Well what do you know. Does anyone recall the hu-rah-rah that was raised when Vice President Mike Pence revealed that he did not nor would not meet with anyone of the opposite sex alone for any type of meeting? The media and pundits in general excoriated him for taking such an old fashioned, prudish position. They lamented that this was a direct attack on the ability of women to rise in their particular occupation. This was mockingly derided as being the “Billy Graham rule.”
How many celebrities, politicians, and business men now wish that they had adopted such a policy for their personal and professional lives? Hundreds and even thousands are being accused and are suffering severe losses of both prestige and esteem. And, in many cases, they are losing lots of money as the “Me Too” campaign rips across the landscape.
I would anticipate a small army of legal and personnel experts are frantically crafting new corporate rules and guidelines along the line of, “No mixed sex meeting shall consist of fewer than three persons.” Corporations, charities, and ministries across the country are bracing for a wave of litigation in the wake of revelations against them. Even a prominent church in Memphis has been caught up in the backlash.
Did you ever notice that the root word of prudence is prude? Interesting thought, isn’t it. Maybe Mike and Billy were not so far afield as portrayed. Thank you, gentlemen, for the wise guidance.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Capital Jerusalem
A recent article in both the Tennessean (Salina Khan, 12/18/2017) and the DNJ of Murfreesboro ( 12/17/2017) condemned the recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel and the US moving its embassy there. There were two main arguments. One was that the people of Bethlehem, “probably descendants of Jesus’ family,” were so upset with the move that they boycotted Christmas. The second argument was that some “Jewish scholars” taught that the Torah, the Jewish holy book, stated that Israel should not establish a nation until the Messiah came. So even the existence of the nation was violating their own law.
We will not comment on the nationality or the religion of the residents of Bethlehem, but we can definitely rule out the claim that they are related to Jesus, except through Noah and ultimately, Adam. The people currently living in Bethlehem are not Jewish, let alone offspring of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. They are not ethnically related, and since Jesus and the rest of his family spent most of their lives about 85 miles north in Nazareth, the possibility of descent is extremely remote, if not totally impossible.
And the current political and cultural climate in that area also makes it improbable that anyone of Jewish descent resides there. That argument was totally baseless and spurious.
The reason this trails the original publication of the comments by three weeks or so, is that I consulted with Jewish scholars to confirm the reasoning against the second prong of the putative persuasion. That was that the Messiah will establish a kingdom and the Jews should not do so until He arrives. The first part of the argument is valid. The second part is not. Messiah will establish a kingdom that will last for 1000 years. There is not prohibition against the Jews organizing into a nation in the meantime.
The scholar, a Jewish descendant himself, did agree that a very small, limited, extremely conservative circle have held that position opposing any nationhood over the years. But there is no chapter and verse in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that supports such a position.
And, in fact, the kingdom established by Saul, later reinforced and expanded by David, and solidified by Solomon would have been in violation of any such an edict. There is no historical evidence for this position being exerted.
The bogus argument propounded in both papers was merely a political screed with the intent to discredit both the Jewish nation and the United States and their policies.
Recent archaeological finds have verified a Jewish presence in Jerusalem over 2700 years ago. Both international law and common sense supports the right of a nation to designate its own capital. Israel has done so, and the US, and now some other countries, have merely recognized what is fact. Finally.
We will not comment on the nationality or the religion of the residents of Bethlehem, but we can definitely rule out the claim that they are related to Jesus, except through Noah and ultimately, Adam. The people currently living in Bethlehem are not Jewish, let alone offspring of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. They are not ethnically related, and since Jesus and the rest of his family spent most of their lives about 85 miles north in Nazareth, the possibility of descent is extremely remote, if not totally impossible.
And the current political and cultural climate in that area also makes it improbable that anyone of Jewish descent resides there. That argument was totally baseless and spurious.
The reason this trails the original publication of the comments by three weeks or so, is that I consulted with Jewish scholars to confirm the reasoning against the second prong of the putative persuasion. That was that the Messiah will establish a kingdom and the Jews should not do so until He arrives. The first part of the argument is valid. The second part is not. Messiah will establish a kingdom that will last for 1000 years. There is not prohibition against the Jews organizing into a nation in the meantime.
The scholar, a Jewish descendant himself, did agree that a very small, limited, extremely conservative circle have held that position opposing any nationhood over the years. But there is no chapter and verse in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that supports such a position.
And, in fact, the kingdom established by Saul, later reinforced and expanded by David, and solidified by Solomon would have been in violation of any such an edict. There is no historical evidence for this position being exerted.
The bogus argument propounded in both papers was merely a political screed with the intent to discredit both the Jewish nation and the United States and their policies.
Recent archaeological finds have verified a Jewish presence in Jerusalem over 2700 years ago. Both international law and common sense supports the right of a nation to designate its own capital. Israel has done so, and the US, and now some other countries, have merely recognized what is fact. Finally.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)