this is very early and possesses an extremely high Christology, without hesitation ascribing deity to the Lord Jesus from the outset, and exalted glory at the end.

I conclude, because it clearly follows precisely the pattern set by Jesus (in Luke), that this in fact originated with the Risen Lord (during the forty day didactic stint) in the Spring of A.D. 30. What Jesus taught them was "set in order," for this is God's nature. This is symmetrical and Psalmic. The apostles memorized it. Paul wrote it down. The early Church used it, given its context, to train ministers (like Timothy), elders and deacons so that they could meet the qualifications of that office, having a "good understanding of the faith," and "refuting the gainsayers."

This directly challenges both the doctrine of "legendary growth" and any late date for any Gospel account. Right from the beginning of its early years the Christian Church formally and dogmatically declares that Jesus is "God manifested in the flesh," a multiply attested [CMA] doctrine of the Synoptic Gospels, and of the early catechical formulations scattered throughout the NT. Those sections of the Gospel consistent [criterion of coherence, "CC"] with this doctrine cannot be considered LATE for their high Christology. This is chiefly how radical NT scholars justify a late-date for John's Gospel, contrary to the CPE, CMA and CC.

Philippians 2:6-11 has classically been dubbed "the Christ Hymn," though no one can say with any certainty that the early Church sang it at all (Do not be alarmed -- there were not "three wise men" either said to have visited the young Lord, but some man-made traditions die hard).

The Christ-poem in question refers to "Jesus Christ":

"Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation,
and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man,
he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [Gk. Kyrios],
to the glory of God the Father."

Now please notice that this creedal expression, expands the one we just read, beginning and ending EXACTLY the same way. It opens with a direct claim of Christ's deity, and closes with His exalted glory. This Aramaic (translated into Greek) poem forms a like saying of exactly symmetrical structure.

It begins in heaven with Christ in glory, then he condescends to become human. In his humanity, he makes himself (lit. Gk. "Doulos," a slave). Slaves fit one of three categories of Roman persons who could be crucified. Philippi was a Roman colony. They knew this. Christ's deliberate humbling of Himself, taking to himself the nature of a slave thus inevitably culminates in his crucifixion. Then the poem, just as much "step by step," reverses direction to the exaltation of Christ, showing the inevitable result of His service to God.

The poem then moves from the glory of heaven to the lowest point on earth; and from there it quickly moves in the reverse direction, slightly undoing the symmetry at the end in its finish. This shows that the exaltation of Christ was greater at the end than at the first. Heaven's king had inherited the earth as well. For "God gave to men the earth" (Psalm 24:1). Thus, the humiliation of Christ aims at the King of heaven condescending to inherit and redeem the earth. The mission is an extraordinary success (to put it mildly), just as is the means shocking -- Paul even says "offensive."

It finally culminates in the direction of exaltation with his inheriting a new name, "Kyrios," so that Christ sits as Emperor of all (replacing Caesar, but not only as king of kings on earth, but also of heaven). Matthew 28:18-19 makes this clearer still.

Since the Philippian poem clearly expands the embedded creed of 1 Timothy, we might justly allow a later date for it. The apostles doubtless had aggregated to it other material they had also learned from the Lord Jesus, and which notably -- though later -- remains entirely consistent with the high Christology of the earlier. The "growth" is anything but legendary, and the criterion of coherence must admit this, since the Gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) confirm the information given here. So does Acts 1.

From these points we can hardly conclude otherwise than that, although the Seminar's criterion of counterproductive features eliminates the criterion of Palestinian environment (by a very criteriologically coherent, and multiply-attested counter-argument), we can assume the contrary to win the day in any case.

The CPE necessarily validates a host of early poems, and portions of the Gospels, which both early and enthusiastically maintain that Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of history, was a supernatural, miracle-working Person, who fit the Messianic prophecies like a glove in the eyes of his contemporaries, and whose life and sayings convinced even the most skeptical (Saul was not exactly Christian-friendly) that He was Lord of heaven and earth, God manifest in the flesh, at whose Name every knee must bow of those in heaven and on earth, to the glory of God the Father.

This was not the result of much later legendary growth. By any criteriological standard, this Christology formed the immediate consequence of the shock and awe He inspired in those who met Him face-to-face. Even when not prepared to call Him "God" directly, his early disciples could only ask, "What manner of Man is this?" The earliest creeds of the faith of Jesus have the answer.

And the contrary is impossible, even in plain Aramaic. Our own poets (and their "criteria") have said it.