Please post those things that you might want to discuss that I have yet to post on. I will then take them into consideration and perhaps post on them. Or, we can just carry on a discussion here.

WARNING: Only here will I institute a strict comment policy. That policy may change on a whim. As always, keep things clean and reasonable. By strict, I mean that no foul language, etc… and we will stick to topics that pertaining to the blog…no garbage in other words


103 Replies to “Discussion”

  1. Polycarp
    Would you tell Fr. Robert that i have enjoyed the discussion.That i know his passion for the Trinity and respect that.
    Or you can give him my e-mail address…
    Thank you…

  2. Joel,
    I was wondering if you could write about liberal Christianity. There’s not a lot of people who would claim to be liberal Christians, and I’m curious as to your thoughts about it.


    1. Which is pathetic, because conservatives integrate fewer minorities, and fight for the rich. I don’t see many conservatives adopting crack babies, like, you know, Jesus might do.

  3. I am.  There are many people who assume that in order to be a Christian, you must be a super conservative, and I am curious as to your thoughts on the matter.

  4. Hi, Joel. For some reason your site is refreshing itself to the homepage every few minutes. That made some otherwise enjoyable perusing a bit annoying. Just thought you’d want to know. (Btw, I’m using IE8.0)

  5. I don’t know what you think of Michael Moore, but this is an interesting comment about his coming out as a Catholic, seemingly lapsed though.

    In Australia the left Labor Party had it’s roots in working class Catholics of Irish decent. I think these days Catholics in Australia (as would other Christians) would lean more to the right.

  6. Have you ever listen to the soundtracks of the left behind movies?

    Excellent excellent music! Makes one almost hope in a Pre Jesus’ second coming rapture…

  7. On the left hand side of your blog is a picture of a woman in a short blue dress lounging against the side of a boat, with ‘Get one’ underneath. Click on the picture and it opens a bland blog full of links to ads.

  8. Please check your facts about what Arnold Murray says about Kenites, he clearly says Cain was NOT marked with skin color change! He warns against those who do teach this which causes racism.

  9. Hi Joel

    About the above post would you consider writing a post of your own? Maybe on how the truth of Genesis 1-11 became mythic? That is considered by some to be in the genre of Enuma Elish,the Sumerian flood story and the Artrahasis Epic.As you already know these myths do have the same human sources.The many offspring(s) of the three sons of Noah and their wives which repopulated the earth after the flood.

    These spoken myths later writings,do echo truth.The creation of mankind,of Eden and the flood written later in the book of Genesis.All myths even legends,small and great start by word of mouth.The tongue becoming enlarged changes,adds,distorts,embellishes and even makes it own truth.Turning the truth of God into a lie even before the words were written.

    Today there is no real satisfactory term for what a myth is.However,when having to do with faith and scripture-religion(s) and writings it is always considered to be something that is FALSE.

    The Sumerian flood story- Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis epic somewhat based in truth (Genesis 1-11) were and are the cause of the many religious beliefs and practices.These myths are likely the cause of the worlds oldest practiced (religion or belief) Hinduism.Which does have a singular supreme deity and creator called Brahma.Yet it has lesser gods/deities such as Krishna,Shiva,Ganesh etc etc.It would be interesting to find out which of the many offspring of Ham (i guess) populated the region known as India today.

    What of the Babylonian Code of King Hammurabi which predates by centuries Moses and the written law.I believe that some Babylonians were Semitic people like the children of Eber,the offspring of Noah's son Shem.


  10. Seroled, I would love to write a post about that, but let me give you my initial thoughts.

    In science,w e can prove that there is a really only a few unique human ancestors. Let's call them Noah and his three sons. Generally speaking, stories find a nucleus in truth at some point, at least long held cultural stories. As cultures develop, those stories adapt through story telling, languages, and audiences. Things trickle down, adding, shaping, shifting.

    I mean, we have tales for dragons, floods, and pyramids in nearly every great, ancient, culture AROUND the world. From the Americans to Asia, we share common stories. Be it 10000 year old cultures or 6000 year old cultures, we have a certain commonality amongst us.

    To me, that indicates a common source of those stories.

  11. Of course you are right Joel.Every culture has shared common knowledge of God,creation and the deluge,indicating a common source.

    My interest in this has been peaked to what end i do not know.In any case i ordered 'The book of Enoch the complete Edition including the book of secrets' maybe we can talk about it once i have read it.

    Thank you


  12. Joel

    Still waiting for my book to arrive.I'll let you know what i think about it once i've read it

    Here's a pdf file of a book that i started reading this weekend.James Stuart Russell's The Parousia. It is a compelling read so far.If you ever find the time to read it let me know what you think of it. If you have already read it i would like to know your opinion.

  13. Joel

    Not sure anymore.Now i have question as to who the author truly is.Think St. Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna could have known whether or not John his mentor/teacher was actually one of the Lord's Apostles?

  14. We have but one real writing from Polycarp (although some tend to think that the Epistle to Diognetus is another one) and he didn't mention it. However, Irenaeus believes that it was by the Apostle John.

    I am of the opinion that people have generally misunderstood it for many, many years

  15. Joel

    See the short ' Afterword ' to Russell's book,especially under these headings. The Crucial Question and True Solution.Keeping in mind that the Apostle John is believed to have lived (on earth) til A.D. 100

    You can also read the entire book on this page by clicking on the title of the book once you have linked to the page below.Just scroll down to ' The Parousia in the Gospels'

  16. Hi Joel

    I wanted to know your thoughts on these passages

    Then Jesus quoted passages from the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining what all the Scriptures said about himself. (Luke 24:27 NLT)

    Then he said, “When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true.” ( Luke 24:44 NLT)

    The Apostles or the 11 interpreted the OT passage Isaiah 53 to speak of Jesus based on His words to them and evidenced by his suffering and death.

    In Luke's Gospel verses 1:26-33 in particular.How would Luke (a non Jew) and not in the company of Christ came to interpret the OT passages of Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6-7? (I know that the short answer is by inspiration of God's Spirit) However,were these two OT passages originally written about Christ?


  17. Seroled, I think we should take Matthew's stance, that the Old Testament and Christ are linked in such as way as Christ is the Incarnation of the Old Testament. Christ is interpreted by the OT while the OT is interpreted through Christ.

    If you noticed what Luke said in the beginning of his work – not that he was a Gospel writer, but that he was a historian and a compiler. By the time Luke compiled his history, other Gospels had been written, and other accounts circulated by first hand witnesses. Plus, Luke most notably, would have been influenced by the Hellenized Jews, so he would have known such works as Wisdom and the Psalms of Solomon, and the latter work figures especially well into Mary and her cousin's songs.

    So, he wasn't the interpreter that Matthew was, nor John, but brought the interpretation and history into one source. Further, as a traveling companion of Paul, there is no doubt in that relationship, the passing of correct biblical interpretation.

    Does this make sense?

  18. No problem, Seroled. Sometimes, I'm not sure if what I think translates well on to screen. NOT saying I am right by any means and always open for discussion.

    Once, I even learned how better to Look at Pentecost because of someone…

  19. Joel that Pentecost thing was a bit of a guess. It was you who brought to light with this post.

    Now Concerning the Apostles,Luke and the Old Testament scriptures.I have not heard a clearer and more spot on presentation of the facts than yours. You were absolutely understood!

    You said:

    ” Christ is interpreted by the OT while the OT is interpreted through Christ.”

    ” If you noticed what Luke said in the beginning of his work – not that he was a Gospel writer, but that he was a historian and a compiler.”

    ” So, he wasn't the interpreter that Matthew was, nor John, but brought the interpretation and history into one source. Further, as a traveling companion of Paul, there is no doubt in that relationship, the passing of correct biblical interpretation.”

    Gratitude Joel. These are excellent answers!


  20. Hi Polycarp Joel,

    during a debate on the doctrine of the “trinity” (“Why the Trinity Instead of a Clear Monotheism like the Muslims and Jews?”, @, I bumped onto your website (entry point: “The Godhead: Dyohypostatic Theology vs. Miahypostatic Theology”), which immediately attracted me, because I have also read Joseph Lienhard's “Contra Marcellum”.

    Marcellus of Ancyra is one of my “theological heroes”. You will probably find the other main one a bit more “indigestible”: Michael Servetus, my present “avatar”.

    If you want to have a look at the essence of my “Strict Monotheism”, you can find it here:

    If you are interested in exchanging views with me, you know where to find me. 🙂

  21. Hi Joel

    I'm finding the book of Enoch fascinating.The Genesis narrative concerning the sons of God (6:1-8) according to the writings of Enoch (chapters 6-10) these sons were fallen angels who married and produced offspring with women. I have always believe that these sons spoken of in Genesis and in Job chapter 1 were men of the godly line of Seth.

    What about you?

    Do you have this copy of the book of Enoch? The book of Enoch complete edition-including the book of the secrets of Enoch. The author is Anonymous…

    If no,add it to your Amazon wish list.


  22. I have an electronic copy of it…

    I like Enoch, and it played a large part in developing Messianic Expectation during the 2nd Temple Period, for sure, and it does take some interpretative leaps, doesn't it? I do like how it treats Genesis as biblical, true, and yet, allows the author to interpret it less than plain sense literal.

    I do think that people have used that interpretation to solidify racism, etc.., which always gives me pause. It is clear, however, that Sons of God can either be the angels or the godly line of Seth in the text. However, Enoch does go beyond the biblical accounts in that the Angels rebelled against God – and this is in part a rebellion – before the Flood. Further, Christ seems to state that the angels are rather, um, unmarrigable. (I know, it's not a word)

    Of course, Enoch provides extra-canonical Messianic formation of “son of Man' as well…. So we cannot discount what is going on in his world too easily. It is a very interesting book. Very interesting.

  23. Very interesting book!

    Yep. Jesus did say ' what you said ' about the angels 🙂 So interpretative leaps and what's going on in his world are noted…


  24. Hi Joel

    (I just read your Sunday thoughts post)

    Yesterday i thought that your thinking to change the name of the blog was an ” excellent idea ” i do not believe that anymore.The Church of Jesus Christ (as you have said) WAS intended to be outreach of your former congregation.

    However, your blog has always been a place where Christians of every denomination or no denomination at all, come together discuss – agree – disagree – learn and unlearn and teach. You have always stated that you are challenged by and learn from others…

    I hope that you will decide to just state again the ' new ' purpose of your blog but not change the name of it. Everyone who reads and comment here know and understand why you could not remain with your former congregation.We applaud you for leaving it!

    Everyone who reads and comment know that you are not of the Latter Day Saints. Nor have you ever – not ever – declared JESUS ONLY.Those who come here for the first time will know it too. Those who come an insist you are what they say you are – will always believe it. Let them have it their way !


  25. S, I didn't what you thinking that I was ignoring this comment. I've been pondering it, actually.

    Just to say, the blog was an outreach for… Still pondering.

  26. ” When I first started this blog, it was supposed to be as a denominational outreach for my congregation. “

    Joel your blog has ALWAYS been much much more than this even when you were still with that congregation. Your quote above and your Sunday thoughts post – is what i was thinking of when i wrote the message…


  27. Joel, a question about the post below

    ' Eden, Monkeys, and You say you want an Evolution '

    Could the answer be in God's removal of Adam's rib to create Eve? Adam and Eve reproducing human beings having 23 ribs and 46 Chromosomes – while other primates such as chimps and Baboons have 24 ribs and 48 Chromosomes?

    What of the Hebrew word ' tsala ' (double helix) could there have been a mistranslation in the 1611 with all other English translations following – using ' tsele ' (rib) instead of curve (DNA)?


  28. Joel scratch the last comment/question it is evident that there are 24 bones not 23 in the human rib cage. Also word tsala (limp or curve) does not mean DNA…

    So God simply took from Adam's side (tsele) not one of his ribs perhaps?
    My source was… Well Duh on me |-|

    Ahh i see you found my source…

  29. No yet – i think that i will order it… I think that i remember you writing a post about it.

    Thank you Joel. You're still a groovy cat!

    Betcha i brought back memories of you know who or better Y – with that last question about Adam rib eh? Left you shaking your head saying how do i answer this bleeping question?! Could that be why you are calling me ' S ' now???

    Ha Ha ha?!


  30. Seroled, you are merely following in line with great thinkers such as Origen and others who believed that the words and Scripture contained more than what was being read and that all would be revealed later. Origen was an energetic thinker, although I think that he and his school went over board sometimes. Of course, that is the human condition, ain't it? We who love the Scriptures cannot be faulted for that.

    Sometimes, on the run, I have to shorten names…sorry about that.

  31. ‘Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it.” (Jonathan Edwards; Miscellany #1199)

    Hi Joel

    Now that i know that you are a Partial Preterist – i would like to ask you – what (if anything) is harmful or wrong with believers re-evaluating Peter’s words in 2 Peter 3:3-10? Why wouldn’t the ‘ LAST DAYS ‘ (2 Peter 3:3) and the ‘ US ‘ in (3:9) refer to specifically to Israel and the 40 years that was given them to repent before Jesus’ coming in judgment against them in A.D.70 ( Matthew 24:27). I do not see how Jesus comparing his coming to the flash of lightning can be for the good of those he’s visiting.

    If we are to read scripture with a degree of logic – then why not question if what Peter wrote before A.D.70 and under inspiration – applies to readers of this age? The Lord has not return YET for the sake of souls that may come to repentance and faith TODAY? I mean really – From his ascension in A.D. 30 to the present (2010) countless souls have been BORN and have DIED without him the world over. IF Peter was not referring to the coming judgment against apostate or unbelieving Israel in A.D.70 then his statement in 3:9 makes no sense at all…

    Furthermore Peter uses the same apocalyptic/prophetic language in 3:10 as Amos does in 9:5. Moreover,Jesus coming with (non literal) clouds (Rev 1:7) and his famous ” i come quickly ” cannot be for the good – anymore than God coming into Egypt riding on a (non literal) swift cloud – in his judgment against them (Isaiah 19:1)

    What I’m asking you is this – do you believe that Jesus in his own words ever promised a physical/bodily return? I do believe that Rev 20:7-10 is yet future and not a ‘ recounting ‘ of the battle of Rev 19:11-21. Satan is still bound (from deceiving nations) so Perhaps Rev 20:9 (Lightning coming down from Heaven) may be a picture of Jesus’ coming – only this time it cannot be for the good of those who attack the camp of the saints (The beloved city) Not Jerusalem – but his church…

    You said that you are Amil – so you believe that we are living in the thousand (not 1000) year reign of Christ too then?

    Btw (Partial Preterist) 😉 you might want to check out Adam Maarschalk’s blog – His Revelation and man of sin studies are really excellent!


  32. Sorry Joel – i deleted parts of my sentence in my last comment.

    Furthermore Peter like John uses the same apocalyptic/prophetic language in 3:10 as Amos does in 4:13; 8:8; and 9:5 as does Micah in 1:3-4

  33. Seroled, I believe that all doctrine and Scripture must constantly be re-evaluated. As to these questions, umm…

    I believe that Peter very well may have been writing to his fellow Jews were were simply refusing to follow Christ, relying on skepticism. We know that after 70ad, the Church shifted dramatically in cultural make-up, if you well, so I think that you may be on to something…

    I don’t really like using Revelation any longer as an eschatological road map, finding enough eschatology in Peter and Paul to suffice. However, if we use Revelation as a prophetic revealing of what was going on around them, it may be that when Satan was bound from deceiving the nations, the Gentile mission really took off.

    Do you have a link to Adam’s blog?

    Also, would you mind if I posted this question as an overall discussion topic?

  34. Hi Joel,

    When you have time i would know your thoughts concerning the end of the age or the consummation of history. Per our brief discussion here…

    Hebrews 6:5 – the writer speaks of the age to come. In the same book (8:13) he speaks of the first Covenant ABOUT to disappear/pass away. Yet, there is internal evidence in the book itself that the great symbol (the temple) of the first Covenant was still standing when these words were written ( Hebrews 10:11) NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV. It was not until 40 years after Jesus’ promise (Matthew 24:2) that there were no more sacrifices and offerings made by ministering/standing Priests.

    Also, if the entire New Testament was written before the destruction of the temple – then we have no other scriptural reference or proof text that the ‘ age to come ‘ Hebrews 6:5 or Paul’s written words in Ephesians 3:21 ‘ all generations ‘ ‘ age without end ‘ speak of anything but this present New Covenant, as lasting forever and ever. Would this not negate a belief in an end of this age or the consummation of history?

    What are your thoughts?


  35. What is your take on Bible schools, colleges, universities, concordances, commentaries, courses, lessons, outlines and the like?

  36. Hi Joel!

    I got your book, Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, today. I’m excited and looking forward to reading it…starting tomorrow.


Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.