jv_coach

1 Corinthians 15: 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,… [Hidden Content]

I thought Obama was the first lady?

Why does the TVA need SWAT? 

[Hidden Content] Crazy how much this guy knew about the person from a bootprint

[Hidden Content] The "war on women" political slogan is in fact a war against common sense...For example, some women are mothers and some men are fathers. But does the fact that they are both parents make them comparable in the labor market? Actually the biggest disparity in incomes is between fathers and mothers. Nor is there anything mysterious about this, when you stop and think about it. 

So what is the trade off that goes with this? Are we really averting war or postponing the inevitable, and if we are postponing the inevitable instead of 10 million lives lost the world suffers 1 billion would that be better? I mean if WWII which was 70 years ago cost the lives of  50-70 million; saying WWIII will only cost 10 million is not understanding the seriousness of playing the appeasement card to countries who want to start a war. Ever heard of  Neville Chamberlain?

Putin invaded Crimnea (sp?) so Obama responded by invading Nevada.

 Weltanschauung

So much of what is presented as modern biblical and theological scholarship is an effort to destroy the very idea of orthodox Christianity and to erase all distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy. That is why so much attention is devoted to marginal issues of scholarship like this tiny fragment of papyrus. The Gospel of Jesuss Wife tells us nothing about Jesus and very little, if anything, about early Christianity. It tells us a great deal about modern scholarship, however and that is the real message of this controversy. [Hidden Content] The most declarative article in the Harvard Theological Review, however, dismisses the entire fragment as a modern forgery. Professor Leo Depuydt of Brown University argues that the fragments authenticity is out of the question. He points to several factors, including the fact that a set of typographical errors in the fragment matches a set of errors in an online edition of the Gospel of Thomas, an ancient Gnostic text. Depuydt put the chances of coincidence with respect to these errors as one in a trillion. Depuydt states that he has not the slightest doubt that the document is a forgery, and not a very good one at that. 

You must be the "teacher"

A person does not know whether they are a man or a women and you can not see why that person would make a poor teacher.   

What happened to me in my past was real and powerful, but it is not who I am. I’m a Christian—a Christ follower. My past serves redemptive purposes today. Here are a few. 1. My past was a path to Jesus. 2. My past is a blessing from the LORD. 3. My past helps me to relate to strugglers. 4. My past motivates me to keep changing. 5. My past encourages me to tell others how they can change. 6. My past allows me to warn those who won’t change. 7. My past makes me appreciate the grace of God. 8. My past gives me a greater hatred for sin. 9. My past stirs me to long for heaven. 10. My past fills my soul with the transformative hope found in the Gospel. [Hidden Content]  

Thank you

[Hidden Content]     Things others have said.. "There is money to be made in peddling fiction about the after-life..." With the upcoming movie adaption of #heavenisforreal , I feel the need to add a proper biblical perspective on these stories.  This is a good starter. The biggest problem in our churches today is the lack of discernment...

Probably not, be cool if he did, but this does show the truth that is in 2 Peter 2:9  The Lord is not slow concerning His promises as some think of slowness but is patient toward men wanting none to perish but all come to repentance. So yes God loves the worst of sinners (even those who make it their whole life's  work to deny Him and try to lead others away from salvation in Christ alone) but if one rejects the love ( the free gift of salvation through Christ alone) then the promise of eternal damnation, the wrath of God,  and eternity separated from God in the Lake of Fire is  promised to you. For God is Holy and Just while we are not.

I am more concerned with the "you can't fire on the enemy until one ask permission first"

It is a good article but sadly Hitchens died.  

As long as we all understand he true motives behind this is press time and not justice.

From the article "Scientists haven’t actually observed zebras in the wild to see if biting flies avoid alighting on them, in part because it’s difficult to get that close to the animals. It’s also not known why biting flies steer clear of stripes."

Rinse Not the Prose: Christopher Hitchens on the King James Version     (this was posted April 7, 2011 by Albert Mohler.) [Hidden Content] Why would an ardent atheist care about translations of the Bible, and why would Christians be concerned with what an atheist would think? These are rather obvious questions, especially when the atheist is Christopher Hitchens, one of the most influential of the New Atheists. Nevertheless, Hitchens devoted his column in the May 2011 edition ofVanity Fair to the King James Version of the Bible, which celebrates its 400th anniversary this year. As always, Hitchens is interesting and provocative. He places the history of the Authorized Version (the name by which the British normally refer to the King James Version) in its political context in the early years of the Stuart dynasty and rightly explains that the interest of King James I in the project was to “bind the majesty of the King to his devout people.” He then offers anecdotal observations of the KJV text, correctly attributing its tone and tenor to the earlier work of William Tyndale, as well as to the unusually gifted committee of translation. Hitchens is a man of letters, and as such, he takes matters of language with urgent seriousness. He points to the King James Version as a crucial repository of our common civilizational knowledge. As he sees it, “A culture that does not possess this common store of image and allegory will be a perilously thin one.” It is very hard to argue with that warning. Hitchens is also an avowed enemy of banality, which means that he has little literary respect for modern translations that lack literary and linguistic taste and thus pander to mere popular taste. The King James Version translates 1 Corinthians 13:7 to read: “[Love] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” But the Good News Bible translates it as: “Love never gives up; and its faith, hope, and patience never fail.” As Hitchens states: This doesn’t read at all like the outcome of a struggle to discern the essential meaning of what is perhaps our most numinous word. It more resembles a smiley-face Dale Carnegie reassurance. And, as with everything else that’s designed to be instant, modern, and “accessible,” it goes out of date (and out of time) faster than Wisconsin cheddar. He also has little use for attempts to render the text as gender-neutral. He asserts that “to suggest that Saint Paul, of all people, was gender-neutral is to re-write the history as well as to rinse out the prose.” Along the way, Hitchens takes legitimate shots at modern marketing efforts to commercialize the Bible and sell some translation or edition to virtually every niche market. Of course, as an atheist, he expresses less sympathy with the Reformation conviction that the Bible should be available to everyone in the vernacular of the language. He does offer some interesting insights into the King James Version and the larger issue of Bible translation. His admonition that translations should not “rinse out the prose” is well stated and profoundly appropriate. Even an atheist can offer good advice on literary matters, and Hitchens is a writer of great ability. Since the article’s publication, several observers have noted Hitchens’ comments on faulty modern translations and gender-neutral approaches. His points are well worth noting. But the more interesting aspect of this article to note is this: Christopher Hitchens, one of the world’s most ardent and outspoken atheists and a man in the fight for his life against cancer, is reading the Bible. This is at least the second article on the Bible that he has written of late. I note this with a sense of hope. I know you will join me in praying that, in reading the Bible, Mr. Hitchens will find more than he might be looking for. Rinse not the prose of its message.     I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at [email protected]. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler. Christopher Hitchens, “When the King Saved God,” Vanity Fair, May 2011.  

[Hidden Content]    

And the Big Bang is just a theory not a scientific fact

Food for thought. The Yalta conference  (1945) that was held between the Big Three (Churchill, FDR, and Stalin) which set the stage for the Cold War was held in Crimea. 

The Bible verses Scott Walker should tweet next A couple Sundays ago, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker enlivened things a bit simply by tweeting the following: “Philippians 4:13.” He didn’t even add the text, just the reference alone. The move infuriated media-hungry atheists. But this only presents an opportunity. I have the perfect remedy for Mr. Walker to march forward. The text, of course, is the well-known (and usually misapplied) verse, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” A bit more on the meaning in a moment. The liveliness began when some leftist tweeted in response, “Separation of Church and State applies to YOU.” But the real fun began when that bunch of ne’er-do-wells known as the “Free From Religion Foundation” (FFRF) decided once again to climb to publicity on the back of a candid Christian public official. The verse, often understood as a kind of mantra of self-assurance for personal achievement, was twisted even worse by the FFRF. In a clear bout of spite, they condemned the verse as “more like a threat, or the utterance of a theocratic dictator, than of a duly elected civil servant.” In their own brand of self-righteous indignation, FFRF purported to tell us the true meaning of the law: it is “improper for a state employee, much less for the chief executive officer of the state, to use the machinery of the state of Wisconsin to promote personal religious views.” They demanded Walker delete the Bible tweet. Walker, however, has responded with a big fat No, citing the fact that his Twitter account partially serves the function of giving the people “a sense of who he is.” His spokesperson said, “The verse was part of a devotional he read that morning, which inspired him, and he chose to share it.” He should have also reminded the group that the Wisconsin Constitution is as clear as that of the U.S. in regard to free speech: “no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.” What part of “no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge” do these meddling atheists not understand? Outclassed this time, the FFRF backed off, admitting, “we can’t do anything more than complain.” But they refused to go away quietly. Well-known village atheist Dan Barker, the group’s co-president, waved his finger incessantly, self-assured of legal high-ground: Barker said that the Freedom From Religion Foundation might take definitive action if Walker decided to post Bible messages on a more regular basis, but that in this case they will likely “look the other way.” “We’re not going to take any legal action on one abuse,” he said. “And it is an abuse — and he should know it’s one.” I paraphrase: “You better not do it again!” Whereas Jesus said “turn the other cheek,” the atheist says, “turn the other cheek while making legal threats.” My suggesting is not only for Walker to stand firm as he has, but to Walk on straight ahead with the sharing of his private devotions. May I suggest he go next to Psalm 14:1? The fool says in his heart, â€œThere is no God.” And may I even suggest tweeting the next few verses as well: They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one (Psa. 14:1–3). And he may even continue his devotion by noting how Paul quotes from these verses in Romans 3:11–12. And he may choose to share what the Apostle concludes from this: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:23–24). The fool has said in his heart there is no God, but he is not content there. He wants to drown out wisdom with his own continuous nonsense. “Every fool will be meddling” (Prov. 20:3), says the Proverb, and, “The mouth of fools pours out foolishness” (Prov. 15:2). The Preacher tells us that the more he goes on, the fool runs from bad to worse: “the lips of a fool consume him. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness, and the end of his talk is evil madness” (Eccl. 10:12–13). The Proverbist tells us exactly how to answer this fool: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself (Prov. 26:4). That’s right, don’t answer the fool according to his folly. Don’t let his presuppositions of godlessness and human autonomy set the agenda for your response. You don’t want to be like him. Stand firm on the Word of God and His sovereignty in the affairs of men, including their intellectual and legal affairs. But since we’re not sucked in by their foolishness, neither are we fearful or intimidated. Take the fight to them: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:5). That’s not a contradiction (sorry, Dan Barker!), but a shift in the sense of meaning. Do answer the fool according to his folly: that is, show him the futility of his assumption of godlessness. Show him that his flood of words is nothing but arbitrary and incoherent foolishness. Show him how his position as the would-be legislator for society has no foundation on which to stand if there is no ultimate Foundation for law to begin with. If there is no ultimate Lawgiver and Judge, then every man’s interpretation of law is equal to everyone else’s, or no one’s. Law means nothing, oaths mean nothing, courts mean nothing, and Constitutions mean nothing. Barker can cite “abuse” all he wants, but absent a Sovereign Judge of Cosmic Justice, there is no such thing as “abuse.” Rogue Bible-tweeters take their dirty little “abuses” safely to their graves, along with every secret murderer and child-rapist that never got caught. Thank you, Mr. Atheist. In this real world of law and accountability, some atheists can find little better in which to meddle than a governor tweeting Bible verses. I suppose Scott Walker has had tougher battles to endure, but it is worth remembering the true context of the verse he referenced: I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me (Phil. 4:11–13). This has nothing to do with personal achievement, reaching new heights or prosperity, as it is often misapplied. Rather, the context makes clear that Paul is mainly talking about enduring hardship when necessary. Whether in abundance or hunger, prosperity or persecution, blessing or beating, no matter what may come, I have “learned the secret” through personal experience: I can do all thing through Christ who strengthens me. That is, it is by Christ that I endure to the end, even through the worst of what trials may come. In the real world of political warfare and social ill, this means trials far above and beyond the petty foolishness of the atheistic mites of our day. - See more at: [Hidden Content]

The Nazis did the same thing by the same reasoning no less. The Nazi said its not wrong because the Jews are not human and medical waste gets burned because the cost is to high for the state to bury them all.