Eusebius contended that Jesus was neither new nor novel

Are there those who think that Jesus Christ is something new or novel because of the date of his birth or his teachings? No, for in antiquity one of the prophets was so amazed when he foresaw the future that he exclaimed:

(Isa 66:8 KJV) Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

(Isa 65:15 KJV) And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:

Here God revels from of old that he will allow his Christ to be slain and then to come forth from the earth. He will allow the name of Christ to be a curse to his chosen of old but his new servants will be called by another name. And in a short time a new nation will be born out of tribulation.


Jesus is the one who fulfilled all of this and we are the servants with a new name that is Christians.

God's Power Holds All Things Together and Deteriorates Quality At The Same Time

The above statement, an apparent paradox of a two sided coin, tells us about the two most basic and well proven laws of nature. These two laws, the conservation of mass-energy and entropy, govern every process that takes place in nature. Whatever the process, whether it be mechanical, electrical, chemical, or biological, must proceed in conformity with these two laws.

In the first chapter of Colossians we read two amazing verses, about God the Son, that tell us about the first of these most basic of all scientific principles (Col 1:16 KJV) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Cot 1:17 KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

This implied principle is called the First Law of Thermodynamics and is one of the best proven laws of science, but science cannot tell us why it is true. Let us first look at the law and then let God tell us from these two verses why the law is true.

This law is the principle of conservation of mass-energy or the "all things" of verse 16. According to this principle, nothing is now being either created or annihilated but only conserved as far as quantity is concerned. The state of matter can be changed to another, like water can be either solid, liquid, or gas. One type of energy can be converted to another, like electrical energy to light energy (the light bulb). And then under certain conditions, matter and energy can be interchanged, like nuclear fission in a reactor. But in all of these examples the total quantity of mass-energy is always conserved.

Now let these two verses tell us why this is true. The reason nothing is now being created is because Christ created the "all things” in the past, as verse 16 tells us. Now if the "all things" were created in the past there is nothing left to be created now. The reason why nothing is now being annihilated is because the "all things" are now being sustained or held together by Christ as verse 17 tells us. The word "consist" in verse 17 has the archaic meaning of to hold together, it is the translation of the Greek word sunistano from which we get the English word "sustain".

In the first chapter of James we read one amazing verse, about God the Father, that tells us about the second of these most basic of all scientific principles. (James 1:17 KJV) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

This implied principle is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is also one of the best proven laws of science, but and again science cannot tell us why it is true. Let us first look at the law and then let God tell us from two other verses why the law is true.

The second law is that there are things that do not conserve, Quality is deteriorating, running down toward physical chaos and biological death. The name of this law is entropy. Here is where we need to go to scriptures to understand this word entropy. In James 1: 17 the word "turning "is from the Greek trope. When combined with the Greek for "in" (that is en) it becomes entrope, (Strong's Greek word # 1794) which means in Greek "confusion" or "shame". We get our English word entropy from this source, which thus literally means "in-turning". In science, any system which turns in on itself, without drawing on external sources of energy (a hot cup of tea will cool) or information (a message sent around a circle of people will end up different from when it started) will experience an increase of entropy, or disorganization.

Now let two verses tell us why this is true. From the old Testament we read, (Gen 3:17 KJV) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast heartened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shah thou eat of it all the days of thy life; and from the New Testament we read (Rom 8:22 KJV) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. These verses tell us of Gods primeval curse on "the whole creation". That is, even though all things are being conserved in quantity by God, they are deteriorating in quality. But God Him-self, who imposed these laws on His creation, is not bound by them. There is not even a "shadow of turning" with Him.

Even Giraffes fail to prove Darwinianism

The Giraffe has long been an "obvious" example of natural selection pressure that would cause large changes in a species. Yet when the actual scientific studies come out, they are not so obvious. Successive small changes cannot explain the Giraffe.

Accordingly, the paper has been celebrated as the neo-Darwinian solution to the
problems of the origin of the giraffe by natural selection in the popular press and
elsewhere (for some examples see the links below) – as if all questions have now
been answered in agreement with the dictum that "all of biology rests on the
foundation of neo-Darwinism, drawing on the principles of population biology and
molecular genetics" (G. T. Joyce in Nature 346, p. 806, 1990). However, the article
does not address any of the key problems discussed at length in our two papers
(2006, 2007) on The Evolution of Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) -
What do we really know?
First to mention some details (not to criticize the authors Cameron and du Toit on
the majority of the following points, but their readers and commentators who, in theirenthusiasm for Darwin and natural selection, seem to have overlooked the fact thatthe writers did not speak about the following topics):

1. The paper by Cameron and du Toit does not address any of the problems
presented by the fossil record (see Part 1 and several chapters and notes of Part 2
above, especially pp. 6-10, 23-24, 33-47, 50-51, 54, 58-61)

2. It does not address any of the problems that natural selection has to explain
concerning the prominent sexual dimorphism of Giraffa camelopardalis, not to
mention the special requirements of young animals (see summary and introduction
above as well as pp. 20-22, 29-32, 62).

3. It does not address any of the anatomical or physiological questions and
problems discussed in detail in our two papers. No word on the number of vertebrae
(see pp. 13-18 above), no word on synorganization or coadaptation (Part 1, pp. 4, 8-
10, 23-24, Part 2, pp. 18-20, 26, 52-54, 65, 66, 69, 70, 75, 77). No word on the points
addressed on p. 26 of this paper (to repeat):
(a) the duplication of a neck vertebra, as well as the many related specific anatomical structures discussed above by
Solounias… (b) the especially muscular esophagus (ruminator), (c) the various adaptations of the heart, (d) the muscular
arteries, (e) the complicated system of valves, (f) the special structures of the rete mirabile (system of blood-storing
arteries at the brain base), (g) the „coordinated system of blood pressure controls“ (for, among other things, the
enormously high blood pressure), … (h) „The capillaries that reach the surface are extremely small, and (i) the red
blood cells are about one-third the size of their human counterparts, making capillary passage possible“; (j) the precisely
coordinated lengths, strengths and functionality of the skeletal, muscular and nervous systems; (k) the efficient „large
lungs“ (l) „the thick skin, which is tightly stretched over the body and which functions like the anti-gravity suit
worn by pilots of fast aircraft“.

4. Moreover, the paper by Cameron and du Toit does not address any of the genetic
questions, i.e. random 'macromutations' vs. an almost infinite number of accidental
'micromutations' (pp. 18-20, 25-27).

5. Apart from the missing question of sexual dimorphism, neither does the article
address the essential problem of the theory of natural selection for the origin of the
giraffes in general: i.e. the behaviour of the giraffe and "the survival of the fittest"
under extreme food shortages, especially with regard to the young animals again
(remember Mitchell and Skinner quoted p. 29 of the present paper):
“While dependence on leguminous browse seems essential, the idea that tallness enables exploitation of food sources that are beyond the reach of competitors such as bovids, is unlikely to be true. Pincher (1949) made one of the first objections to this hypothesis. He indicated that a Darwinian dearth severe, long-lasting enough, and/or frequent enough for natural selection to operate to produce a long neck, would cause the recurrent wastage of young giraffes, and would thus lead to extinction of the species rather than its evolution.”

As it turns out, wild Giraffes largely spend their time eating lower vegetation where they do compete with shorter animals. Those interested in the gritty details of this examination can find it here.

Reuters Pictures of the Year - A miraculous baby photo

RNPS PICTURES OF THE YEAR - This handout image from October 24, 2006, shows the world's most premature living baby, Amillia Sonja Taylor's, feet held in contrast with adult hands, just after her birth at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida. Taylor, only slightly longer than a ballpoint pen at birth was due to be sent home in the coming days from a Florida hospital after four months of neonatal intensive care, the hospital said on February 20, 2007.

REUTERS/Baptist Health South Florida/Handout (UNITED STATES)

Reuters Pictures of the Year - Yahoo! News Photos
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Reuters-Pictures-Year-Miami-Florida-South-Florida/ss/events/lf/120307reuterspoy/im:/071203/ids_photos_ts/r591114712.jpg/

She doesn't look like "a mass of tissue" to me. If a baby this early can survive who can defend late term abortion?

John the Baptist himself doubted

and Jesus said of him that there was none better born among women. Why are we surprised when our lives show our Christianity to be a life of cross bearing rather than glory bathing.

Sermon

Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow Could Have Been a Victim of Abortion

Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow Could Have Been a Victim of Abortion: "New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow became the first sophomore in the history of the NCAA to win the coveted Heisman Trophy as the best football player in the nation. However, Tebow's accomplishments may never have been supported had his mother followed a doctor's recommendation to have an abortion."

Add another name to the list of "should have been aborted" children who have gone on to make a great difference in the world. "Abortion rights" no matter how nicely dressed up cannot escape its original intent to promote eugenics and genocide. It is the ultimate arrogance to look at a pregnant woman who carries the miracle of life and decide in our "human wisdom" what life is worthy for society or what life is worth living at all.

My Cousin's growing family and thanks for your prayers

It's a Boy!!

Wilson Lee Hochstein was born this morning at 7:20am at the Windom Area Hospital. He weighed 7lbs 0oz and was 20 inches long. Both Anna and Wilson are resting and doing fine.

Catching up on Sermon Podcasts

These have already been e-mailed to our deployed, but I will archive them for you here.

This sermon begins our advent series on sheperds who saw the Lord. The first of our Shepherds is Abraham.

This sermon is from Sunday on the person and preaching of John the Baptist and how he points us to Christ.

Finally, this recording is the last of our Sunday morning Bible Classes on the Prophet Jeremiah.

Beware, Take Heed

We have all heard the verse “(Mat 7:1 KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.” whenever we try to confront whatever we believe is morally incorrect, when judged by the clear teachings of the bible.

Christian friends don’t let this verse prevent you from confronting evil, for this same chapter seven of Matthew we are told to be fruit inspectors. Let me explain what I mean.

Starting at the same chapter seven of Matthew we read that Jesus also said: “(Mat 7:15 KJV) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Mat 7:16 KJV). Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” And also what Paul says in “(Acts 20:28 KJV) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:29 KJV) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

It is true that only God can judge what is in the heart and we have no business trying to judge the heart. For the heart is beyond human understanding but not beyond God‘s searching of what is in our heart. For Jeremiah tells us “(Jer 17:9 KJV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jer 17:10 KJV) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”

What a dilemma we seem to face, for on the one hand we are not to judge but on the other hand we are to beware of the fruit of the wolves doings. But like all other aspects of being a Christian we walk a balanced life. For instance we are told in the Psalms that wine is a gift from God: “(Psa 104:14 KJV) He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; (Psa 104:15 KJV) And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.” But there are many other verses that warn us not to abuse the use of alcohol. Here also we are not to judge the heart but we are to be fruit inspectors.

Why fruit inspectors? These wolves must be confronted, first to protect the church and second that the truth spoken in love may change the heart of the wolf. Paul tells us what our Christian duty is: “(Eph 4:14 KJV) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Eph 4:15 KJV) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:.”

Christmas vs. Holiday Estimator

As I was building a fire, I noticed that Lowe's was not selling Christmas trees this year. They were not selling holiday trees for that matter either. Just trees -- nothing more, nothing less -- just trees.
Betraying their shyness to use the C-word, however, they advertised discounts on "Holiday Ornaments." As I noticed Home Depot's radio ads dodging the C-word last week, I asked my self, 'which store is more Christmas shy?'
Starting with the old idea of measuring a denomination's theology by establishing a Jesus vs. Justice ratio, I quickly came up with a test to unscientifically judge the "Christmasness" of various retailers in our area.

Here's the Data from most Christmasy to least:

Retailer Website_____ Holiday:Christmas_____ Ratio Raw Data
Safeway.com_________ 0.62:1 (1:1.62)________ 1300:2110
Albertsons.com _______ 1.04:1 ______________2260:2180
Target.com __________1.15:1 ___________2,930,000:2,540,000
RiteAid.com _________ 1.70:1_________________ 97:57

Sears.com ____________2.7:1_____________ 46,900:17,300
www3.JCPenney.com____ 3.2:1______________ 2050:640
Walmart.com___________ 4:1____________ 977,000:227,000
Lowes.com_____________ 5:1 ______________ 3160:619
Kmart.com____________ 6.6:1_____________ 67,100:10,200

AceHardware.com_______ 39:1_____________ 26,200:671
HomeDepot.com________ 234:1___________ 145,000:620
Walgreens.com_________ 520:1___________ 104,000:200

The list divides itself into three categories: Almost Christmassy, Hedging their bets, and Bah Humbug!

You can do the search Yourself and add results to the comments section. Just go to google.com and do two searches
christmas site:ANYSTORE.COM
holiday site:ANYSTORE.COM
record the approximate number of pages returned, divide and report!

Much anticipated

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is in production.

See a trailor here.

The saddest part of this story

is how thoroughly deluded these people are as they marinade themselves in the secular humaist lies about the place of human beings in the world.

This article from the UK Newspaper Daily Mail talks about environmentalists who get sterilized and have abortions to prevent themselves from making a large carbon footprint on the world. I had a hard time finding a short part to excerpt for the flavor of the article -- it is all so sad and pathetic that it is hard to choose, but I think that this will let you know what their view is on life. (Emphasis added)

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future....

Toni, from Taunton, Somerset, says: "When I was 21, I considered sterilisation for the first time. I'd been on the Pill for five years and didn't want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely. I went to my GP, but she wouldn't even consider the idea. She said I was far too young and told me I could 'absolutely not' be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day.

"I found her attitude frustrating. We decided my husband would have a vasectomy instead. He was 25, just a few years older than me, but the GP allowed him to go ahead. I found it insulting that she thought that, just because I was a woman, I'd reach a point where an urge to breed would overcome all rational thought."

[Note the condescension against the "breeders."]

When Toni was 23, her marriage ended. She says: "We married very young and grew apart."...

Toni was happy, at last, with fellow environmentalists who shared her philosophy. But when she was 25, disaster struck.

"I discovered that despite taking the Pill, I'd accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend.

[Fallen Pregnant?]

"I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby.

"I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time.

"This time it was a male doctor. I remember saying to him: 'I want to make sure this never happens again.'

"He said: 'You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does'. He refused to consider it.

"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.

"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.

"After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation....

At the age of 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised.

Isn't this entirely opposite a Christian world view, where God blesses reproduction, saying "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the Earth and subdue it." The attitude in the lives of these environmental activists is that children are not a blessing from God, but a curse. I suppose that this is just the natural conclusion of a belief system saturated in secular humanism. What kind of life does it lead to? Lifeless, sad, selfish, and yes, sterile.

Joy Behar gets pwnd by Ron Paul on Abortion

While I am not endorsing Ron Paul -- or anyone else -- for president, I am very impressed with the way that he defends a simple, modest, pro-life position against the idealogue hosts on the View. The knee-jerk loyalty to and defense of Roe v. Wade is put to shame by his simple dialogue that displays right away that if you don't believe a healthy, normal, 8# baby in the eighth month should be aborted than you do not and cannot support Roe.

When Paul makes this modest point Joy and Whoopie boil over with outrage and panic over this attack on their idology that is usually so well defended from such common sense.


Hat tip to Hot Air

Why are Psychology Researchers surprised when they find sterotypes

It seems to me that you could do a lot of damage to your relationships -- and especially to your marriage -- if you tried to follow all the relationship advice that comes from psychologist and sociologists that gets filtered through the media. At the heart of the matter is rebellion against God's design for society and families.

The astounding thing about this article is how the reporter looks for someone to blame for this violation of psychological, egalitarian and feminist principles. You can see the shock in this excerpt:

In the land of romance, ladies might do well to shut their traps, while men can continue to blab.

That's the message of new research revealing that both men and women judge harshly couples in which the guy is a timid talker and the gal dominates conversations and shows assertiveness.

The scientists suggest gender stereotypes are to blame for study participants' negative views of couples breaking the mold....

Past research has found such mismatched couples (those that violate gender-role stereotypes) tend to be less satisfied. In the current study, published in the October issue of the journal Sex Roles, the researchers investigated whether gender-role expectations play a role in the dissatisfaction....

Whether or not we like to admit it, Sellers said, we take heed of gender stereotypes. And these societal limits can hurt both men and women alike.

(Emphasis Added)

It is almost as if the design for male-female relationships are designed and programmed by someone with different values than those of the psych researchers. I wonder who?

Secret Snowmen and A Freudian Slip that Shows the Intention of Multiculturalism

In a December newsletter to the families of elementary school students, Spokane Public Schools' list of "important dates" didn't include Christmas.

Hanukkah, Human Rights Day, winter break, the Islamic holy day Eid al-Adha, first day of winter and Kwanzaa all made the list. But no Christmas.

The school district claims that it simply overlooked the obvious in making the calendar, and has corrected it on its website. Maybe I am just paranoid, but I take this as a Freudian Slip. There is an explicit agenda behind multiculturalism that seeks to diminish the traditional Christian Culture in America by holding up dozens of equivalents -- whether the equivalents are holidays, religions, heroes, celebrities, or whatever.

Closely related is the supposed right not to be offended -- which, of course, applies to everyone but believing Christians. PC multiculturalism invariatably rises to new levels of paranoia on a daily basis at the fear that some remote reference to Christianity may offend someone. This offering of unique neuroticism is offered from a blog of a Sacramento Public School teacher.

At our school the PTSA has a Secret Pal program, wherein a parent "adopts" a teacher (or teachers) and provides gifts to that teacher all year long. It's a very generous thing to do, and I know all of us teachers enjoy getting gifts from our pals.

For the upcoming Christmas season, we teachers can participate in a "Secret Snowman" program with a fellow teacher. Those who wanted to participate filled out forms with likes/dislikes and these forms were distributed to other teachers who chose to participate. It's another great program.

You know what bothered me about it? The teacher who is running "Secret Snowman" chose that term instead of the more common "Secret Santa" because "Secret Snowman" is a non-sectarian term.

Some Christians choose to fight it in the public arena. Some go underground and try to protect their families from the anti-Christian attacks by building a sub-culture to live in. What worries me, however, is how many people just let it slide and accept the weak argument that we should try not to offend everyone.

BTW: one thing I want to know -- if Santa Claus is sectarian, isn't snowMAN sexist?