Why Jesus is Our Good News

In Chapter 4 of the Gospel of Luke we are told that the devil tried to tempt Jesus. Here was one of the ways: 

" 5 And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours.” 8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written,

‘You shall worship the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.’”"

Jesus didn't argue with the devil that he was mistaken about thinking that all the authority of the kingdoms of the world had been delivered to the devil, to give to whom he willed. Apparently it was known by both of them that the devil was speaking the truth, for once. 

To people who know that it is true, finding out that 9/11 was an inside job does not come as a surprise. Finding out that all kingdoms of this world are controlled by the evil one does not come as a surprise. 

The surprise is for those of you who refuse to believe that truth. 

Our only hope is that Jesus will come and rescue us from this evil world that is controlled by the evil one. He is our good news. If you refuse to believe that, good luck finding good news to cling to in this world.

9/11 Truth and the Strategy of Tension

Just finished reading an essay by Swiss historian Daniele Ganser, "The Strategy of Tension in the Cold War Period."
 http://journalof911studies.com/resou…/2014GanserVol39May.pdf

It's a "brief" description (from his much longer, more scholarly book) of how it was slowly discovered that acts of terror carried out in Europe during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and blamed on communist organizations, were in fact carried out by right-wing organizations supported by NATO, the CIA and Britain's MI6. The purpose was to make it look like communists were behind the terror attacks and thus persuade people to favor more right-wing governments. 

Ganser, who is a 9/11 Truther, draws two conclusions from this:

"The two main arguments against the view that the attacks of 9/11 were influenced by the US government and its military have been a priori arguments. One of these is that civilized Western governments in general, and the US government in particular, would never do such a heinous thing. The other main a priori argument is that if the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by forces within America’s own government, this fact could not have remained secret for this long. The information in this article shows both of these arguments to be dubious at best." 

The Spiritual Message of 9/11

Just watched the DVD, "The Anatomy pf a Great Deception," by David Hooper.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc
It's his story of how in 2011 he began investigating the events of 9/11. Of course, he became a 9/11 Truther. What I found most interesting was near the end, when he asks what kind of power could pull this off and make everybody keep quiet about it. He lets us know that he thinks he knows who it is, but he doesn't get specific. But the film ends with this quote from Ephesians 6:12, 

"For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

I suspect that in the long run, Hooper is right. In order to achieve places of power in this world, one must sell their souls to the devil. Whether or not that means they are taking orders directly from him or not, I couldn't say.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Anatomy-Great-Decep…/…/ref=sr_1_1…

Why did Jesus give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom?

We are told in the Gospel of Matthew (16:19) that Jesus told his disciple Peter that he will give him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  I was wondering, why Peter?  Then it hit me.  If you were standing at the gates of Heaven, wanting to get in, who would you want holding the keys?  I would want someone who had learned how little he himself deserved to be in Heaven, and therefore would look for whatever excuse he could find to get as many people as he could into Heaven, also.  Peter fits that bill very nicely.  After all, he denied Jesus not once, not twice, but three times.  Jesus forgave him.  That's the kind of guy who would know how little he deserves to be in Heaven, and who would do whatever he could to get everybody else in.  I wonder if Jesus knew that's the kind of guy Peter would be before He gave him the keys.

The PSA and why we might be afraid to ask God questions.

I just read Randal Rauser's blog post, "Is there still a place to tremble before God?"  It got me thinking about the Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) theory, how I think it goes off course, and how it results in a bad view of God, which inhibits us from asking theological questions.   The PSA says that Jesus was punished for our sins in our place, and that this somehow fulfills justice.  This is a difficult doctrine to defend, because it violates our basic idea of justice - a person is punished for their own crimes or sins, not somebody else's.  We make exceptions when it comes to paying somebody else's fine for them.  But we wouldn't tolerate the idea of imprisoning or executing an innocent person instead of a guilty one and consider that some kind of justice. So why do we tolerate the idea when considering the Atonement?  We might try to justify it in all sorts of ways, but I think the bottom line is that we end up with an unjust and angry God.  And who would want to ask that kind of God any questions?  He might get really ticked off and zap us off the face of the earth.

I think the PSA is a misunderstanding of what was trying to be achieved in the sacrificial system of Israel.  The sin offering was not a substitute for punishment.  It was a way to remove sin, either from the Tabernacle and the holy things in it, or from the priests, or from the people.  It absorbed their sins, or the contamination of their sins, onto itself.  Then it was sacrificed, and its carcass burned outside of the camp.  Or on the Day of Atonement, the one goat was driven out into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the people on itself.  So the sacrifice wasn't being offered as a substitute for punishment, but as a way of removing and destroying sin.  

At this point someone might object, but isn't God still being unjust?  Afterall, the sacrificial animal didn't do anything to deserve being slain for somebody else's sins.  And that is true.  It is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed.  But the point is that God isn't trying to achieve justice.  God is trying to get rid of sin from our lives.  From His point of view, sin is like snake venom coursing through our veins, slowly killing us.  And the idea is to figure out a way to get rid of it without killing us.  The animal sacrifice was a foreshadowing of the Messiah, who's death was a way to absorb our sins into Himself and destroy them.  It might not have been fair to Him to endure this, but it was something He did willingly.  And God raised Him from the dead and promises to raise us all, also, if we have faith in His Messiah.  

Anyway, once our atonement theory is corrected, we no longer have an unjust and angry God who won't tolerate questions.  He just won't tolerate sin. 

Update on Using Existing Anti-Virals against Ebola in Africa

I first read about Dr. Logan successfully treating 13 out of 15 Ebola patients with the anti-viral medicine Lamivudine in late September and have wondered why the story wasn't covered more extensively.  Someone else has been wondering the same thing:

Ebola Update: Anti-Viral Med Passed NIH Aerosol Test in April; Another Reduces Lethality in Liberia.

War! Huh! What is it Good For? Abolutely...Cha-Ching!

Syria to Ukraine Wars Send U.S. Defense Stocks to Records

Some Perspective on Current Global Warming?

To be honest, I don't know what to make of the global warming debate, or even if there should be a debate, or whether it is settled science, and there are just a bunch of oil-funded denialists disputing it.  However, I found this graph intriguing.  If it is accurate (is it?), then whatever global warming taking place right now seems rather minor, and not necessarily related to CO2 in the atmosphere.  But perhaps the experts have an explanation for it all.

Temperature Since 10,700 years ago.

HT:  Watts Up With That Paleoclimate Page.