Antipodean59's Blog

Restored New Testament Christianity

Archive for the category “Christianity”

Freewill

Keith Sisman (my brother-in-Christ) posted this on his face book site. Traces of the Kingdom is another site you may be interested in.

Freewill – today society does not understand the issues concerning freewill, but just a few centuries ago it was a major concern. Kings ruled with absolute authority. The Roman Catholic Church likewise through the doctrine of Original Sin ruled with absolute power, often clashing with secular rulers. The ordinary person, the surfs, stood no chance. We are taught at school democracy started with the Magna Carta (Latin for “the Great Charter”), It was agreed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215 (Windsor is where Mr Obama wished happy birthday to the Queen last week). The Charter was first drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the aristocracy from illegal imprisonment and access to swift justice. It did nothing for the peasant and surf class (that’s you and me).
If we go back to 400BC much of Northern Europe (named after the goddess Europa) held to Freewill, it was a doctrine of the Celts and their priesthood the Druids. On the other hand the Romans held to Original Sin and infant baptism (it had to come from somewhere) denying Freewill.
In 390BC the Celts under a British King sacked Rome. This is not taught in history, it should be. We have both contemporary British and Roman accounts, it is not an invention. One of the invading Celtic tribes was later known as the Galatians, Paul wrote them a letter. This started a war with Northern Europa that lasted many centuries. The Druid headquarters was based in Britain, possibly Anglesey. Caesar was determined to destroy the Druids and he did a fairly decent job. In this period there were many minor kingdoms, at time of war these minor kingdoms would come together under a head king or emperor, an emperor was of imperial status, above that of a king.
When the gospel was spread in Northern Europa the Celts understood Freewill, it was their doctrine. I am not defending the Celts, they practised human sacrifice and for religious reasons sometimes ate their victims alive, this is the origin of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation (cannibalism). Genesis 9:4-6 “But you shall not eat flesh in its life, its blood. And surely the blood of your lives I will demand. At the hand of every animal I will demand it, and at the hand of man. I will demand the life of man at the hand of every man’s brother. Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood shall be shed by man. For He made man in the image of God.”
Those being cooked made a great protest, thus instruments of music were introduced into this pagan worship alongside of singing to drown out the protesting, protecting the ears of the families of the victims. This is possibly the origin of Soprano singing. This took place in a stone circle, the centre of the circle was known as the core, which gives us our word choir. It is interesting the flesh was taken from the living victim from the groin area and then barbequed before eating. What is really fascinating this practice was worldwide suggesting a common place of origin – Babylon. The knife used was flint; the taking of flesh from a living human victim from their groin area using a flint knife by a priest was worldwide. Stone circles are dated far too early because of flint knives and chippings; metal was banned from worship areas. It was the same with Solomon’s temple (1 Ki 6:7) “And when it was being built, the house was built of finished stone made ready beforehand. And there was not heard in the house a hammer or an axe, or any iron tool, while it was being built” (Greens Literal Version).
I don’t mention this in Traces or the Devils’ Door because it is not a pleasant subject, I can go into greater detail but I do not think it is healthy and serves no purpose. This is though hrough my study the pagan origin of choirs, instruments in worship and the cannibalistic ongoing sacrifice of Transubstantiation. In a Roman Catholic temple (church) the choir is a part of a building, where the singers sang. The Celts called their worship circles and mounds – churches! The Roman Catholic Church has never formally adopted the instrument, it was allowed into worship for the peasant classes. The Romish Church spiritual sang acapella.
Back to Freewill. Where Freewill was believed as opposed to human depravity is where the church flourished after Augustine forced by coercion the pagan doctrine of Original Sin. It is from his time the church split and the Churches of Christ start to appear in history, separate from the Romish beast.

Advertisements

Soft Tissue From Dinosaur – Really?

Dinosaurs_intertitleDinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!

by Carl Wieland,
Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before.

Background

Creationists were fascinated, and evolutionists mostly skeptical, when evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer claimed in the 1990s that an unfossilized piece of T. rex bone contained red blood cells. Further, that there was immunological and spectroscopic evidence of the presence of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein that gives red blood cells their colour.1

Then in 2005, Schweitzer announced a further sensational discovery in a different T.rex bone. After the mineral matrix was dissolved,2 what remained were structures with all the appearance of soft tissue, still soft and stretchy. Some of these appeared to be transparent branching blood vessels, with a substance inside them containing further structures looking just like nucleated red blood cells, and able to be squeezed out of the vessels like toothpaste.

How could such fragile structures survive for millions of years? Long-agers went into intense, but not very effective damage control, such as seen in the item (containing CMI’s response) Squirming at the Squishosaur.

Gradually, further evidence strengthened the case that Schweitzer had indeed discovered evidence of astonishing preservation of organic material in fossils. In 2007, in Squashing Squishosaur Scepticism, we reported that she and her team had performed careful tests to establish the presence of the protein collagen in the dino fossil—an important protein in bone. They were even able to sequence stretches of it, which showed that it was 58% similar to collagen from a chicken, and 51% similar to that from a frog.3

It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.4,5 Furthermore, bones of an Iguanodon allegedly twice as old (“dated” to 120 Ma) contained enough of the protein osteocalcin to produce an immune reaction.6

Many anti-creationists therefore breathed a sigh of relief when in mid-2008 a paper claimed to have found evidence that the transparent blood vessels, for instance, were the result of recent bacterial formation of biofilms, forming “endocasts” that followed the shape of where the original vessels lay, and that the red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called framboids. There were substantial reasons why not just creationists, but Schweitzer and other non-creationists were not at all convinced by these claims—see Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur.

The new findings

Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings.7 The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.

In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.

Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed “extraordinary”, required extraordinary evidence. But this is a cliché; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur encased in sandstone.

Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteins—elastin and laminin. They also found structures uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if the antibodies would bind to them.

Some scientists are still skeptical about the hemoglobin, which is “difficult to identify with current technology”. Dr Pavel Pevzner of the University of California, was quoted as saying that if it is not a contaminant, it would be “much bigger news [than the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper.”9

Even leaving aside the hemoglobin, the Schweitzer et al paper is huge news. Pevzner had been critical of the technique used in Schweitzer’s analysis of the T. rex protein, but now he says that her new study “was ‘done the right way,’ with more stringent controls to guard against contamination”, for one thing.

There were eight collagen proteins alone discovered from the hadrosaur fossil, which revealed twice as many amino acids as the previous tyrannosaur specimen. These were compared with sequences from animals living today as well as from mastodon fossils and her T. rex sequences. The hadrosaur and tyrannosaur collagens were closer to each other than the others, and each were closer to chickens and ostriches than to crocodilians, for instance—results which would also confirm her previous identification of T. rex collagen.

The samples were identified as collagen by both sophisticated mass spectroscopy and antibody-binding techniques. They were also examined via both light and electron microscopy, which confirmed that they had the appearance of collagen as well.

As Schweitzer says, “These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further.”

Power of the paradigm

Philosophers of science have written much about the power of a paradigm, especially when it has worldview implications, such as long-age belief. Such a paradigm is seldom, if ever, overthrown simply because of observations that contradict its expectations. Even Schweitzer herself, despite professing to be an evangelical Christian, is extremely defensive about the old-age paradigm—see Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery.

What happens is that “auxiliary” hypotheses and assumptions are constructed to preserve the intactness of the “core” hypothesis, in this case what is known as “deep time” (see further explanation). In simple terms, proteins should simply not have been able to last for these tens of millions of years. So when they are found in specimens dated this old, the paradigm is under serious threat.

The most straightforward fit to the evidence is that the time of burial of these dinosaurs was not millions of years ago at all, but only thousands of years ago at most. As the evidence continues to mount that dinosaur fossils do indeed contain well-preserved soft tissue structures and identifiable proteins, the assumption that will increasingly be made is that “we now know that such tissue components can last that long, after all.”

Not many will see this as the paradigm-rescuing assumption that it is. Consider the line of reasoning:

1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because

5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more science-based:

1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis.

We hope that many readers will be able to use this sort of evidence to gently pry open many closed minds.

Update 9 May 2009: see answer to a critic who disputes that these findings are a big deal.

Further update 10 August 2009: Schweitzer’s original find of soft tissue remains in a T. rex was strongly disputed, with some suggesting that the proteins found were the result of contamination. However, a reanalysis due to be published September 4 in the Journal of Proteome Research “has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.” (Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains, http://www.ScienceDaily.com, July 31, 2009)

Online Resources from World Video Bible School

Online Resources from World Video Bible School.

The truth about sectarian christianity

According to the apostle Paul “God is not the author of confusion” (I Corinthians 14;33). Yet, today, there are hundreds of sects of “Christianity” all claiming to follow Jesus Christ and most if not all have a variation upon that theme. Is this how God wants it? Is this a “true and undefiled religion” (James 1:27)?

Listen to this preacher, Michael Hatcher and see if his lesson answers those questions.

Thought For The Week

A Word To The Wise

A few weeks ago I wrote that the Law of Moses has been abolished, for Paul said it had been “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). However, in stating such one should not underestimate the old law still remaining as a great teaching tool. Once again the great preacher Paul says, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4). The Law, it is said, conceals the New Testament, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). One such teachable premise is contained within the Levitical code which states “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbour, lest you incur sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17 ESV). I believe God declares that communication in the brotherhood in respect to a sharp disapproval concerning specific or implied offence must be open, honest and direct lest a deep resentment is harboured in the heart. The New Testament reveals the same sentiment in Ephesians 5:11; that is, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Many do not adhere to this authorised practice for fear of the sometimes inevitable consequence of alienation. They fear they may make too many enemies. Paul would no doubt encourage not to be fearful but simply retort with “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth” (Galatians 4:16).

You see it is far better to be straight forward and let your feelings be known with the appropriate dignity and gentleness (I Peter 3:15) than to hold back resentment and anger in the heart of which the latter is sin (Ephesians 4:26).

Graham

Thought for the week

Ok, so where am I going wrong?

The sometimes testy subject of fellowship is on my mind this week. I say “testy” because fellowship circles in the church invariably bring with it issues associated with error. Let me explain by way of a theoretical example.

A brother in Christ who has for years been revered as having an exemplary record regarding biblical study by upholding the Pauline call to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15) and lived life in pursuit of “righteousness, faith, love and peace” (II Timothy 2:22) then, out of the blue, with inexplicable audacity publically serves up a lesson from a “different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). One is left wondering, “What gives?” So with grace and humility words are exchanged “seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6) over an extraordinary length of time not just by me but many faithful brethren seeking to correct ‘if God perhaps will grant them repentance” (II Timothy 2:24-26) but, alas, to no avail. To this day he remains defiant even accusing correctors of being dishonourable and inciting division.

Now, having pursued a course of “proving all things” as true and correct from the scriptures to show the errant one’s departure from the truth to brethren who fellowship him via personal contact, using him in church outreach programmes etc. and endeavouring to point out with the same attitude displayed to the errant one that such contact and association is “sharing in his evil deeds” (II John 2:11), I and faithful brethren are the ones rejected and found to be dishonourable even to the point of misapplying II John 9-11. Have I misapplied II John 9-11? I do not believe so. A.T. Robertson, Baptist (1863-1934) says the text is dealing with those who progress beyond the doctrine of Christ not about Christ. Adam Clarke, Methodist minister (1762-1832) said, “He who passes over the sacred enclosure, or goes beyond the prescribed limits; and abideth not in the doctrine – does not remain within these holy limits, but indulges himself either in excesses of action or passion; hath not God for his Father, nor the love of God in his heart.” Which brings me to the title of this week’s thought for the week, where am I going wrong? Are you willing to help me out using scripture, of course?

Graham

Thought for the week

Standing For Truth

Sir Winston Churchill once said, “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something in your life” (Winston Churchill – 1874-1965). Now, don’t you find it astounding that perfectly contented souls will all of a sudden erupt in fits of vitriol when you point out a Bible truth? One need only visit a debate forum on Face Book, Google or such like to see them go hammer and tong all because someone had the audacity to quote the Bible. The quote invariably goes against their perception of truth or perhaps the lifestyle they or someone they know has indulged in. The apostle Paul would, however, counter with this: “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16). Yes, it is almost like one becomes their “enemy” all because God’s word which is the “truth” (John 17:17) was cited. The Bible believer must “not yield in submission even for a moment” (Galatians 2:5); rather, must continue to speak that “truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).
It should come as no surprise that these things take place for even Jesus, the Master teacher and counsellor said, “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” (John 8:45). My friends, if Jesus couldn’t persuade because of hardness of heart then we who stake our lives upon His truth ought to take comfort, for to repeat Churchill, “That means you’ve stood up for something in your life.”

Graham

Thought For The Week

Hearts and Actions

You know the feeling; that is, you know what is right and what to do about it but you never quite get around to doing it. For example: you have read the need to share your faith, “in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (I Peter 3:15). However, you don’t get out there and follow through with the necessary action. James says it is not good enough just to hear the word but to be “doers of the word” (James 1:22).

Again, Jesus issues a parable about the heart and corresponding action: “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a jar or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away” (Luke 8:16-18). You have lit the lamp of the word in your heart, now put it on the stand and share its message. God’s word lights the path He wants you to tread (Psalm 119:105) but not just you but all mankind (John 3:16) and “with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you” (Luke 6:38).

Have a great week following the lamp.

Graham

Thought for the week

The debate that is raging at the moment is all about “gay marriage” and the rights and wrongs of it that I feel compelled to add it is fuelled by liberal politicians such as US President Obama and New Zealand Prime Minister Key to garner political “Brownie Points”. My question is: Is it possible that this issue can ever be solved through a method devoid of higher authority? I say no! For as the Bible says, ” No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18). Let’s be honest, man’s premise of atheism cannot account for moral behaviour such as marriage, for atheism itself is mere opinion devoid of objective proof. Go ahead; prove to me there is no God. Tolerance, remember, is that one man’s opinion is no better or worse than another’s so you must objectively, as God says, “prove all things” (I Thessalonians 5:21).

Soon after the Second World War 22 high ranking officers of the Nazi regime were brought to justice in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg, the birth place of the Nazi Party. The Allies used the newly created London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which differed from individual Allied nation’s laws, to prosecute these criminals. The Nazi defence argued on the grounds of subjectivity saying they were “only acting under orders”. That is to say, as it was legal in Germany to pursue war and the associated atrocities that thereafter occurred, each officer was merely following a superior’s order. Instead of arguing the defenders’ point, the Allied prosecution appealed to a higher authority’s objectivity; that is, The “Nuremberg Principals” which consisted of seven articles with this basic principal in mind: that an individual or head of state “who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.” To this day, no nation has the subjective right to sanction murder without consequence from an international high authority.

So the “gay marriage” argument pursued without a higher authority’s input is merely an argument devoid of objective proof. Many people of all sorts of secular backgrounds and viewpoints now argue for the right of homosexuals to be legally married. In a similar fashion many people in Nazi controlled Germany from all sorts of secular and even religious backgrounds argued for the right to exterminate Poles, Dutch, French, British, and Jews etc. through their act of war. Yet, in both cases, while being legal according to constitutional governance that does not mean it is morally right.

As I stated in the beginning, man is not the inventor of morals, for if so, that would constitute morals based upon mere opinion. The God of the Bible claims He is the higher authority regarding morals (Mark 10:18); therefore man needs to appeal to He who is “good” for the right for homosexuals to marry. Without fear of a true and valid contradiction I will point out from His New Testament (mankind is subject to the new covenant today so don’t do as many are apt to do in this debate and appeal to nonsensical arguments based on the old covenant’s statutes) that giving homosexuals the right to marry would be sinful. Go to Romans 1:18-32; I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:10 where the Holy Spirit guided apostle states unequivocally that practicing homosexuality is condemned.

Graham

Godhead United In Word and Deed

In this week’s thought for the week let’s consider the unity of The Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who make the Divine Godhead of the Bible.

The idea that each of the Godhead is divorced of the thought and actions of the other is strange to say the least. For instance, some say that Jesus is love but God the Father is wrath. So, they suggest through implication that God the Father is not love, hmm!
This nonsense has grown, in my opinion, from the thought that people only want love and not the consequence of sin which is wrath.

To show that all three of the Godhead are united in all they think and do, let us consider three separate verses dealing with the topic of sanctification.

• Jude 1 “Sanctified by God the Father.” The Father sets the Christian apart.
• I Corinthians 1:2 “Sanctified in Christ.” Jesus sets the Christian apart.
• I Peter 1:2 “Through sanctification of the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit sets the Christian apart.

Each of the Godhead is in total harmony regarding the sanctification of Christians which is just as true with all the other workings of the Godhead, for Jesus acts just as wrathfully (Revelation 6:16) as God the Father (John 3:36) as much as the Holy Spirit is just as grieved at sin ( Ephesians 4:30) as Jesus is grieved (Mark 3:5).

Jesus said in His prayer to God the Father “that they (the holy apostles GJW) all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:21). The purpose of Jesus’ words is to show He is united in thought and deed in order to create faith in unbelievers, for the opposite creates disorder and confusion which leads to faulty ideas such as this thought opened with.

God bless as you travel and study through His word.
Graham.

Post Navigation