CADRE Comments

Sorry I jut dropped off the face of the earth, I was sick and in hospital and in quarantine. I did not have covid but they put you in isolation after hospotal to make sure. I am sick of blogging don't know if I will come back.

        "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)         This text is a very strong affirmation of the deity of Christ and is packed with meaning. The phrase "exact representation" can be illustrated using an ideal cut diamond as an analogy. The glory of Christ transcends the effulgence of even the most precious gems.         God the Son possesses the same divine nature as God the Father. He has the same divine glory as God the Father. He is the wisdom of God. He is wisdom incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24; 30; Colossians 2:3).         The English Standard Version renders "exact representation" as "the exact imprint." The New Living Translation renders "exact representation" as "represents God exactly." The New Century Version renders &q

 [Romans 7] 7:25 The Law is holy and its commandment is holy and just and good (12). But sin, that diabolic power, manifests itself in its true colors (12) by using just that good Word of God to rouse in man the dormant will of opposition to God which destroys him. Paul illustrates this working of the Law (as misused by the power of sin) from his early life (7-13). Paul also shows us the working of the Law from his own experience with the Law as a Christian (14-25). It was contact with the Law, confronting him as the commandment, that first gave sin its deadly power in his life (9-11). Paul as a Christian, when confronted by the Law, becomes a man rent by an agonizing struggle (14-24) from which only Christ can and does release him from this hard fought struggle (25). Martin Franzmann and Walter H. Roehrs, Concordia Self-study Commentary [commentary on Romans], p. 131

Last week I argued that the Gospel of John was not written by gentiles. This week I will focus on three Jewish aspects of that Gospel. These can be summarized: (1) christology(2) knowledge of Jerusalem(3) language: use of Memra and sons of light These are not the only Hebraic aspects to John but they are enough for now. High christology High christology such as that of John has been seen as late developing and genitle rather than Jewish.Judaism of the first century was diverse and the Christology of John demonstrates affinities with other movements such as essenes.These would be movements within Judaism. First century Judasim tolerated many different views of Messiah."There was a broad spectrum of views tolerated within mainstream Judaism at the time, including the Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots. Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls add the Essenes into the mix. And even Hebrew Christians were still allowed to sit in the synagogues in the early decades of the newly-fou

Hugh Fogelman levels a charge, often heard from atheists, that the Gospel of John is ati-semetic. Theological Anti-Semitism is rampant in the Fourth gospel; in other words the gospel of John is anti-Semitic.  No other New Testament writing has as great an anti-Jewish agenda as found in John. Its attack against the individual Jew, “the Jews” and the Jewish observance of Hebrew laws, all reflect the early church’s extreme anti-Semitic stance. When confronted with the question of John’s anti-Semitism Christians do not answer, but respond with a question; “How can the gospel of John be called anti-Semitic when Jesus and his disciples were all Jews?” [1] He echoes some very standard assertions in support of this view: The Christian pulpit deliberately fails to inform their flocks of one important fact; No one knows who wrote any of the Gospels, nor when they were written. The gospel names were simply picked/chosen/assigned by the early church. Also, no one knows the religion of any New Te

“If God would concede me His omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are.” ― J.M.L. Monsabre A few days ago, I posted the quote above on my Facebook page. A very good friend of mine who is an atheist (a mistaken belief system transmitted to him by his over-the-top-atheist father) but still a great guy asked, "Really?" And when I responded "Year, really." He responded with the following:  So, you are okay with COVID-19, the massive over population, wars over religious and political differences, the way humans are trashing this planet, the huge difference in the quality of life between those who have and have-not. But, if you think about it, I guess COVID-19 is an example of Darwin at work weeding out the unhealthy from the population. If you are omnipotent and do nothing to help, you're just lazy and we are just an uncared for experiment in a petri dish.

  Recently on Facebook, someone posted the following argument against the existence of God. He introduced it by saying that it was an argument that he had not seen very often, but he gave it the moniker “The Argument from Errancy.” The posted argument read: Premise 1. If the Christian God exists and wants to preserve His Word in the Bible, it is more probable than not that the Bible would be unambiguously inerrant and clearly of supernatural origin. Premise 2. The Bible is seemingly errant and man-made. Conclusion 1. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Bible is the inspired Word of God Conclusion 2. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Christian God would exist. The author then added these notes about Premise 1 and 2: P1 seems pretty straightforward. Jesus himself clearly saw Scripture as authoritative, and Paul says that all scripture is God-Breathed. Scripture would allow laymen to understand God. P2 requires more evidence on the skeptics’ part, but they can appeal to his

Scientism is the understanding that science is the only valid form of knowledge . It's an ideology and permeates real scientific circles. When thinkers whose understanding is colored by this ideology their defense of science against valid ordinary critique is ideological and programmed, We can always spot this kind of thinking immediately because they inevitably see any valid criticism as an attack upon the very notion of science, This tendency to think of science as some fragile sacred truth that dare not be questioned is emblematic of ideological reverence,  An example bof this attitude is found in the essay by Marcel Kuntz is at the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, CNRS/Université Joseph Fourier/CEA/INRA in Grenoble, The essay entitled "The Postmodern assault on Science" [1] Kuntz tells us "Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths; a disturbing trend that has gone unnoticed by a majo