The world’s leading expert on the Star of the Magi (unfortunately the world doesn’t know it yet). See more at https://teapawt.org/t.co/FmWFzd5ldh
Virginia, USA
Joined August 2009
- Tweets8.3K
- Following233
- Followers1.6K
- Likes1.8K
Pinned Tweet
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
Friendly Reminder about Christian Nationalism and its Name:
“Christian Nationalism” is a term that was briefly a thing in the 1940s when a man named Gerald L.K. Smith founded the America First Party in 1943, then renamed/reorganized it as the Christian Nationalist Party around 1947.
It kinda died out as a term and wasn’t much of anything for decades after that.
But the term exploded back onto the scene in 2020. It was curiously correlated to American politics.
On February 3, 2020, Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry released “Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States,” which criticized what it termed “Christian Nationalism” by saying it is “ultimately about privilege,” co-opting Christian language and symbols to legitimize a preferred social hierarchy (with implications for race, nativism, gender roles, and immigration).
On April 1, 2022, Philip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry’s released “The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy” in (2022), which emphasized the racial (“white”) dimension and traced ideological roots much further back (e.g., to colonial-era Puritan narratives around 1690).
This corresponded with the Democratic “reaction” to January 6, 2021, which we all now can see was a planned political punishment of the enemies of Democrats, and was followed up by atrociously anti-Christian policies of the Biden Administration.
It has been directly referenced by Hillary Clinton in January of 2026 in the Atlantic and was not-so-subtly referenced by Joe Biden in his inaugural address and in remarks on February 4, 2021 at the National Prayer Breakfast, when he referenced “political extremism, white supremacy and domestic terrorism.”
In this context, on November 1, 2022, Stephen Wolfe (@PerfInjust) published “The Case for Christian Nationalism” by Canon Press, most famously run (or championed) by Doug Wilson (@douglaswils). They basically adopted the term and explained why it was not bad and is not in conflict with the received Christian Protestant tradition.
So, see what is happening. This is an old term that basically went into non-use, until it was revived in 2020 and used by pagan enemies of the church who wished to destroy their political enemies…
…who just so happen to be Christians.
There’s been a lot of confusion over the term “nationalist,” too. But note that Stephen Wolfe didn’t come up with the term. He doesn’t even define “nation.” To the extent he does define it, it isn’t based on race. Instead, he non-defines it on page 133:
“The idea of nation is notoriously difficult to define, and identifying true nations is equally challenging. This is especially true in an age of the nation-state, which tends to conceal difference under a homogenizing state project. My interest, however, is not to discuss and identify nations and nationhood as if trying to sketch a map of cultural geography from a bird’s eye view. My goal is to provide reflections on lived experience such that one’s own people-group is brought to conscious articulation (i.e., we become consciously aware of it). . . . It refers more to a sort of phenomenological topography in which one dwells with others in shared meaning, which could in principle extend across political boundaries.”
Notably, however, Stephen Wolfe DID NOT come up with this term. Doug Wilson notably called it an insult that he could live with (much like the term “Christian” itself 2000 years ago). That’s what’s going on here.
So, don’t be afraid of the term. Your pagan enemies don’t object to the “nationalism” part. They object to the “Christian” part.
J Caleb Jones retweeted
I’m not a proponent of using criminal law to enforce a particular version of Christian Nationalism. I’m proposing using Christianity to understand our traditional criminal law.
In an extremely pro-religious liberty state like Virginia, “blasphemy” wasn’t really a separate statute after the 1790s but “blasphemy” laws as a category are not typically called blasphemy laws.
They are usually called things like “using abusive language” (Va. Code § 18.2-416), “disturbing the peace” (Va. Code § 18.2-415), or “obscenity” (Va. Code §§ 18.2-372 through 18.2-384).
And why shouldn’t Christianity inform and direct what”abusive language” is, what “the peace” is, how that peace should not be allowed to be “disturbed,” and what “obscenity” is?
Hey @MikeWingerii, I’ll try to do my best and to do it rather simply.
The key scriptural text (for me anyway) is Matthew 28:18-20. It is commonly translated into English like the ESV does here:
[18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
But the command to “make disciples” is just the single Greek verb μαθητεύσατε (mathēteusate). It just means “disciple” or “instruct” or “teach.”
Who are we to do that to? “All the nations.” So who are they?
Now, yes, I know that because of the next clause involving baptism, μαθητεύσατε (mathēteusate) is typically taken to mean something that we are to do to INDIVIDUALS in all nations. And no, it is not wrong to see that as PART of the command Jesus gives.
But it IS WRONG to think that discipling individuals in all nations is ALL Jesus is commanding.
“But how can you teach an entire nation?” …asks the fool.
Easy! With preaching, with books, with art, with plays and education, and all the ways that you communicate with people. But most directly, you teach nations with laws, with recognized officials holidays (Christmas and Easter, for example), righteous judgments in courts, proclamations (props to the late Queen Elizabeth and her Christmas addresses), and other acts of public righteousness.
The full scope of Jesus’s command is the full grammatical scope of what his sentence means. Christians are to teach and admonish both individuals and governments. This is why (for example) the disciples in Acts were teaching in the Temple, which was a GOVERNMENT building for the Jewish nation, not merely individual synagogues throughout the countryside.
This is also why Acts has a strange concentration on the evangelization of government officials (from the Ethiopian eunuch to Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus).
This is also why Paul notes in Romans 13:4 that the magistrate who bears the sword is “the servant of God,” rather than some official of the world, outside the kingdom of God, with an independent sphere of authority who — though well advised to independently save his individual soul — has no duties to God as an official of his nation in the day to day affairs of his governing.
In truth, all ministers owe an allegiance to the LORD God of Heaven and earth, who became a man, purchased us with his blood, rose from the grave, and ascended to Heaven.
In other words, when Jesus says “all authority in heaven and on earth” in Matthew 28:18, he really means “all authority.”
I have asked people to point me to a resource that gives a robust defense of Christian Nationalism from Scripture.
I have not yet seen a source that even attempts this.
If you have one please link or reference it below. But, because I know many will have lots to share and much of it may not be anything I asked for, please note in your comment if your resource is...
1. A defense of Christian Nationalism from the text of Scripture and not from broad principles narrowly applied. This is all I am asking for. Appealing to history or the reformers will be uninteresting to me unless they are a source which does the very thing I am requesting (I mean, sure, it's interesting, but not in relation to this request).
2. A ROBUST defense such that actual analysis of passages is thorough enough to establish BOTH interpretation and application into Christian Nationalism.
3. A clear enough version of Christian Nationalism that it isn't indistinguishable from what every Christian already thinks. For example, defining CN as "Jesus is Lord" is unhelpful in much the same way as defining macaroni and cheese merely as "food" is unhelpful. A good apologetic for the view being biblical would need to defend a particular view and not something so broad that one has only defended principles that just as could easily be extrapolated into opposing views.
I genuinely would not only submit to CN but would openly and publicly advocate for it if someone can show it is solidly biblical.
Also, see here for a deep dive into Acts and CN:
teapawt.org/jcalebjones/status/209…
Running an illegal drug distribution empire from the leadership of the Virginia Senate and utilizing that office to enrich oneself and one’s family (who were also indicted) also erodes the trust the American people deserve to have in their government, Governor.
I have read the charging document alleging a series of criminal acts by a member of the Virginia Senate. In our American system of justice, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that is true for Senator L. Louise Lucas. She and her family deserve the opportunity to present their defense and speak to the allegations presented.
The timing of this indictment undermines the U.S. Department of Justice’s previously longstanding policy of not taking legal actions — to include indictments or significant investigative steps — close to an election and sadly, this timing further erodes the trust the American people deserve to have in the Department of Justice.
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'm starting to wonder if Christopher Nolan is secretly based.
He cast Lupita Nyong'o as Helen of Troy, the most beautiful woman in the world. She doesn't fit the role, she's no Halle Berry. Nobody watched that and thought, yes, that could really be the face that launched a thousand ships.
He cast the performer formerly known as Ellen Page as a soldier. Not a masculine-looking trans man who could convince you that a trans man can really look like a man. A short, weak, feminine performer who does not sell the trans agenda at all.
If he wanted to push the agenda more effectively, he could have cast a really gorgeous black actress and a convincely male-looking trans "actor". He did the opposite.
On top of that, he altered the roles these two played in a way that fits more with the reality of who they represent.
Nyong'o plays both Helen and Clytemnestra, the wife who murders her husband when he comes home from the war. We witness her stab her husband with a vicious animalistic expression on her face - acting like the worst stereotype of an aggressive black woman.
Page plays Sinon, a naive young soldier who believes the Trojan horse deception he is selling, defends it until his dying breath, and is run through with a spear. The trans performer is plays naive useful idiot who promotes a lie and is destroyed by it.
What if Nolan's casting and character re-writing choices here were really a subtle form of malicious compliance with the woke agenda?
He checked the DEI boxes on paper, but was this really good for woke-ism?
The Magician’s nephew is set in 1900. Why is there a car from the 1930s in this shot?
You didn’t even have to read the book. All you had to do was look at the pictures:
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.
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.
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).