8/24/2024 Jim Grey, a software engineer sharing his tips after working 35 years in the field.
Top 100 Gen AI apps thus far: https://a16z.com/100-gen-ai-apps-3/?utm_source=tldrnewsletter
Top programming languages 2024: https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2024?utm_source=tldrnewsletter
Watching 老尤 Mr. You, blasting Kamala Harris on Youtube is fun. In her first candidacy speech, "she did not laugh, that means she was well prepared" ~You. And it is educational as well, here are some Chinese idioms good for memorizing, Mr. You describing Harris with 16 words:
準備有餘，新意不足，
陳詞濫調，胸無點墨。
囂張：excessively proud or confident. I didn't realize this is hard to write.
8/23/2024 To reap what one has not sown: 坐享其成. Stephen Tong on those who misunderstood grace. Unbiblical Grace: Do nothing, just receive. Biblical grace: Receive grace with responsibility. This is especially weak in American conservative churches. Such as my GCC in Bridgewater. The right doctrine of suffering: Even Christ has to suffer.
8/22/2024 1500+ free html templates: https://htmlrev.com/?utm_source=tldrdesign
8/21/2024 A good site that analyzes and compares different AI models (chatGPT, Claude, etc.): https://artificialanalysis.ai/
8/20/2024 When a church leadership (consider Rev. Lin of CCCNY, and many others) doesn't think of the church as a family of God, but a network of philanthropists and who's who, this church will fail soon. The members do not care about any fellowship outside of church service, the pastors will leave (mere hired hands). They will blame everyone else but themselves, the dumber ones will blame the Holy Spirit. The state of this is most transparent in their Prayer Meetings.
8/19/2024 Stephen Tong on 3 times of shame mentioned as the antagonist of glory:
- Genesis account of Adam and Eve, not ashamed
- Hebrews 2:11, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brethren
- Romans 1:16, Paul was not ashamed for the Gospel
The Redeemer Westside Men Fellowship/Bible Study (Tuesday Mornings) has devolved. I was last with them during the post-Covid short lived Zoom period. When they decided to move back to church, I just cannot make it that early on Tuesdays at 7am - 8:15am. I am rather convinced that this is only for Andrew Melton's own benefit. Yes, he started this group and it was great. But judging from the means of the group, which apparently is not even called "fellowship" anymore, and the departure of some better folks such as Gary Bowler, etc. I don't see Robert May much anymore, the singer whom I knew from helping his move once. Seems like May has moved to Nashville.
I do wonder if Matt Mundy's still there. He an actor and I'd always enjoyed his Scriptural reading during Sunday Services. His view also seems geared towards reformed.
Melton never seemed interested in forging fellowship in the group. Perhaps this was only motivation for his own Bible study. He always sent out emails with his own study notes. This way, he gets to study it as well as claim that he's running the fellowship. But never bother knowing anyone at the group other than the ones who were already serving in the church as old timers, even that, I don't think they click well with each other.
8/18/2024 GCC Sunday School: Christ's Claims of Deity
P: gave new revelation. But quoted verses with "you have heard that it was said to those of old". These examples are more of correction of human sayings rather than "I gave you new commandment". The "old sayings" references are never the law, not OT. These are errors devolved from Jewish tradition over time. It is no surprise if this is being treated as "new revelation" by the fundamentalists, because all they care about is "what did God say exactly" without deeper analysis. So anything else, even if it's actually quoting the old for correction, is taken by these fools as "new revelation". And they will never see their own faults when pointed out because they believe they've followed the law to the letters, any deeper variation of the law is taken as twisted by them, instead of deeper creativity.
Consider Tong on this subject:
C.S. Lewis' trilemma mentioned @22:00. The academia would point out the flaw of trilemma as not being quadrilemma: Either lunatic, liar, Lord or legend. Lewis' idea was probably from some ancient Latin phrase: aut Deus aut homo malus (Either God or a bad man). I would say this is not proof, just affirmation. Because if it's used as proof, then you've thrown away your footstool and wonder if these all just fell into the right space, Jesus claiming who He claimed just at the right time, right moment, "coincidentally".
@28:06 E's apologetics against the JW is a typical one, it will go round and round in circles with JW, because she focused on arguing against "Jesus as not the archangel Michael", which was JW's belief. The JW used the fact that the only two places that archangel was mentioned was 1Th 4:16 and Jude 1:9, to which, based on their wrong presupposition, could easily be interpreted to be Jesus. And they could easily explain E's Hebrews 1:5 in their view as well: That Jesus was not an angel, but the chief, archangel, which is the only one in existence. This also got me looking into LDS (Mormons). While the JW do not worship Jesus, the mormons do worship Jesus, they would not worship their divine Heavenly Mother, Holy Ghost, etc. Thus, JW takes monotheism more seriously than the LDS. The best way to deal with JW is just to focus on the requirement of a God-man rather than debating with them on scripture with different presuppositions.
@34:10 P: "They don't want accountability, ...to God" That's is true. But when P elaborated, "but you want accountability to IRS, etc." that becomes bad, because the opposing response would be "we don't want accountability to fake authority".
P: There's an identity of male & female, because Jesus said in heaven there's no given into marriages. <= error, that it's not an absolute determinant for the future existence of two genders in heaven.
@36:25 on Trinitarianism, P: "That is not rational, because it must be above us" This is a bad language, because it conflates "not rational" with "beyond rational". Of course, the only way to define "not rational" is irrational, which is different than supra-rational or beyond rational. It's like saying "that is not beautiful, because it must be beyond beautiful" as it alludes "that is ugly, because it must be beyond beautiful". Though what needs to be conveyed can be understood, but bad language will lead to misunderstanding. It would be better to add "it's not irrational either" after saying "not rational".
@37:20 P went against creative art of God. Matt tried to defend the creative, so P answered "I'm with you on that until it contradicts Scripture", which shows that P was not completely fundamentalist-bent. But P: "When you paint God, you violated the 2nd commandment" [which P has taken it out of context, for the second half of that commandment calls against worshipping such creation]. Perhaps next time I'll ask about painting certain manifestation of God, such as the burning bush or the dove. This is obviously a topic debated among the reformed, I'm on John Frame's side (his book "The Doctrine of the Christian Life"), I'll post Justin Taylor's article on this at TGC in the comment.
@39:00 Someone asked if we will see the Father in Heaven. P wasn't wrong to say if you see Christ you see the Father. Thus, real answer is a Yes and No. We cannot see God or the Father as if He's part of creation, but through Christ, we are in union with God. P was wrong in saying "any visible manifestation of God is the Son". F alluded to Isaiah 6:1, which Calvin agrees can be seen as the Son, but warns against limiting this to just the Son.
@40:00 P: "Everywhere there is a theophany, it is a Christophany." This is not accurate. All Christophanies are theophanies, but not the other way around. We can say it maybe the Son who walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, but the burning bush would be a question mark. Certainly the Holy Spirit descending as dove during Jesus' baptism was not Christ himself. And more: Gen 15:17, the pillar of cloud and fire, etc. This was well discussed here.
@41:50 P quoted Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven" to be interpreted as "there is an identity of male and female, but it's not the way we divide it here", I am not sure what he's trying to say, maybe this goes back to when N asked "will there be male and female" and P had felt compelled to answer yes, with the presupposition that God created "male and female" before the fall. We don't know this for sure, but the argument for the case is a bad one, even if the answer could be correct. But the alternative could be true: That in glorification, we may have cast off gender identity, just as we will no longer could sin (impeccable). Hence, we don't know.
Sermon: Rev. 2:12-17
Justin Taylor on Arguments for and against Images of the Incarnate Christ
From lecture outlines that were expanded into The Doctrine of the Christian Life, John Frame identifies five arguments against picturing Jesus:
1. Since God may not be pictured, and Jesus is God, Jesus may not be pictured either.
2. Iconoclasts in the Eastern Church argued that those who venerated images of Christ were circumscribing Jesus’ divine nature. To worship the picture would involve the assumption that his divine nature is limited, circumscribed by the human nature and is therefore picturable. Or it would imply that the human nature alone is pictured and thus is separable from the divine nature.
3. Some have argued that since we don’t know what Jesus looked like, any picture will be a lie.
4. Some take the second commandment to exclude any representations of deity.
5. The danger of idolatry, at least, is always present when pictures of Jesus are used for any purpose.
Frame’s response to argument 1:
As we have seen, Scripture does not teach purely and simply that God cannot be pictured.
But even if God in himself were in every sense unpicturable, it is clear that Christ, God incarnate, was picturable. He could be seen, felt, touched, as well as heard. His face could be held in memory (and there is surely no suggestion in Scripture that such mental images were sinful! On the contrary, recall the emphasis upon the eyewitness character of the apostolic testimony.) To deny this is docetism, pure and simple. In this respect, clearly, the Old and New Covenants are sharply different. At the establishment of the Old Covenant, there was emphatically no form (Deuteronomy 4:15). At the establishment of the New, there emphatically was (I John 1:1ff., etc.).
Response to argument 2:
The relation between the two natures of Christ is, of course, a difficult matter at any point in theology. I would argue, however, that Jesus himself is, in both natures, in his person, image of God. In him, deity was in one sense “circumscribed,” for all its fullness dwelt in him; though in another sense, God was active beyond the body of Jesus. To picture Jesus is to picture a divine person, not one “nature” or other. To venerate such a picture, I believe, would be wrong for reasons already adduced. I do not, however, think that an adequate argument has been given against pedagogical use of such pictures.
Response to argument 3:
As we’ve said earlier, a picture does not become a “lie” simply by being non-exhaustive. And, in fact, we do know something about Jesus’ looks: He was male, Semitic, in middle life, was known to wear a robe, etc. . . .
Response to argument 4:
As we have seen, the second commandment doesn’t forbid all images of God, only those intended for use in worship, as we earlier discussed it.
Reply to argument 5:
True.