Credibility Check

The Point

OPINION—Much of what we know from long history is anecdotal at best, coming from tradition. But could that actually be more credible than the academic obsession we have today?

General Eisenhower insisted that as many photographs as possible be taken of the Jewish Holocaust aftermath because, some day, so he claimed, someone would try to deny that any of it ever happened. Now, not even a century later, accredited academians and even Middle-East governments are making the denial Eisenhower predicted. What’s the point in certification if it doesn’t stop such obtuse lies? Perhaps, certifying the lies was Satan’s intention all along.

Tradition tells us that there were two zodiacs. Yes, TWO! The first was held by Noah (the guy with the ark) and his ancestors. Supposedly, Noah believed that the stars told a story of a loving Creator God who would redeem humanity through a suffering messiah borne of a virgin.  · · · →

Bridegroom Paradigm

Someone recently asked a question about teachers who say the Bridegroom Paradigm is not Biblical. Here was part of my response:

John 3:29 describes Jesus as the Bridegroom. Revelation 21 describes the New Jerusalem as being like a bride. Jesus uses the parable of the Ten Virgins in Matt 25. These alone keep the Bridegroom paradigm on the table.. unless someone wants to claim that Matt 25 doesn’t apply to Christians.

In terms of actual interpretation, yes, there are many layers of meaning. Scripture is poetic, which means that it has artistic and literal meanings—BOTH.

In terms of the paradigm itself, technically, Israel/Jerusalem is the actual Bride, and the Gentile Church is the FRIEND of the Bridegroom. However, furthering our walk with Christ by considering the relationship between Bride and Bridegroom can be useful and accurate.

But let’s make this super-simple, and not to be crass, but look at what their objection actually implies: They accuse Bridegroom paradigms of being grotesque.  · · · →

Man: Soul, Spirit, Body

I authored this about nine years ago or so. It’s from my Doctrinal Statement. It contains some Greek, so you may need to install some fonts if letters don’t display correctly. As a language student, I opted to use a more distinguishable method of transliteration.

The “soul” (pseuchae/ψευχη) is redeemable (James 1:21) though sin lives in the “flesh”/physical body (sarx/σαρχ) (Romans 7:18-19). A spirit is not necessarily a being, it can be an emotion or atmosphere—“spirit of hate/joy [or something else positive or negative]” —(Jb 20:3, Pr 1:23, Is 4:4; 28:6, 57:15; 61:3, Hos 4:12, Rom 8:15a, 15b, 1 Cor 4:21, 2 Cor 4:13, Gal 6:1, Eph 1:17, 2 Tm 1:7, 1 Jn 4:6) “Spirit” (pneuma/πνευμα) also means “wind” in almost every sense, and is even taught in this way by Christ (John 3:8). The “soul” (pseuchae/ψευχη) is never referred to in any of these ways, but it is redeemable (as mentioned in James 1:21) and therefore eternal.

 · · · →