8/30/2024 Right after dropping Nadia off at the train station (back parking lot side, due to earlier drizzle but there was no rain drops by the time we arrived at the station), front passenger tire was punctured by a hex washer head sheet metal screw. Plugged it (for the first time) myself after using a spanner to remove the screw. Pressure dropped to about 15 p.s.i. Took me about 10 mins to plug it. 8AM, took the car to be checked by Mavis (2 mins away) after urged by Nadia. Technician said that the hole was too much to the side of the tire and thus the leak was still on going. They didn't charge me anything because we would rather go to Costco which covers our tires in some way, instead of Mavis' $120-$180 tire replacement.
After meeting Paul C. former colleague at Hackensack, because he asked me for reference and I gave him the condition that he let me treat him. I remember him and Lisa being devout Christians at work. I just had to connect back with him. Free NJTransit whole week due to Labor Day. He drive me from Anderson Street Station (Hackensack) to a Dim Sum eat in place (looks like Chinese takeout restaurant). Food was fine. But the chat was great. He treated me to bubble tea at Tiger Sugar in an H-Mart. With Paul, it was from 10am to 2pm.
5:30pm, per appointment, I drove from home to Costco on Rt. 35 for the tire check up. They gave the same comment as Mavis. They replaced the tire for about $30, which was prorated down from $182, due to a recent all tire change by them about a few months ago, I scanned all receipts for documentation. This is probably the 4th time or so that the same tire side got punctured. I told Nadia we should avoid driving to the back parking lot whenever possible.
8/29/2024 From Prayer Meeting, I learned that E is having a serious migraine relapse. K said that she had it before, we wonder how K solved hers as she never reveals. Nadia thought of acupuncture but we don't know a good one in this country much less in the area. I thought to look up Chinese medicine. Migraine 偏头痛: Chinese Medicine Herb solution: 川芎 (活血行氣，往旁），天麻 (治疗眩晕血壓，往上).
Online Chinese Herbs: https://www.tsemporium.com/zh_cn/
天舒胶囊 is a ready made pills from 天麻 & 川芎.
Prognosis: blurry vision, also things seen as if they were zigzag shapes.
Diagnosis: cold back neck (due to immediate transition from hot weather into cold AC room), vomit.
Do not wait until an hour past migraine at 三叉神經 trigeminal nerve (the nerve joint where nerves near sight, smell & taste meet.
Makes me interested in learning 把脈：
8/28/2024 孔子知道自己是罪人：
加我数年，五十以学《易》，可以无大过矣。
白话：“如果借我数年时间，五十岁就学习《易》的话，能因此而没有大的过错了。”
吾十有五而志于学，三十而立，四十而不惑，五十而知天命，六十而耳顺，七十而从心所欲，不逾矩。
意思是说：“我十五岁立志于大学之道，三十岁能够自立于道，四十岁能无所迷惑，五十岁懂得了天道物理的根本规律，六十岁所闻皆通，七十岁能够随心所欲而不越出法度。”
孔子《论语》述而篇：述而不作，信而好古，窃比于我老彭
唐崇榮：這信非信心，乃是誠實，實在，真誠。
Docker file, Container, Image. At church, after a Bible study, someone mentioned this to me as what he does in his job. I could relate VPS or Virtual machines, but those were terms I never heard of before. Even if I did, I certainly didn't pay much attention to it. But it seems to be a must know for any programmer post 2020. I started looking this up after coming across these terms again on TLDR. It's worth a look into.
8/25/2024 Sunday Service - Sunday School on the Trinity
My reflection on this is that this church's view, including the pastor, on trinity is very poor. The pastor does have certain formidable level of understanding of it higher than the usual lay person, but from a reformed perspective, it's not enough (apparently he conflates reasonings behind Christ's duality with the trinity and terminologies and debates in history). The pastor knew that analogies of trinity are bad but he couldn't get away from the Water/H2O analogy, believing that the analogy works if all 3 forms are happening at the same time. He's not entire wrong throughout the session but I'm not here to state where he got it right. Now with the others, there are questions on theophany, Christ's dual nature and the confusion of Modalism from the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Here's my brief summary:
Why is it relevant? @1:00 Phil: "The Bible expresses it" - Funny.
@1:55 P: "This wouldn't be a discussion if people didn't have such a hard time with trinitarianism...why people are so slow...accept deity of Christ...I'm always a little confused as to why people are so hard-pressed to express the trinity...because you can't master it" - sounds like 坐享其成 statement - It was due to hard discussion, debates, many labors by faithful saints, that we've come to have trinitarianism as the proper understanding of Scripture, not the other way around.
@3:00 No salvation without the Trinity
@4:40 P to E: More important than defending against cults, this doctrine is for you. Not bad. "Technical knowledge never converts the soul" - true but shallow.
@5:45 T: Holy Spirit is least preached - Charismatics view of the Reformed. I would say yes and no, because the Holy Spirit is largely twisted, especially by the Charismatics.
@8:10 P: One of Christianity's greatest enemy is rationalism. This reminds me of an email I sent the pastor saying "we are to be rational, but not rationalist".
@8:55 P: The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is almost the tree of Rationalization. This is bad interpretation, simply because he said "it didn't quite make sense" as to why God would say do not do this. Answer is easy - First eat of the tree of life, then ask God about the other tree.
@15:00 T: Jesus' going away and sending the Helper - How to understand the Trinity here? The pastor got the duality of Christ here correctly.
@16:50 P: If you have a math brain, you'll struggle with this stuff..."Hey God, you've left your box, get back into your box" Another bad English on the pastor's account. I think he's just bad at math somehow. Hence, poor logic here.
@17:20 Phil: Father into your hands I command my spirit...who was he praying to...mystery...to Himself?! Phil's actually aligned with Oneness' Modalism here. I'm glad that the pastor actually challenged Phil further for this "How would you answer it Phil?"
@18:15 P: Some skeptics said that God is the ultimate narcissist. At which point E shook her head in disgust, shallowly in err. The pastor rightly called out that: "...and they [skeptics] mean that in disrespectful way" because "but God is the only one who has the right to be a Narcissist!" I was reminded of "God is the only true dictator." P: But you shouldn't be in love with only yourself" - this is where Tim Keller (I played this: Father, Son and Holy Spirit – Timothy Keller (2006) on our way to church) scores better when he rightly pointed out why God loves Himself - the Tri-personal dance relationship (selflessly giving glory to the each other) as the chief foundation of all true, eternally right love, as oppose to a singular personhood deity love, which is bad narcissist and results in individualism. @18:30 P: "...and while that's disgusting from a human standpoint..." - correction "...and while that's disgusting from a SINNER's standpoint. Although the pastor did end up saying @18:45:"...love, as we understand it, can only exist for the trinitarian God, who loves and has fellowship within the three persons of the Trinity...there's no real concept of love in Islam because God doesn't have fellowship" So textbook wise, the pastor did study his stuff, however, language wise, there's some inconsistencies.
Searching FB, I even realized that I've already commented on Oneness 6 years ago, saying that even the mormons know better.
Yea at this point, I would not ask the pastor to teach about apologetics. Just keep it to the regular Sunday School as "apologetics" would suffice for him. Anything more is asking for trouble. This is the reason I love the Sunday School. To learn, who should I associate myself in evangelism, in apologetics. So that I do not get myself trap with fellow brothers/sisters with bad apologetics, bad logic, bad English as it does no good to the witnessing for our Lord.
So at the risk of sounding snobby, I love listening to these folks in the Sunday School, as a sort of my "interviewing" of them, whether/who I would associate myself with in evangelism/apologetics to non-believers.
@20:13 B: "When you see me you see the Father, but at the same time...son of man...more times than the son of God" P: "incarnation...Israel's brother in a sense". I believe Nabeel's still better on this:
Nabeel: The term "Son of God" is usually not anything divine: i.e. Adam, Solomon, were called son of God, "you are gods", etc. "it's not a divine claim to call someone a son of God, but if someone refers to THAT SON Of MAN, coming with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13-14), who's going to receive glory and authority and sovereign power, and people of every nation and language are going to worship Him with the worship due only to God, that son of man is more than just a human, He is DIVINE!...Son of God is divine, not, it's the other way around, THE Son of Man is a divine title...this Man...or one looks like a human anyway, is worshipped by all...Jesus affirming it in Mark 14:62..."
Here I would add to Nabeel's, aligning with his:
Mat 26:63-64, when asked "are you the Christ, the Son of God"
Mark 14:61, "are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed"
Luke 22:67, "Are you the Christ, tell us", v. 70 "Are thou then the Son of God"
To all 3 versions, Jesus answered with "Yes, you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God's power, (While unlike the gentile Luke, Matthew and Mark added the reference to Daniel's "coming in the clouds of heaven" to remind the Jews of their Hebrew context of the phrase "Son of Man"), Jesus elevated their text book terminology of Christ as the Son of God being a vague understanding of opening to the possibility of Christ could be divine but maybe not - hence the term "Son of God" to that ONE special title "Son of Man" which all Jews knew, commands worship equivalent to God, so with this title "Son of Man", ambiguity like the "Son of God in the Jewish context", of whether or not He is the object of worship.
@22:00 M: He taught us to pray "Our Father...so not to pray to me" P: But also pray "in His Name...I and the Father are One...not wrong to pray to Jesus"
@23:45 Pt: "I went to a Oneness church for 4 years...trinity = water, steam, ice, but only Jesus is the fullness of it" P: "The problem with that, was that the Scripture talks about God in those 3 forms at the same time...so Oneness' problem was that God could only be either Water, Ice or Steam at one time, not ALL at the same time...thus they deny the Scripture" The pastor at least rejected the Oneness' explanation. But I would not take the H2O analogy in at all, not even "3 forms at the same time" i.e. I'm husband, son and father at the same time. It is still modalism vs. "The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit - 3 personal identities not titles". I tried to talk to her about service before it, Ptt's view is thus far the most heretical one I've encountered in this church at membership-ish level. She seems to hold firm to this view, which was the only baptism she received - in only Jesus' Name, using their (Oneness Pentecostal = Jesus-Only movement 1914 Robert T. McAlister) proof text: Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48 for water baptism (as opposed to their baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4; Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6)). I did not have time to continue discuss this with her because the service started. I should seek time to talk more on this with her: So you have no problem with Matthew 28:19 even claiming that the trinitarian baptism is a later church tradition yourself? Any issue with singing/playing "Holy, Holy, Holy"? Do you know that the Oneness church really reject the term Trinity all together, rather than just explaining it as 3 forms/"mere titles not names"? etc. Most commentators take Acts 2:38 & 10:48 not as the form of baptism, but Peter simply declared that the whole strength of baptism is contained in Christ, although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he renews and sanctifies us. ~ Calvin on Acts 2:38: "unlike the Papists, Christ did not indite his apostles magical words for enchanting.." I am not familiar with this last part Calvin was accusing Rome of - "nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but...the church...liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form". Perhaps Calvin was criticizing Rome for not expounding deep enough this "baptism in Jesus' name" means, other than just "different than Johannine baptism or Jewish ritual washings.
The Catholics' answer: Contrasting Matthew 28:19 vs. Acts 2:38 & Acts 10:48 - On one hand, Jesus was instructing the formula of baptism to His eleven apostles - how to baptism; On the other hand, Peter was addressing the public on how to RECEIVE baptism, not to those who would be PERFORMING it. And other "in the name of Jesus" verses: Acts 8:16, 9:5 and these aren't even instructions at all. A reasonable interpretation is that the early Church used “in the name of Jesus” to distinguish Christian baptism from other contemporary types of baptism, such as Johannine baptism, the baptisms among the Qumran sectaries, and even Jewish ritual washings...We find something similar in the Didache, a first-century Christian catechism (circa A.D. 70-90). In chapter seven, it gives the Trinitarian formula as the words to use for baptism. And then in chapter nine, it refers back to that same baptism as baptism “in the name of the Lord” (9,5).
I would agree with Pt that it's not a big deal, since she's not sure herself and confused about the term trinity, as she didn't even seem to be aware that the Oneness movement rejected the term all together ("they explain trinity in the 3 forms..."). Otherwise, it's the worst heresy I've encountered in this church. I tried looking up how PCA would deal with members coming from Oneness Pentecostal/In Only Jesus Name movement, I came up with nothing at this point. It would be in interesting topic of discussion with the pastor in the future. But it is generally considered as invalid as cults like Mormons, JWs, etc. among common churches.
@25:50 The pastor came back in attack of Pt's Oneness view that they cannot explain the cross, because they have to say at some moment, God is actually dead, if it's just 3 different forms.
@26:05 R: Exodus 33:23 "...see God's back...in my mind that was always God, not Jesus...but you told as we can only see Jesus...so who was that..." P: I don't know 100%, but to be consistent, it's the Son. On all manifestation of God = the Son, which was the pastor's view, I can still challenge this with the Holy Spirit descending as dove or the voice of the Father.
@29:15 Phil mentioned "Sabellianism" as heretical, presumably hitting back at Pt's question.
@30:25 T said he's enjoying this conversation, but "how about this analogy of family: Father, Mother and Children". P: My favorite professor said that there's no analogy for the Trinity. But T tried to reinstate the fact that our families on Earth have connection to the Trinitarian fellowship. P: That's just about Christ and humanity and redemption (His Bride). To be more bold to go where the pastor restricted himself, I would further that to Keller's definition on Trinitarian love as the foundation of family, but not just about Christ and His people, and certainly not as analogy for the Trinity.
@32:00 Matt: Colossians 1:20 "...all things... = Satan included?" P: "the angelic realm is an alternate universe...they are not made in God's image...they don't know grace...when they messed up they're damned...no redemption" Pak Tong would disagree with "they are not made in God's image". I would answer: All does not mean all. And as for Satan and his demons - Hebrews 2:16 (interesting KJV does not have the same meaning, but NKJV does interpret it rightly) 神不救拔天使, and 2Peter 2:4. And it's good to also reference the only time the "elect angels" are mentioned: 1 Timothy 5:21. On whether angels made in God's image, Pak Tong:
Like man, angels have freedom, thinking, wisdom, power, morality, possible to sin, eternity, conscious. Therefore, if man have these because of the image of God, then angels should at least have the image of God (even though it's not specified in the Bible) and thus this gave ground for Satan to fall "upward", to want to be God.
Therefore, I believe that the angels know grace, as oppose to the pastor's statement "they don't know grace". Because there's the elect angels as well as fallen angels. One does not need to know grace only when one is fallen.
But the pastor did answer Matt: all doesn't mean the "realm of God's wrath". Although I prefer Calvin's answer: This, however, has nothing to do with Paul’s words, which include nothing else than this, that it is through Christ alone, that, all creatures, who have any connection at all with God, cleave to him.
@34:55 Phil: Exodus 24:11 - Triune Godhead? P: sure, but that most likely = the Son.
@38:00 B mentioned the popular verse Deu 6:4 in the OT as a good hint to the Trinity. P: Sure, Genesis "let us...". But the moment the pastor said "you can't put trinity in a box", just makes me think of him again very bad in the language of logic or a very lack of understanding in the progression of how the opponents of Trinity was dealt throughout church history.
@39:58 Good summary from P: When you move away from a Trinitarian God, you are moving away from the God of the Bible.
Paul Choi looked me up again as his reference for job. This time, I told him on the condition of having dinner with me this Tuesday, on me.