The mere fact that Jesus was tempted means nothing; God was tempted by Satan (Job, ever read it?), tempting just means to test, we can’t test God, we will fail, and so with the world and Satan failed when they tested Jesus. Poor anti-trinitarian arguments there.

we should have Resurrection faith in Yeshua the Messiah and be thankful that god accepted his offering and took him in heaven to sit at His right hand and to be a mediator between Him (Jehovah God) and men.

Also, the theory of cognitive dissonance says that when presented with two or more conflicting messages, we tend to take the easiest way out and often that means criticizing those who challenge our current state of comfort.

This goes the same for Christians who used to teach salvation comes from their father’s biology.

“It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” – Rom. 9.6

I do agree that the main sin was not homosexuality—homosexual gang rape is a shocking action that shows how blatantly far-off the Sodom people were. Hospitality was sacred there and then, it still is in that part of the world for the more traditional people. No hospitality, no respect for the foreigners (even distinguished-looking foreigners as these were), homosexual gang rape, whoa. Even preferring homosexual gang rape to heterosexual child gang rape (if Lot’s daughters were single, they were probably 14 or younger). Now, the Sodomites did not say “sorry, we don’t do women” but actually “who are you, a foreigner, to tell us what’s right or wrong?” so they might simply have been stubborn, regardless of whether they might find Lot’s daughters a good target or not.

The wider context of Abraham vs. Lot, and their pickings of place to live on Gen 13: Lot pitched his tents among the cities on the plains, while Abraham pitched his tents among the oak trees, on a much less populated place. Lot mixed up with the Canaan population. I can’t say Lot had any idea of what would happen, he just picked the best spot for himself, and left his uncle with the less good land—he comes across to me as rude and greedy, where Abraham is trying to keep peace and pay the price for it. The biblical author tells us there’s trouble ahead for Lot, when he mentions the great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (without indicating what that sin was).

About Leviticus, can’t “a man lying down with another man as with a woman” mean lying down to have sex? As opposed to just sleeping on the same bed out of practicality (two guys, one bed, why should one lie bedless?). That would beg explaining why the following verse mentions sex with animals explicitly, where here the author would mention homosexual sex in a veiled way. Could it be that he was more put off by gay sex than animal sex, so much that he cannot bring himself to say it plainly? That would seem strange.

Anyway … I hated the performance of Lois Lane in this movie perhaps more than anything. Her whiny, foot-stomping tantrum over something or other was just pathetic. It was like they don’t know who Lois Lane is at all. I admit, I’ve not really read Superman comics, but her portrayal on the radio, TV, and film has made foot-stomping temper tantrums very much out of place.

Luthor was pathetic.

The whole Superman’s son story was troublesome.

I have it on DVD but have only watched it once. I don’t think I can bear to go through it again. Maybe I’ll just skip to the exciting action scenes … oh, wait … never mind.

You are right though. I am working to reconcile a paradox, like the Trinity in Scripture. I believe Engrafted language is a middle way between extremes of zionism & supersessionism, acknowledging my Gentile place as well as God’s faithfulness.

Moreover, you called me a supersessionist and I never owned that label. I merely asked you what is inherently wrong with supersessionism. I didn’t claim to adopt the view.

Your responses have not been helpful. I do not understand your view any better than when I read this post. As far as I can tell, your view doesn’t align with Scripture.

Finally, an eschatological question. Does the existence of the Legion of Superheroes tell us that the rapture is not occurring any time soon?

I think that you did a great job of summing it up. If this was cast as “Justice League: Apocalypse” or something like that, it would have been perfect.

2. The story of Ananias and Saphirra.

I was aware of Christ’s riding of the donkey as a parody of the Roman Empire, but it’s also stated that the Jews welcomed him with laying palm leaves before him and praising him as the King/Messiah! As they were saying this, was there not some expectation that Christ would (more or less) overtake Caesar’s empire violently or by force? Can we really say they were praising his entry for the truth of what he would actually do?

Also, many would have issues with Christ being non-violent yet God being violent- half the point of Christ is the good news about who God truly is ,so portraying the Father & Son’s character as somehow in conflict with one another presents issues ( similar to the whole objection to penal substitution atonement). Also,with Revelation, many Dominionists and Zionists use these depictions of God to promote empire and champion Him as this prize-winning warrior God – also, still inconsistent- much of Revelations, I’ve been told, is in fact, Jewish apocalyptic literature and so many of the depictions/imagery have to be interpreted in light of this (i.e. sword coming out of Christ’s mouth) “If you’ve seen me , you’ve seen the Father” – stoning gays, whiping out civilizations of women and children, and other instances of God-sanctioned brutality in the OT are not consistent with the sorts of things Jesus would do/taught, therefore, if He is the fullest representation of God, then why should we believe God would do these things? This would be the largest objection and the reason for discrediting things in the OT. It’s a bit iffy, then, to give God a pass for being violent. Also, what are some instances of God being violent in Acts?

When you have no other recourse, name-calling only other option I see.

Who is this “Israel”? Where is this “Israel”? Is it ethnic “Israel”? Is it national “Israel”? I have no idea what you mean by “Israel.” Are you coming out as a Zionist?

The answer you’re clearly skirting is that there is no longer any covenant with ethnic or national Israel. The New Covenant is between God and the Church, which includes people from every ethnic group and/or national entity on earth.

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” – Galatians 3.23-26

Being “baptized into Christ” is being baptized into the body of Christ: the CHURCH. Doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile. Every member of Christ’s CHURCH are co-heirs with Christ to the promise made to Abraham’s Seed (Jesus).

“I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Ephesians 3.7-11

God’s intent was that now what? “Through the CHURCH”. Full stop.

“You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.” The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” – Hebrews 12.18-24

The writer contrasts Old and New saying the Hebrew believers to whom he writes have “come to… the CHURCH of the Firstborn… to Jesus the Mediator of a New Covenant.”

To whom have the Hebrew Christians come: Jesus, the mediator of a New Covenant. And what is this new community called: the CHURCH of the firstborn.

If you want to call the Church the “New Israel” or a “spiritual Israel”, fine. But this “Israel+the Church” doesn’t cut it with Scripture.

I said there was one; sorry, i dont work in the millenialisms/dispensationalist frame work. You have no passages to cite for your beloved supersessionism because its embedded theology.

So, instead, I’ll just say what your options are and which one is faithful to the biblical witness:

1) There is only one covenant community in light of who Jesus is: the Church (made up of peoples from every tribe and every nation, including Gentiles and Jews).

2) There are two covenant communities: Israel and the Church.

Option #1 is biblical, according to the New Testament. Option #2 is unbiblical according to the New Testament.

As for new vs old, I already answered this, but heres the biblical precedent: God renews the covenants, just as he did during the time of Samuel (1st Samuel 1). Same way, the Messiah renews the 1st Covenant, only difference is opening up/fully including the Gentiles.

So, you didn’t exactly answer my question. I didn’t ask how many covenants there are, though your answer is fascinating. (I’ll get to that in a moment.) I asked how many covenant *Communities* you believe there are. How many different groups of people does God currently have a covenant relationship with, in light of the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Messiah Jesus of Nazareth: One or Two?

Now to your claim that there is only one covenant—the “First covenant.” Would you mind explaining how you understand Jeremiah and Jesus and the author of Hebrew’s use of the language of “New Covenant”? Help me understand how something “new” is also the “same.”

Thanks!

I just have one question:

How many covenant communities has God chosen, today—since the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus—to be God’s sign and sacrament of the age to come: One or Two?

Re: Palm Sunday:

I think the use of the donkey for Jesus is more of a parody of the Roman Empire. Its more of commentary on Jesus being a humble king in the midst of arrogant Roman empire. Also Jesus may be fulfilling Zechariah’s prophecy about a king’s entry.

RE: Nonviolent Christ:

Another good point. Sure Jesus in nonviolent, but its more in line with the Jewish way of shalom like Ezra and Solomon. Plus God is still violent in Revelation, the book of Acts.

a) with the dissent towards the view that “the Jews were waiting for a violent messiah to overtake their enemies” in mind, what was/is the significance of Palm sunday/ Jesus’ riding of the donkey into Jerusalem – many ( as I’m sure you realize) teach this to be a sort of dramatic irony of sorts- the “triumphant” as militaristic/forceful triumph over Roman rule (i.e. violent messiah to overtake the enemy)

b) i suspect many retreat to supersessionism simply because they believe the non-violent Christ of NT to be horribly inconsistent with the OT God. Even with this faithfulness of God to Israel framework/ New perspective on Paul, how would you respond to someone who yet brings up such things as the OT slayings , in which God is recorded to have ordered the brutal killing of innocent children/babies and women?

Also, it’s a little odd that Chloe Sullivan often seemed more like Lois Lane than the show’s actual Lois.

About Jewish sacrifices. I don’t know about that! In “who Wrote the Bible”, Richard Elliott Friedman, a Jewish scholar, says it is more complicated than that.there were the Aaron priests, who did the sacrifices in the temple, and the Shiloh priests descended from Moses who did not emphasize animal sacrifices. One of which was Jeremiah. So I think it is a little more complicated than that. Gets into the split between Israel and Judah too, so the Jews were not a monolithic bloc at all.

But whatevs.

We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created Man and wanted Man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the Earth. We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know Him in the light. God promised in the book of His word, the Bible, that He would save the world and all the nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good His promise by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left His home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, He rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

We believe that all our sins are forgiven through Him. All who have faith in Him must be sorry for their sins, be baptised in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love and share the bread together in love, to announce the Good News to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for Him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.

*edit*: just re-read it, given my statements at the beginning of this post, to start out “we are not alone” is sorta starting the creed with us, making it um not a creed……

We are not alone,
we live in God’s world.

We believe in God:
who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus,
the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others
by the Spirit.

We trust in God.

We are called to be the Church:
to celebrate God’s presence,
to live with respect in Creation,
to love and serve others,
to seek justice and resist evil,
to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope.

In life, in death, in life beyond death,
God is with us.
We are not alone.

Thanks be to God.

The comics are pretty good. On the negative side, the plotting is sometimes sloppy and sometimes stuffs too much story into too little time. But they’re still enjoyable because the dialogue is very true to the characters. I haven’t read the Shepherd Book backstory one yet.

Were certain groups singled out more than others? yes.
To me that is ok. We have a new crappy category of 501c4 and its a bad idea. Groups applying to that group are more conservative than liberal proportionally. To me all 501c4′s since it is a new category should be targeted heavily and the IRS should be making sure the new groups are in line.

Also some of the groups targeted by the IRS may have actually broken election law:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/05/27/2064111/some-groups-targeted-by-irs-may-have-violated-election-law/

as far as simplifying the tax code. Never gonna happen the tax codes are written by the rich for the rich. There is a financial benefit and netgain to be had by having a obscene tax code it keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. A flat tax isn’t going to fix it because the burden would still be upon the poor. I do agree with you the tax code should be simplified yes and taxing luxury goods should happen. Additionally we should still tax corporations especially ones who have offshore finances and are monopolies/oligarchies. The government pandering to Apple and the book publishers is insane. the refusal to address the domination of ma-bell is also nuts.

http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/frustrations-asian-american-whedonite/

A Sino-American hybrid culture without any Asians makes no sense. There was a strong Asian character in the Buffy spin-off, Gavin Park.

Reconstructionism desires to make the torah the law of the land in the U.S. Constantinianism wants to make Christianity the state religion use Christian law as the law of the land. Finally we have Christian Paternalism. This is where Christians are still privileged and thus in control but the control is not as extensive as the previous 2 Christian ethnocracies.

My gut says that domionism is more favorable to reconstructionism.

I’ve been rewatching Firefly lately, and it’s full of Chinese cultural trappings but has almost no Asian characters. Do you think this is a problem? As much as I love Firefly (probably my favorite show), this seems like a bit of a flaw. I can understand not having one on the main cast, but to not have everyone speaking their language and not even have any as episode characters is a bit troubling.

Your blog is terrific. Thanks for being here