David Fish

In Genesis 3, two people are offered food, and their eyes are opened (καὶ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν δύο - Gen. 3:7 LXX). The world groans under the weight of sin. In Luke 24, two people are offered food, and their eyes are opened. (δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν.....αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ⸃ - Luke 24:13, 31) Their hearts burn at the revelation of the Savior.

This is literally that one guy in every prayer time who just preaches in the middle of his prayer instead of actually praying.

"The doctrine of impassibility is not meant to obscure or diminish God's compassion for us, but to safeguard his ability to bring victory out of suffering and new life out of death." - Gerald Bray

Hold on...you're telling me the guy who is into polygamy has other significant character flaws? Get outta town!

The intent of "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" was mostly good. But the net result has largely been to leave people to self-construct their own religion without the aid of the time-tested wisdom of the historic church. It's like someone says, "It's not about a pacemaker, it's about your heart beating." What then? Should I remove the pacemaker that helps my heart beat? "It's not about eating, it's about nutrition" So how do I get the nutrition without the work of preparing food, chewing it, and digesting it? The phrase, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" confuses the end with the means. We are not designed for disembodied, immaterial "connection" with God. We are embodied creatures who need embodied structures that orient our hearts and minds towards the living God. Can those structures grow stale and corrupt? Absolutely. Are there structures that end up becoming obstacles to relational connection with God? Yes. The answer is not "no religion" it is "pure religion" that focuses our hearts, minds, and bodies on the glory of God and the love of neighbor. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27)

Post-modern religious pluralism: "No one should try and persuade anyone else to adopt their private religious beliefs." The Apostle Paul: "I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am..." (Acts 26:29)

Unpopular Muslim opinion: Mohammed was not a true prophet.

The bronze serpent challenges both iconoclasts and iconodules. The iconoclasts must wrestle with God commanding people to look at an image which is somehow connected to Christ. (Num. 21:8-9; John 3:14-15) Iconodules must reckon with the fact that veneration of the bronze serpent did turn into idolatry over time and Hezekiah was right to destroy it. (2 Kings 18:4) Images are not absolutely evil nor are they absolutely good. Sensitivity is needed to know if images are helpful or harmful. The church must use wisdom and cultural contextualization to determine the role images should play in the devotional life of each individual and congregation.

"Oneness just takes the Bible" The Bible translated by numerous scholars who translated based on critical editions compiled by numerous scholars who worked from numerous manuscripts copied and preserved by numerous Christians down through the ages.

Every time Brian Simmons, author of the Passion "Translation," attempts to explain the languages of the Bible, he does so in an unreliable and anachronistic fashion. Basically every statement in this "linguistic lesson" is either totally false or at least misleading as far as I can tell. 1. The distinction between "referring to a person, place, or thing" vs. "the action of a person, place, or thing" is nonsense. It's a false distinction. Every Hebrew speaker knew that the word "hand" corresponded to the thing with five fingers attached to your arm just as Greek speakers did. 2. "The Greek culture recognizes words such as...gift as nouns." But the word for gift in Greek (δῶρον) is likely derived *from a verb* (δίδωμι) exactly as the Hebrew word is. Many languages derive nouns from verbs and Greek is no exception. 3. The etymological fallacy rears its ugly head once again as Brian implies that the root of each Hebrew word defines how that word was understood after it evolved. 4. "Hebrew verbs and nouns have an actions associated with them, whereas Greek nouns to not." This is honestly just beyond parody. There are numerous Hebrew nouns that do not correspond to any primitive verbs as far as we can tell. mayim = water and has no verbal root. There are also Hebrew verbs which are commonly considered to have derived FROM nouns, the exact opposite process described by Simmons. In both languages verbs can be derived from primitive nouns and nouns can be derived from primitive verbs. Furthermore, the Greek language is even more apt to turn verbs into nouns: infinitives and participles, for example, though they are technically "verbs" can (and often do) function as nouns. 5. "Even the Hebrew nouns for father and mother are descriptive of action." The words for father and mother in most languages are not descriptive of anything. They are the noises children make when they first begin to utter sounds. Infants are not thinking, "How do I derive a noun from the action performed by my mother and father?" This is why the word in Aramaic (abba) is almost identical to the word in Tamil (appā) despite being from completely unrelated language families separated by thousands of miles. The rest of the explanation is "pictographic Hebrew" Gnosticism that attempts to read fanciful "secret meanings" into Hebrew means by referring to their original "pictographs." The irony is that none of the "pictographic Hebrew" proponents can agree on what the original "pictures" even meant. Are there differences between Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek thought? Of course. But those differences don't produce a chasmic disparity between languages that requires a kind of linguistic "secret knowledge" to understand.

Isn't it fascinating that many far left folks who talk about "wage slavery" and the "means of production" hate the one company that willingly sacrifices profit for the mental and spiritual well being of its employees?

Not going to lie, I love my Presbyterian friends, but "Directory for Public Worship" is the most dystopian name for a liturgical book.

We told you that if we couldn’t murder our children we would murder our children.

I just want to say that I hold Tim Keller personally responsible for my food allergies, my lack of fashion sense, and the way my cowlick refuses to sit properly on my head.