Saturday, January 31, 2009

Stupidity Test

So Barack Obama wants Judd Gregg [(R) New Hampshire] to be Commerce Secretary. Because that would require Gregg to leave the Senate and give New Hampshire's Democratic governor an appointment to the Senate, that means Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That means they could ram through anything they wanted.

Note: On reflection, I deleted my last line about ego, and all the more so because I used the word "traitorous." That's over the top. I can't look into Judd Gregg's heart and know what would motivate him to accept Obama's offer. I'll just say that I think it would be a very bad move on his part, especially for what it could do to give one party the ability to ramrod anything they want.

A Reflection on the Apostle John

Of all the apostles, I find John the most appealing in an emotional sense. This is perhaps due to knowing his closeness to the Lord during Jesus' earthly ministry.

Bible commentator Henry Sheldon's history of the early church contains the following passage about John. Consider this my post for today.

His [John's] attention was turned toward the central and fundamental, toward that which lies deepest in the nature of God, or nearest to the core of human duty and human weal. It was not his ambition to cover as wide an extent of horizon as possible, or to elucidate the greatest number of aspects in sacred themes. His intense soul, enamored of the things of supreme moment, gave concentration to his discourse. We recognize in his writings one who wished to keep near to the heart of Christian truth.

Among the evangelists, John appears in particular as the expositor of the person of Christ. His contemplation did not stop with outward and official aspects. Looking beyond the earthly appearance, he saw in the Son of man the Son of God, who dwelt with the Father before the world was, in true identity of essence and of glory. "At the very beginning of his discourse," says Augustine, "he soared not only above the earth, and above the whole compass of air and sky, but even above the whole army of angels and the whole order of invisible powers, and reached to Him by whom all things were made. He has spoken concerning the divinity of the Lord as none other has spoken. What he drank in, he gave forth. For it is not without reason that it is recorded of him in this very Gospel, that at supper he reclined on the Lord's bosom."

But he did not neglect the human aspect of his Lord. On the contrary, he enunciated his humanity in vigorous, dogmatic affirmation.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Cassandra Speaks Again (NWO)

Addendum: In the columm I am posting below, Chuck Baldwin is critical of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others for their apparent disdain of New World Order watchers. I want you to look beyond that and focus on the substance of what Chuck writes, especially the quotes and sources. I have heard Rush on this subject before, and I do find it disturbing that he and other conservative commentators dismiss this subject so easily. While there is a "kook fringe" out there that sees a conspiracy under every rock, this subject isn't kooky. It's real, and those pushing globalism are quite open about it, which makes the skepticism all the more mystifying.

Rush, Sean and the others are spot on in so many other areas, so I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt along with prayer that they'll be able to see things as they really are.

Anyway, here's Chuck -- posted with permission, and worth pondering.

A Very Real New World Order

By Chuck Baldwin

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as
an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an "international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. Then in 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their
well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking
that it might." Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, what will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Obama's Saul Alinsky is Showing

This little news story tells the story. Ultra-leftists know how to agitate better than anyone, only they call it community organizing.

Why mention Saul Alinsky? Obama studied him. Here's a bit out of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":

There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.

Think the GOP will fight back? (snort)

Beautiful But Deadly

Southern ice storms are notorious for the damage they cause. Arkansas, Kentucky and several other states got creamed this week. The image above is from Harrison, Arkansas. They are likely to be without power for weeks. On the eastern side of the state, elderly people have been burning the gas burners on their ranges to try and stay warm.

Pray for a speedy restoration of electricity, while also praying for those affected. People can joke about closing schools for ice at Cabinet meetings all they want, but it's no laughing matter. Look at the body count.

Addendum: While we're on the subject of weather, take a look at this column from Weather Channel founder John Coleman. A very devastating commentary on the global warming hoax.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Stimulus Schmimulous

As I sit here at home a bit under the weather, I realized that I haven't said anything yet about the "stimulus" package being rammed through Congress. My own Congressman, Don Manzullo, isn't too pleased about it, and I share his disdain. My disdain grew when I realized groups like ACORN were slated to get a piece. Here's what Don had to say today . . .

“Americans have had enough of our government’s wasteful spending practices starting with the ineffective $850 billion Wall Street bailout and continuing with this $1.1 trillion non-stimulus spending spree,” Manzullo said. “Let’s empower Americans to lead the economic recovery by putting more of their money back in their pockets so they can re-invest it in our communities.”

Despite being promoted as a job-creating infrastructure bill, the bill brought by House Democrat leaders sets aside $30 billion – just 4 percent – for road funding. The State of Illinois is expected to get just $1 billion of that money, which is less than half the normal federal road money allocation to the states. In fact, the State of Illinois is still sitting on $6.2 billion in federal gas tax monies Congress gave to the state in 2005 because the state has not been able to agree on a capital plan. And because there is no opportunity to designate the road funding for specific projects, all the money will go to the state, which historically has ignored northern Illinois’ road needs outside of Chicago.

Instead, the Democrat leadership bill is chocked full of hundreds of billions of dollars of spending increases on programs that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy or creating jobs. Spending increases for these programs should be debated during the normal appropriations process, not as part of an emergency spending bill. Some of the questionable spending in the stimulus bill that doesn’t create jobs includes:

* $335 million to fight Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
* $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
* $400 million to study climate change.
* $650 million dollars for additional coupons for digital TV converter boxes, all made overseas.
* $1 billion for a post-analysis of the 2010 census.

Manzullo will support an alternative bill that cuts taxes for all working Americans and would create 6.2 million jobs, twice the President’s goal. With this rate reduction, a working couple could save up to $3,400 a year in taxes they could re-invest into the economy and create jobs. Manzullo also supports significant tax incentives to encourage America’s job-creating small businesses to put Americans back to work; a $7,500 tax credit to encourage Americans to buy a home; and a $5,000 tax credit to encourage Americans to buy a new vehicle.

“The best way to stimulate our economy and put Americans back to work is to let Americans keep more of their hard-earned money so they can re-invest it back into the economy,” Manzullo said. “Unfortunately, the bill presented to us by House Democrats today spends an enormous amount of money with little job creation, shouldering our children and grandchildren with massive debt in the future.”

The simple fact is that both sides of the aisle have had their share of pork barrel legislation over the years. But this is ridiculous. It's sickening. To cram this kind of nonsense into a bill that is supposed to help rescue the economy is unconscionable. But the Democrats see this as their chance to move on a whole host of things they've wanted to impose on the American people, including becoming a carbon copy of socialist Europe if not worse. We asked for it, and we're going to get it. It seems unstoppable.

The Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House. In the Senate, there are just enough liberal Republicans to vote with the Democrats to defeat any effort to stop it there. The only thing that will stop it is if enough Americans get mad and act. I have my doubts about that happening, because way too many people have been conditioned to feed at the fat teats of the pig.

I hope I get proven wrong.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

School Days Then and Now

I received the following email from a friend. I thought it was a scream, and quite accurate. I share it today for your amusement or mourning, depending on your perspective. How stupid our society has become!

Scenario :
Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1959 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2009 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again.
Counselors called in fo r traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario :
Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1959 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2009 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled
even though Johnny started it.

Scenario :
Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1959 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not
disrupt class again.
2009 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state
because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario :
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1959 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to col lege, and becomes a successful businessman.
2009 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist
tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair
with psychologist.

Scenario :
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1959 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2009 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario :
Pedro fails high school English.
1959 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2009 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English
as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's
English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for
a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario :
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1959 - Ants die.
2009 - BATF, Homeland Security, and FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents,
siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario :
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1959 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2009 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny
undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Pelosi and Scrooge: Soulmates?

The morning talk shows are abuzz with the following statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has already been in trouble with the Catholic Church over her radical pro-abortion stance. In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos (himself a former Clinton staffer), Madame Speaker made this statement to justify contraception in the supposed stimulus package . . .

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

So in other words, if children aren't born, that will bail out society? Coupled with Pelosi's backing of abortion, she sounds a bit like Ebenezer Scrooge, only more polished. . .

SCROOGE: “I say let them die, and decrease the surplus population! Good afternoon!”

Think about it.

Late addendum. While watching the news tonight, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was mentioned by initials. As Roe vs Wade was remembered this month, isn't it a bit ironic that D.N.C. sounds very similar to an abortion procedure?

Sunday, January 25, 2009

A Sunday Reflection . . .

Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good (Ecclesiastes 9:18).

I've been teaching through Romans in my Sunday school class. Today we were in chapter 5 and beginning to deal with the results of the fall. In the course of studying, I came across the above verse from King Solomon. Worth pondering, isn't it? Here's another one that might be considered controversial in our tolerant, politically correct day and age . . .

But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear (Isaiah 59:2).

I'll close with this little thought. Of course, God can - at His discretion - answer any prayer He wishes, however He wishes. But isn't it a bit presumptuous if people offer prayers to God all the while refusing to hear the Gospel, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins?

Then again, presumptuousness seems to be a hallmark of our generation.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Lawyering Up With Blagojevich

You wouldn't think a state impeachment proceeding against a governor would end up being -- in the words of the late President Gerald Ford -- a "long national nightmare," but it's becoming just that in Illinois, where I live.

The latest in the Rod Blagojevich scandal is that he's railing against the "unfairness" of the impeachment process and is threatening to file a lawsuit to stop it. The problem is that impeachment in the Illinois House and trial in the Illinois Senate is not a legal proceeding in the context of the court. It is a political proceeding. Furthermore, the courts have no jurisdiction over this process at all. It is completely a legislative prerogative.

From my vantage point, it almost seems like the Democrats are doing their best to provoke constitutional crises because they really don't like the constraints imposed by constitutions (unless they have a hand in writing them). This is just one more reason why anyone pushing a federal Constitutional Convention needs to be run out of town on a rail.

Our Constitution works just fine. Leave it alone.

Note: In fairness to Rod Blagojevich, I was appalled at yesterday's performance by Shepard Smith on Fox News' "Studio B." During the governor's news conference, Smith was interjecting all sorts of heckling and editorial comments. For someone who is supposed to be an objective news reporter, that's unforgivable. I am no fan of Rod Blagojevich. But save your opinions for editorials and don't do it during a newscast.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Discovering the Constitution

I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear . . .

I don't have time today for a long post, just an observation.

I am sure most of you caught the news that President Obama, on the advice of counsel, decided to re-take the oath of office after it was flubbed at his inauguration. The reason is to be on the safe side since the oath is prescribed word-for-word in the Constitution.

Isn't it interesting that we're actually concerned about following the Constitution all of a sudden?

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Kudos to Will Smith - He Gets It

In light of Rev. Joseph Lowrey's rather insulting conclusion to his inaugural prayer yesterday, I was heartened to read the following brief essay by actor Will Smith, submitted to USA Today. Unlike some of yesterday's civil rights leaders who seem intent on stoking ill will, Mr. Smith actually strikes the tone Rev. Lowrey should have struck. His comments are spot on. Let's hope and pray that he doesn't get his hide ripped off for being positive and conciliatory.

I am going to post them here in their entirety:

For me, it was something that I've always believed. I've read the Declaration of Independence. I've read the Constitution. I have the preamble memorized. It's something I've always believed in, and when Barack Obama won, it validated a piece of me that I wasn't allowed to say out loud - that America is not a racist nation.

I love that all of our excuses have been removed. African-American excuses have been removed. There's no white man trying to keep you down, because if he were really trying to keep you down, he would have done everything he could to keep Obama down. Yes, there are racist people who live here, absolutely. But they're not the majority anymore.

I'm an African American, and I was able to climb to a certain point in Hollywood. On that journey, I realized people weren't trying to stop me. Most people were trying to help me. Before Obama won the presidency, it was like, I'm the exception. Tiger is the exception. Michael Jordan is the exception. Bill Cosby is the exception. But there's something about being the leader of the free world, with every other position on earth below that. You can't argue with that. If Barack Obama can win the presidency of the United States, you can absolutely be the manager at Saks.

Come on. It was such a fantastic experience for me to be able to say out loud that I love America and not be called an Uncle Tom. That I can stand out, and I can say out loud that I love this country and not get funny looks.

I don't think we are African Americans, Irish Americans or Japanese Americans anymore. I think Americans are a new race of people. We are Americans of African descent. We are Americans of Irish descent.

It's a whole new world.

Again, I think Will Smith captured exactly what I was trying to say yesterday in my remarks about Rev. Lowrey, which some misconstrued to mean that I didn't think racism existed — as usual, a caricature of my meaning.

And to repeat my attitude toward Barack Obama himself. What opposition I might have to his policies has nothing to do with race. It's philosophy and theology. Is that clear enough?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Um . . . Rev. Lowery, it's 2009!

Civil rights leader Rev. Joseph Lowery made an -- ahem -- interesting concluding request to God in his inaugural prayer today. I'll quote it here in case you didn't catch it . . . Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy, say Amen.

Isn't that something? It was a good comedy line, but rather than a prayer, it was probably more intended for the cameras. Either that, or the good reverend is stuck in time limbo -- somewhere between 1865 and 1964. He just insulted a good chunk of white America who helped Barack Obama get elected to the presidency.

Race baiting. That's what it is, pure and simple. And coming a day after the day when we remember Martin Luther King, who dreamed that skin color would no longer enter the picture but rather consideration of a person's character, it's very offensive.

I can't wait until Reverends Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright tune up. Should be quite a concert.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Obama and Honest Abe?

On the night before Barack Obama is sworn in as America's 44th president, much has been said about his admiration for Abraham Lincoln. Let me think about that one for a moment.

It goes without saying that there could be many factors for Mr. Obama's liking of Lincoln — oddly enough the first Republican president. The obvious ones probably involve the end of slavery and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation — the purpose of which remains a matter of some controversy and debate even today. But here are a couple of other possibilities that aren't being talked about too much.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln greatly expanded federal power to a level never seen in the American republic to that point, all for the cause of "saving the Union." He suspended the right of habeas corpus, and appropriated money without the consent of Congress — something that was clearly unconstitutional. Is it possible that these qualities of Lincoln's are the real ones admired by Barack Obama, who himself has been openly critical of our Constitution as it stands?

Time will tell, won't it?

Sunday, January 18, 2009

"Jesus Sinned?" Excuse Me!?!

I guess I should stop being surprised at Barna surveys. Keeping in mind that polls and surveys only sample a set amount of people, and then project the results outward, this latest Barna survey is troubling, if not an outrage. The results show that one in three "Christians" think Jesus sinned.

I would like to know in greater detail who these people identifying themselves as Christians are. If the bulk of them are part of apostate churches, then it's not so much of a surprise. But if these people really are "evangelical" or "fundamental," Houston, we have a problem, and a big one.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Classic Film - Perception Versus Reality

This morning's post will be a bit different and reflective. I hope I can get across what I want to say adequately enough, though as usual with my deeper reflections, I am trying to give substance to a shade.

Most people who know me personally, or who have followed this blog for a while, know that I love old classic films from 1930 to 1955. The black and white ones, and especially film noir. I love the shadows and the fog, the old Packards, the trench coats and fedora hats. When watching them, I almost always feel like I was born in the wrong time. Instead of sitting before a computer, I should be sitting behind an old manual typewriter in a spartan room containing only a desk, a chair, a coatrack with a shoulder holster hanging from it, and an old steam radiator providing heat. I am indeed a throwback.

I very, very rarely watch anything made in recent years. It doesn't interest me for a variety of reasons. I haven't watched a network television program for probably 20 years. On the surface, the main reason is probably because so much modern film and television is filled with vulgarity and trash. Those classic old films could have their share of evil characters (who usually got their comeuppance), but profanity, nudity and obscenity wasn't necessary to get the point across. And again, black and white instead of color. If done in color, those films would not have their same mystique and feel, as Ted Turner found out when he foolishly tried to colorize them. He still deserves a term at Alcatraz for such lese majesty.

I believe that the story and dialogue in those old films is far better than what we have now. Yes, we have computers and lots of flashy special effects, but then, the emphasis was on dialogue -- often subtle -- and a healthy dose of mother wit. We don't have subtle wit these days. You get bludgeoned.

Okay. Are you with me so far? Good. All of that was an introduction to the main point of this post.

Sin and Human Nature

That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

I can't tell you how many times I have heard various generations say, "It was better in my day!" My grandparents and parents decried how awful the current generation was to them, declaring that "those kind of things didn't go on back then." In my generation, I've said the same things when horrified over the latest outrage on television or film. There is an element of truth to it, but only an element.

In reality, everything that we get horrified over today went on back then as well. It's just that it went on behind closed doors or seamy back alleys and not out in everyone's face. There was -- in general -- a societal consensus that some things were not fit for polite company, and yes, wrong. Evil went on, but the societal standard (hypocritical or not) was that evil and immoral things were indeed evil and immoral. They weren't celebrated and advocated, at least outside of the glitterati.

If you go back to films before the Production Code of 1930 went into effect, you might be shocked at some of them. That is why many of those old films don't contain the hallmarks of most films today -- gratuitous violence, nudity and bad language. After the Code finally came to an end in the late 1950s and early 1960s, those elements began resurfacing and increasing in intensity -- a reflection of our society as it also began to decay.

Drug abuse has been around for eons, including opium. Alcoholism has been around since alcohol has been around. Homosexuality was around way before Harvey Milk and San Francisco swished their way to notoriety (come to think of it, a little town called Sodom was vaporized because of it a few thousand years ago). Renowned 1930s musician Cole Porter did his share of cruising for other men decades before "Queer Eye" went on the air. In fact, the classic movie about him starring Cary Grant sanitized all of that stuff out.

Speaking of Porter, remember the 1930 song "Love for Sale?" It was banned from radio airplay due to its subject matter, which was prostitution. Pick your sin. Adultery, murder, robbery, rape, larceny, bestiality, blackmail, lying, cheating, stealing, fornicating, blasphemy -- all of it -- have been going on since a certain little incident in the Garden of Eden. And it will continue going on until the Lord returns.

The lesson of my long reflection is that we shouldn't lose our heads to false romanticism. Don't get me wrong -- I still love the classic film era and wish we could go back to the Production Code standards. I don't need to see every gross detail of evil to know that a character is evil. You still won't find me watching many new films. But outside of the movie house, life was still life and sin was still sin. People still had a fallen nature and they still needed a Savior.

Just like we do today.

Thursday, January 15, 2009


I want you to read this link to the Christian Post. In it, you will see an article about Prince's sister (Tyka Nelson) releasing a gospel album. Prince, of course, is the African-American rock star known for his particularly lewd music and stage performances.

Read especially the part where his sister describes her beliefs. Even as obvious as this is, I wonder how many Christian stations will be adding this to the playlist. If I was general manager of said station, I'd can the first person that did it.

Even so, another sign of the times. Pray for Tyka's salvation (and Prince's).

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Globalists "Salivating" Over Collapse of America?

This article about America and globalism is worth reading and pondering. I don't think most people realize the precarious position we're in, and how close we could actually be to losing our country and its freedoms.

Two states. Just two more states. That's all it takes.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

A Gay Old Time at the Inaugural

President-elect Barack Obama stirred the pot when he asked evangelical pastor Rick Warren to offer a prayer at his inaugural. The homosexual lobby pitched a hissy, so now he dropped the other shoe. He's asked openly homosexual Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson to offer a prayer.

I had to chuckle - grimly - at Robinson's statement. So the Bible is "sacred text" to him. Oh, really? What about this:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

Or this:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper (Romans 1:26-28).

Or this:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

I could go on with this, but you get the idea. Mr. Robinson's idea of a sacred text must differ from historic Christianity, or perhaps he is rather selective in what is sacred and what isn't.

Beyond that, the idea of a Christian minister refusing to use God's Word is in and of itself an abomination. Actually, he's not a Christian minister. He's an apostate. But this whole thing does illustrate the danger our country is in. This is happening at the inaugural of our next president.

God help us.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Global Governance Makes the News

So people who see the spectre of a New World Order are nuts and conspiracy kooks. Take a look at this article in the Washington Times. Former Clinton Administration official Carol Browner is being tapped by the Obama Administration, and she's apparently taken with the idea of global governance.

Why am I not surprised? Think anyone will pay attention?

Once again, the most open conspiracy in the world sounds a klaxon, and most people stick their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LA LA LA LA LA!"

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Israel and Double Standards

Brief post today, but it's a whopper.

Look back to the United States in World War II. We were attacked by Japan, and our war policy was "unconditional surrender." (Yes, include Nazi Germany in that, too)

Israel gets attacked with thousands of rockets launched into her. But she is supposed to "show restraint."

Please tell me why "unconditional surrender" is okay for the United States when it is attacked, but not for Israel when she is attacked.

I'd love some reporter to get the cojones to ask the Secretary of State that, or even the President, if the opportunity arises. Somehow, I don't think they'll do it.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Israel Intensifies Gaza Campaign

As of this morning, here's the latest on Israel's campaign against Hamas. Thus far, Israel is standing firm against much of the world — a world that takes the side of the terrorists. The media doesn't help much.

President Bush has ten days left in office, and then Barack Obama takes over. I wonder what will happen then?

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Pity the Fools . . .

Resurrection Skeptics in the Church?

I'll bet with that main title, you were expecting a post about Mister T. Nope.

You know, I expect skepticism with unbelievers. I can be very patient with it. However, when professing Christians express skepticism about biblical truth, it's hard for me not to get very, very testy.

In a recent meta exchange not too long ago on another blog, a commenter who leans toward the Emergent crowd was defending skepticism on the biblical account of the Resurrection. I normally would link to the blog as its a favorite of mine, but I don't want to give the commenter any publicity. The blog administrators and other commenters handled him well enough, but the discussion has been simmering in my mind for a while.

It's not my purpose for this post to defend miracles, or get into some sort of scientific discussion or debate about incidents in Scripture unbelievers might find hard to swallow. My intent is more to deal with professing Christians who don't have a problem casting off core doctrine and biblical authority. I'll begin with this. Deny the Resurrection, and you are guilty of damnable heresy. Here's a few statements from God's Word . . .

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:12-28).

Did you catch that? If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still in your sins. In reality, the fools are not those of us who believe that God raised His Son. The fools are those who claim to be His followers and yet call Him a liar through dismissing the testimony of Scripture.

While we're at it, let's look at something the Lord Jesus Himself said . . .

And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” So they were saying to Him, “Who are You?” Jesus said to them, “What have I been saying to you from the beginning? “I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world.” They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father. So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. “And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:23-32).

A couple of points jump out at me in that passage. Believing that the Lord Jesus is who He said He was -- and that includes the testimony of God's Word as a whole -- is mandatory. He is the Son of God -- God incarnate -- who took our sins upon Himself on the cross. He died for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification. Not to believe this means that you will die in your sins and spend eternity separated from God. Jesus said to be true disciples of His, we must continue in His Word. Not bits and pieces of it. All of it.

The Resurrection is inseparable from saving faith in Christ. You cannot dismiss or deny the Resurrection and be a true believer and disciple of Christ. If you deny the Resurrection, you are not a Christian.

We'd better begin proclaiming that truth again, and loudly, from our pulpits and our seminaries. And if there are pastors in our pulpits, teachers in our Sunday schools, or professors at our seminaries beginning to fudge on this issue, it's time to show them the door.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Back to the Oven?

I normally don't like to bump posts in the same day, but I couldn't pass this story up. It goes hand in hand too well with my Psalm 83 post earlier this morning.

With her "back to the ovens" screech, this protester in FLORIDA revealed all too well what's really at the back of most of the anti-Israel histrionics today.

Sick, demonic and disgusting. It's too bad the Nuremberg tribunals aren't still operating.

Psalm 83 in Action?

With the conflict between Israel and radical Islam (Hamas) growing ever bloodier and condemnation against Israel pouring in from around the world, I can't help but think of Psalm 83. Think about it a while.

O God, do not remain quiet; Do not be silent and, O God, do not be still.
For behold, Your enemies make an uproar, And those who hate You have exalted themselves.
They make shrewd plans against Your people, And conspire together against Your treasured ones.
They have said, “Come, and let us wipe them out as a nation, That the name of Israel be remembered no more.”
For they have conspired together with one mind; Against You they make a covenant:
The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites;
Gebal and Ammon and Amalek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
Assyria also has joined with them; They have become a help to the children of Lot. Selah.
Deal with them as with Midian, As with Sisera and Jabin at the torrent of Kishon,
Who were destroyed at En-dor, Who became as dung for the ground.
Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb And all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
Who said, “Let us possess for ourselves The pastures of God.”
O my God, make them like the whirling dust, Like chaff before the wind.
Like fire that burns the forest And like a flame that sets the mountains on fire,
So pursue them with Your tempest And terrify them with Your storm.
Fill their faces with dishonor, That they may seek Your name, O LORD.
Let them be ashamed and dismayed forever, And let them be humiliated and perish,
That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Dave Welch on "Consensus"

WND columnist Dave Welch has penned a piece here that I'd love to have printed on the front cover of the New York Times. Of course, we'll see an Ice Age in Gehenna before that happens.

One thing to remember. We can't expect non-Christians to act like Christians, and that is one huge mistake Christian conservatives have made in their assumptions over the past 30 years. Organizations like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority were well-intentioned, but all too often, politics took precedence over the Gospel. If you don't have the life-changing and heart-changing power of the Gospel involved, you're defeated before you even start. You might win battles at the ballot box from time to time, but unless the hearts of men are regenerated, such wins will only be temporary.

All the same, I enjoyed Welch's column. I hope you do too.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Palestinian Mouthpieces - Orwellian or Carrollian?

I am sitting here as I type this watching Fox News' Julie Banderas interview Mustafa Barghouti, a former member of the Palestinian government. I don't know whether to scream at the television or to spontaneously combust. It amazes me that Israel can take between 30 and 80 missiles a day from Hamas in the Gaza Strip, but in Mustafa's view, Israel is the one to blame. Israel is the one who broke the so-called cease fire, which really wasn't a cease fire.

Amazing. Where are those rockets being fired coming from? Tel Aviv? Haifa? The tooth fairy? Maybe those rockets don't exist. Maybe it's a fantasy. We all just imagine that we're seeing them.

Mustafa further says it's Israel's fault because of their "occupation." Just what is Israel occupying? Didn't they unilaterally pull out of Gaza two years ago? Haven't they been dismantling settlements? I guess it doesn't matter. And here's why, especially in the view of Hamas.

As long as there is a Jew living and breathing in the Holy Land, it's too many. These thugs don't want a Palestinian state side by side along with Israel. They want Israel gone in its entirety. And until the State of Israel is gone, they will never stop. That is why Israel's military operation must continue. You can't have genuine peace where it's not wanted.

Oh, I'm sure Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamic radicals want "peace" after a fashion. The only peace they want is for the Israelis to surrender. And if they're not strong enough now to defeat Israel, then they want the style of peace exhibited historically by Muhammed himself. Yasser Arafat used to tell Arab audiences that this was the type of peace he was talking about. That is, to lay low until you think you're strong enough to strike. That isn't peace. Not by a long shot.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Oh, Roseanne . . .

So Roseanne Barr thinks Israel is a "Nazi" state. As you'll see from the linked story at WND, the loudmouthed comedienne (herself of Jewish extraction) thinks that Israel ought to just lie there and take terrorist rocket attacks instead of trying to defend herself. I have to wonder . . . is this an example of what they call the "self-hating Jew?"

It's no surprise that evangelical Christians and the Lord Jesus Himself come in for a bit of Roseanne's ire. As ridiculous as her remarks about Israel and Christians are, her remarks about Jesus being into Kabbalah are especially laughable.

Roseanne never was funny to me to begin with. Her butchering of the National Anthem and subsequent crotch-grabbing on national television finished it. And now, she's gone beyond even that. It's sad.

Pray for the woman. She needs it. Badly.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Israel and Gaza - Truth and Consequences

Here is the latest on the fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. In a separate story, I also noted with interest that Egypt's foreign minister is insisting that Hamas stop firing rockets. He said that Israel gave ample warning to Hamas, adding "they practically wrote it in the sky."

Listen to most media accounts from around the world, and the usual litany bangs like a tiresome, endless drone. With few exceptions, Israel is the one being portrayed as the baddie. It's even coming from some Christian circles, especially considering the destruction of a Baptist church in Gaza, which sustained collateral damage as Hamas was camped next door. Hamas is good at that sort of thing. Set up shop for your rockets among civilians and churches, and then yell "foul" when they get hit or if innocents get killed. The Palestinian radicals have also been known to stage things for maximum public relations effect. They play the media like patsies.

Here's the truth. Stop firing rockets into Israel, and the retaliatory attacks will cease. It's that simple. So Hamas wants to fight Israel to the death. Well, guess what? There are consequences to those actions. Any nation or group that decides to launch a war will have to face the consequences. And those consequences reach beyond the individuals who actually commit the acts of aggression and bloodshed.

The government of Japan ordered the bombing Pearl Harbor. The nation reaped the deadly consequences. The government of Germany began World War II. They faced the deadly consequences. Terrorists hit the World Trade Center. They faced the deadly consequences. Now Hamas -- voted into office by the Palestinians in Gaza -- lobs rockets into southern Israeli cities. Israel finally got tired of it and acted. In my humble opinion, they need to do much more, including a ground invasion and going door to door if need be to round up these murderous thugs. They also need to legislatively impose a death penalty. Right now in Israel, Nazi war criminals are the only ones who can be executed by hanging. They ought to include Islamic terrorists in the statute, and enforce it.

How much is Israel supposed to absorb before they are finally justified in responding? Apparently to much of the world, never. So Israel needs to thumb its nose at the carpers and complainers, and do what it takes to defend herself. This whole concept of "proportionality" is ridiculous. The point of fighting a war is to defend your nation and completely subdue an enemy into surrender. Unconditional surrender. In my more irritated moments, I sometimes wish someone would lob a few mortars into a Western European city, and see who calls for being "proportionate" then.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Happy New Year!

The Seventh Sola wishes you and yours a most blessed and Happy New Year. If you have not yet repented of your sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, now is the time. For those of us who do know the Lord, the following from the Apostle Paul is an excellent reminder of that glorious Gospel truth . . .

Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).