If you’ve ever wanted to know what is happening in the sky in Matthew 2 with the star that the Magi saw, the video that is only available at this website will explain everything that is happening. And yes, it actually happened exactly as it is described in the text. The price to watch the video is for you to provide your email address so that you can be informed of future videos, explaining other aspects of the Nativity based on this information about the Star of the Magi. themagistar.com

I cannot understand someone who objects to an execution being public, but who does not object to the execution itself. Those who oppose executions on principle are wrong, but at least they are not among those who are afraid that someone may see that which they know must be done.

Good News about the Ransom Trilogy: It will never get made into a movie. In book 1, “Out of the Silent Planet,” everything is deliberately phalic. The entire planet has a “theme of perpendicularity” with everything “elongated,” in chapter 8, up to and including the “throwing spears between his knees” as he had been instructed to do in the hunt of the hnakra in chapter 13. In book 2, “Perelandra,” everything is an erotic metaphor, everyone is naked, the main character is the naked queen of the planet, and the book ends by revealing the king of the planet who is quite explicitly more beautiful than the woman. In book 3, “That Hideous Strength,” a wizard doing real magic is one of the main characters, and one of the antagonists is a sexually aggressive butch lesbian police-lady who molests her prisoners. The damsel in need of rescuing is a woman pursuing a Ph.D. and writing a thesis on Donne. The story ends with a sexual act that is the whole point of the series. All that to say, I think we’re safe from Netflix filmmakers, and Christian filmmakers, and all other filmmakers in search of either a source of funding or a receptive audience.

Remember: the whole Odyssey movie is about America. That trans character who comes back from the dead and asks Odysseus, “Why did you lie to me?” His answer is “To win the war.” That’s about trans people in America and the ideology of radical freedom. Also, Helen of Troy in the movie has a scar on her face that looks like it was made by a whip. She has a twin sister (who is not her twin in the original) who murders her husband and king. Helen is “the face that launched a thousand ships.” This is a reference to the slave trade. They are a metaphor for black people in America. Helen of Troy apologizes for everything done in her name. This is a reference to America “freeing the world” with the global war on terror. Also: there is one person in the movie who speaks Greek. It’s the guy they speak to after they raid and burn his village. It leads to a scene where an obviously not-Greek man says through a translator to an actual Greek man: “We’re the Greeks! Haven’t you heard about our victory at Troy?” That’s a message about America thinking it is the standard-bearer of “democracy” in the world, when it is no such thing. The whole movie is about America in the aftermath of the global war on terror. This is why Odysseus at the end sails “to the unknown west” to give honor to his fellow fallen soldiers. IT’S ABOUT AMERICA!!!

I never realized how much Greta Gerwig’s Netflix Chronicles of Narnia changed the time period. The original Magician’s Nephew was in the late 1890s to 1900. The new Magician’s Nephew is in post-war Britain. This puts the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe in the 1990s. This is going to put the new Last Battle around 2000.

We already have an indigenous people’s day. It’s called the Fourth of July.

How to not answer this question like a doofus: “Well, Mr. Rodgers, that sounds like a hard hitting question, but it’s not. First, I’ll say quite clearly that I did not use my influence to direct the investigation. Second, I’ll just say that I don’t think anybody should be mistreated, and when the ability to do something about mistreatment is under my power, I address it in an appropriate manner. Now, regarding the appropriate manner to address things, I’ll note that you’ve vaguely brought up allegations against a farm, which is a business, that is owned by my family. Now, you’re an honorable man, so surely you’re not claiming that I personally mistreated anyone, and surely you aren’t asking me in this format what I have said to members of my family about those allegations against the family business that have been disputed. That would be ridiculous, and I would never assume you were asking such an inappropriate question. So, with that understanding, was there anything else you wanted to know?” The fact that this (or something like it) wasn’t the answer speaks volumes.

Friendly Reminder about Israel and Blessings and Curses: Some Christians claim that the Bible says that those who bless Israel, God will bless, and those who curse Israel, God will curse. This is a belief that is most commonly associated with dispensationalism. The understandable follow-up question by many who don't accept that is "Where does the Bible say that?" They (including prominent pastors) answer the question by claiming that this was said by God in Genesis 12:3, which is where God says the following to Abram, later renamed Abraham: Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This promise is later established in a covenant reflected in Genesis 17, where Abraham is told: "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." "But that's Abraham, not Israel!" Correct. But it's not that simple. Most people don't remember that this was said about the nation of Israel when Balaam, the son of Beor, was speaking after conducting a spiritual ceremony of sorts and saw visions of the LORD God Almighty, and said the following while in a trance and when the spirit of either the gods or God (it is ambiguous in the original) was upon him: "...God brings him out of Egypt and is for him like the horns of the wild ox; he shall eat up the nations, his adversaries, and shall break their bones in pieces and pierce them through with his arrows. He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like a lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed are those who bless you [plural], and cursed are those who curse you [plural].” (Numbers 24:8-9, ESV) In that passage, Balaam is talking about the PLURAL nation of Israel that he is looking at, not Abraham specifically. To him, the sons of Abraham were a part of that previous blessing of the LORD God. I don't know which side of the debate it helps to recognize that the claim of "Those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed" came from the mouth of a wizard of sorts engaged in divination who saw visions of the LORD God, but that's pretty much what the Bible says. Also, after this event, in which Balaam blesses Israel instead of cursing them as he was hired to do, Balaam was killed by Israel in Numbers 31, after being involved in the incident a Peor in Numbers 25, making this situation even more complicated. All that to say, most people don't realize that the identity of the "offspring" in the covenant of God who is the source of blessing and curses is a deliberately ambiguous phrase that Paul takes up in Galatians 3. I will also point out that Jesus addresses what it means to be the offspring of Abraham in Matthew 3:9-10, where Jesus said: "And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." He also addresses it in John 8, where he differentiates some of his hearers from the children of Abraham, even though they are biological descendants of Abraham. Paul also addresses it in Romans 11. So.... ....yeah. That only scratches the surface, but the point is: it's complicated. We don't explore this enough. It's not as simple as "Israel Good" or "Israel Bad" or "the Church is Israel" or "Jesus is Israel." The decree about blessings and curses for Abraham and his descendants is deliberately ambiguous. Remember too, that the church IS the body of Christ, making things even more complicated. So, if you think it's simple and that you have it figured out, you don't have it figured out. But while the situation is unclear, our instructions are not: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Also: We know what the New Covenant is, per Jesus himself, as described in Luke 22:20, and quoted in 1 Corinthians 11:25: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” But as it relates to the “Old Covenant,” what is that? We need to know the answer to that question if we’re going to understand what 2 Corinthians 3:14 and Hebrews 8:6 mean when they refer to an “old” covenant, which is described as “obsolete,” per Hebrews 8:13. You can’t answer it by simply saying “the old one.” After all, there are multiple covenants in the Old Testament. Some of which are described as “everlasting” by God. So which Old Testament Covenant is obsolete: Was it the covenant with Noah? (Genesis 6:18) Was it the covenant with the whole Earth, including Noah? (Genesis 9) Was it the First Covenant with Abraham? (Genesis 15:18) Was it the Second Covenant with Abraham? (Genesis 17, confirmed in Genesis 22) Was it the Covenant with Israel? (Exodus 19, confirmed in Exodus 24, renewed in Exodus 34)? Was it the Covenant with David? (2 Samuel 7) Was it some other covenant I haven’t mentioned here? Having a basic understanding of what covenants are (and how they are extinguished) and Biblical History will give you the tools to understand the right answer. Covenants are creatures of property rights, where the actual structure of the thing you own is changed. Parcel A borders Parcel B, which borders a river. When the owner of Parcel A receives an easement (a covenant) from the owner of Parcel B, he actually has a PROPERTY right - in the land itself - to get to the river, not some ongoing contract between persons. The obly way to extinguish that easement it to own BOTH parcel A and Parcel B and merge the rights, so that you can extinguish the right in a new distribution of the property. The obsolete covenant is the one with Israel specifically, where God established certain rules and obligations which allowed Israel to directly communicate and interact with the creator, who is LORD God. Why is that covenant obsolete? Because Christ inherited all the nations. And now he is the ruler of all peoples. The covenant described in Exodus (and constantly referenced throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) is obsolete, BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST NOW OWNS ALL THE PARCELS. HE INHERITED ALL THE NATIONS. That’s the whole point.

Oh boy…. Here we go. Arguing that the New Covenant has no relationship to the Old Covenant is like arguing that the covenant with David (in 2 Samuel 7:1-17) has no relationship to the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 22:15-19). That’s just silly. The covenants of God (properly understood) are barely distinguished. They are basically the same with only minor variations. It’s all the same thread. The Old Covenant was with the physical offspring of Abraham, through the sign of circumcision, which was for the physical descendants of Abraham. The New Covenant IS A PART OF THE SAME COVENANT, but it is NOT ONLY for the physical descendants of Abraham. It is for “sons of Abraham” of a different type, referenced by Jesus in John 8 and Luke 3:8. The sign of this new covenant that expands beyond the physical descendants of Abraham is baptism. This new covenant is the continuation of yet ANOTHER covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:15 that “the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” Instead, in an unexpected twist, Jesus is REVIVING flesh with the waters of Baptism, which Peter directly connects to Noah in 1 Peter 3:18-22. It is patently obvious from simple observation Christian baptism is not equivalent of being one of the elect, just as being on Noah’s Ark did not make you one of the righteous elect (see Ham), and just a circumcision did not make you one of the elect (see tons of OT examples). Christian Baptism is not equivalent with being one of the elect even if you wait until the person is an adult who can make an educated profession of faith. All of us who have continued in their faith over decades in the Evangelical American sphere have seen people get baptized with believer’s baptism only to fail to persist in their faith. So, if you think pouring water on a baby is non-Biblical, then WHAT DO YOU THINK DUNKING AN ADULT BELIEVER IS? When Baptists try to answer this, either the logic of the position falls apart, or they describe John’s Baptism, which is non-Biblical, per Acts 18:24-28.

“And as for the angels, whom those Platonists prefer to call gods, although they do, so far as they are permitted and commissioned, aid in the production of the things around us, yet not on that account are we to call them creators, any more than we call gardeners the creators of fruits and trees.” -St. Augustine, City of God, Book 12, Chapter 24.

Friendly reminder: When Jesus says in John 18:36 (ESV): “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” The “of” is the Greek preposition ἐκ or ἐξ. It means either 1.) from (the point whence action or motion proceeds), or 2.) out (of place, time, or cause). It is a preposition denoting origin: the point whence action or motion proceeds. The way most people interpret this verse is that Jesus’s kingdom is not IN the world or is not ASSOCIATED WITH this world. But that’s not what he says at all. That is utterly contradictory to the entire gospel message. It would also be a direct contradiction of Matthew 4:17 (ESV): “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand [or, “has come near.”]” That is a statement of motion. It is a declaration that something FROM the heavenly places has now ἤγγικεν (eggizó), or “come near” or “be at hand” which means “it’s here.” It’s about a movement of the line of demarcation. When Jesus returns, he is establishing (through supernatural and unopposed force) the rightful order over the territory he has long stated is his. Therefore, “repent,” rather than “presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.” (Per Romans 2:4, ESV).

There are lots of weirdos in the CN space, but Christians cannot argue with the basic premise that nations (including but not limited to their governments) should be Christian. It’s right there in Matthew 28:18-20 and Psalm 2:7-12.

The question of whether a court can order the president to give access to the White House to a group of people is a separation of powers issue. This is a core issue. The president is the occupant of his house, the White House. He enjoys the privileges associated with it for the duration of his term. That includes the right of exclusion in his SOLE discretion. Though the courts may theoretically be able to order that some “pass” be granted to a person (on due process grounds or something), they have no power to require the President to honor the pass. He can lawfully refuse to do so as a co-equal branch of government. So once again, the president’s authority to exclude news organizations from the White House is the same authority you have to exclude people from your own property. It is rooted in property law, before even the common law, and is not dependent on not federal administrative statutes. It is antecedent to the constitution, not dependent to or subject to the constitution. It is his rightly held power that is not even exclusive to the president. This power can be exercised as the president wishes, including to exclude particular viewpoints, just as you can choose to exclude whoever you wish from your own home (regardless of whether you hold legal title to it). That being said, it seems the President’s legal team is taking the wrong approach, trying to fashion this as a “national security” or “fairness” issue. Nope. It’s a “my house, my rules” issue. Say so.

This is your friendly reminder that Noah’s Ark isn’t a boat. It’s a coffin. The Hebrew word “Ark” (TEBAH) means coffin or sarcophagus.

…in which @AndrewTWalker says “definitions matter” in relation to CN, but then writes an article that offers no definition of CN, but then seems to criticize @PerfInjust with an extremely vague dialect of Christian-sounding bumper-sticker phrases like: “an over-realized eschatology,” “political idealism at the expense of political realism,” “downplays the doctrine of sin,” “dilutes the doctrine of regeneration,” “the parade of horrible that accompanied Christian establishment through history,” “thinning out doctrinal robustness for nominalistic portage,” It is theoretically possible for Walker’s critiques to be true, but since he offers no definitions or quotes, how can we consider his claims? Here’s a theological argument for CN that doesn’t depend on eschatology: Jesus commanded us in Matthew 28 to “disciple the nations.” That is all-inclusive of every part of a nation, including its government. After all, Paul declares in Romans 13 that the civil authorities are ministers of God’s justice. And Jesus also declared in Matthew 28:18 that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Therefore, the nations should be Christian. There is no middle ground. For one illustrative example on how it is IMPOSSIBLE for a nation to be non-religious, note this: In the case of Bickford v. Bradeen in Main, two unmarried parents are disputing the religious upbringing of their child came the state decided that because the church of the Mother - a premillennial Calvary Chapel church in Portland - teaches about the rapture, the second coming, the tribulation, heaven, hell, and other “troubling” things, the father alone gets the authority to decide if the child can go to that church because of the “psychological harm” the church poses to the child, due to their teachings, which it determined was not in “the child’s best interests.” So, no, because of the problems governments must solve and because of the things that must exist, it is impossible NOT to enter into the realm of religion. Because the state sometimes MUST enter the realm of religion? It MUST be Christian, pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or something else. There is no neutrality. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

There are actually three claims. The first is a due process claim. The second is a general first amendment claim. The third is a first-amendment viewpoint-discrimination claim. All of the claims are dumb and should fail. Regarding the first claim, the Plaintiffs say: "Members of the press have liberty and property interests in hard-pass press credentials and the access those credentials afford." Regarding the second, the claim that their removal is "retaliation" where government officials used "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression." Regarding the third claim, the Plaintiffs say: "The First Amendment’s prohibition of viewpoint discrimination “limits the restrictions that the government may impose on speech, including speech on government property.” Let's take a moment to explain how crazy these claims are, regardless of what the case law says. First, "the press" in the Constitution is not a group of people. It is a machine. It is a printing press. The "freedom of the press" is about the freedom to DISTRIBUTE information. Trump has not prevented these organizations from distributing anything. The lawsuit assumes that "the press" is some protected class, which it is not. Instead, "the press" is a protected activity, and the persons who engage in that activity for a living get no special privileges. Literally all citizens of the United States have the freedom of "the press." Second, there is a single case that stands for the proposition that there is a property or liberty right to a "hard press pass." That is Karem v. Trump, 477 F.3 656 (2020). The DC Circuit cited the rule that "A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.” Applying that standard, the Court held that "on this record, nothing put him on notice of 'the magnitude of the sanction'—a month-long loss of his White House access, an eon in today's news business—that the White House 'might impose' for his purportedly unprofessional conduct at the non-press-conference event." The problem with this analysis is that who is or is not let onto your property and into your home IS NOT IN THE CATEGORY OF "LAW." It is in the category of your absolute property-rights over your own house. The President of the United States is the occupant of the White House, and he has the property right of possession. He is empowered - just like anyone living in an apartment building - to throw anybody out of his house that he pleases. This not the power "of the state." This is the power of a person over his own home. He has the absolute right to let in whoever he wants to let in and kick out whoever he wants to kick out. (And no, it does not matter that he doesn't personally hold title to the building.) Though the Karem case might leave room for nuance (because it was staffers and not the president himself who threw him out), there is no nuance in this present case. The President himself PERSONALLY threw out these news organizations because he hates them (quite possibly for very good reasons). He - just like any American citizen - has the absolute right to do so. Without getting into the politics of this particular situation (the White House itself is framing it as Left vs. Right, saying that the Dems did this type of thing already), we need to see how ridiculous this claim is. It should be laughed out of Court. "The press," as it has come to be known, is a slimy special interest group that needs to be put in its place. I hope they lose big and we get some clarifying law out of this case.