text:
One of this blog's authors is published in today's YNet. Frimet Roth calls for some long-overdue corrective action by our government.
Truth about lethal icon...
Israeli government's admission of guilt helps perpetuate al-Dura myth
Frimet Roth
Published by YNet: 7-Feb-08
A landmark ruling about the death of the boy Mohammed al-Dura is about to be handed down by a French court. If many are unaware of this, it is no accident. Recent developments regarding the accuracy of that story have received no coverage by any of the major networks. The growing suspicions about the official, tragic version - that the boy was shot by Israeli soldiers - have been reported almost exclusively by the Jewish media. The global news networks were eager consumers and purveyors of the iconic image of that child when it emerged in 2000. But they are studiously avoiding the matter now that it is looking more and more like a hoax. Expressing mea culpa is probably not something they relish.
Of course, their correspondents could have followed Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy's example (See his Oct '07 Haaretz column: "Note what a fuss is being made about the case of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura"). A noted apologist for the Palestinians, he has conceded that al-Dura may not have been killed by Israelis after all, yet wrote in November, 2007: The "question of who killed al-Dura is not important" and the quest for the truth about it is "an eccentric obsession."
But there are some Israelis to whom the truth does still matter. For them, the shameful role of one of the key players in the affair is probably not well known: that of their own government. Israel's role in perpetuating the al-Dura myth has been baffling.
The purported shooting was filmed by a Palestinian stringer, Talal abu-Rama, for France 2 on September 30, 2000. The television network's Israel-based correspondent Charles Enderlin edited the raw footage. Shortly afterwards, a 59 second clip was distributed to media outlets. Three days later, Israel officially admitted its guilt and expressed remorse over the child's death. After a hasty preliminary investigation and absent an autopsy or examination of any bullets - none were ever retrieved - the IDF stated: "There is no way to prove who shot him. But from the angles from which we fired, it is likely that he was hit from our gunfire... It is very reasonable that they were hit from our gunfire."
The area commander and other senior IDF officers present were convinced that, on the contrary, the IDF could not possibly have shot them. Their views were ignored.
To date, the only critical government voice belongs to Danny Seaman, head of Israel's Government Press Office. In October 2007, he said: "...It was not even possible to hit the (boy and his father) in the place they were hiding according to the report." Rejecting the validity of the official story, he continued: "The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel". He termed it "an explicit blood libel against the state" that "caused damage and dozens of dead."
But he is alone. This country's seven year-long silence in the face of strong evidence contradicting its official position has caused grievous harm to every Israeli. Richard Landes, an American historian and academic who has labored tirelessly to expose the hoax, summarized it thus: "Palestinian leaders declared Muhammad al-Dura a martyr and brainwashed a generation of children to want death by killing Israelis ... All the first suicide bombers... invoked al-Dura... No single image has created more violent hatred in this enraged 21st century."
In 2006, France 2 and Enderlin sued the director of a media watch-dog, Philippe Karsenty, for saying that the al-Dura story was a lie that had caused innocent deaths. The court determined that Karsenty was guilty without ever viewing the disputed film footage. Karsenty appealed and a year later the court ordered that France 2 deliver all its raw footage.
This was shown to the appellate court last November. To those present, it was evident that the 12 year old child, crouching with his father behind a protective steel barrel, was not shot by the Israelis. The bullet holes and puffs of smoke behind them indicate fire coming from a direction that makes Israeli culpability impossible.
It was also clear that preceding events were staged. To cite just a few instances:
It was reported that the judge and spectators in the courtroom seemed stunned and laughed occasionally at the Palestinians' crude acting.
- Young men are seen running to and fro while throwing stones, presumably at Israeli soldiers. But none of these "embattled" youths is crouching to avoid bullets.
- Interspersed among them while the shooting allegedly is underway are plainly-unconcerned passers-by.
- One child is seen calmly riding through the melee on a bicycle.
- Several people are dragged onto stretchers and into ambulances which materialize within seconds.
- No one exhibits signs of actual injury or pain.
However, the most damning was the final frame: After a voice (either of the father or of the cameraman) yells in Arabic "The boy is dead", Mohammed uncovers his eyes and peers out from under a shielding hand. He is never shown dead, or even bleeding at any point in the film.
In 2003, Enderlin showed a visitor the full footage, explaining his blind faith in its authenticity with kindergarten logic: "I know (the stringer, Talal) well. Our families have met", adding: "He would not lie to me... It never would have even occurred to Talal to attempt this. Because in order to do so, he would have had to imagine that he could get such a farce by me, and since he would have known that would be impossible, he never would have even entertained the idea."
Last week, Charles Enderlin spoke to a small audience at Harvard's Center for European Studies. There to promote his new book, he revealed that Yasser Arafat had faked his headline-grabbing blood donation to the victims of the September 11th attacks. Enderlin said the event had been staged for the media to counteract the embarrassing images of Palestinians celebrating in the streets after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
His choice of subject – a Palestinian hoax - illustrates how brazen he and everyone involved in disseminating the al-Dura myth have remained. And with good reason. They enjoy the support of a French government dedicated to defending the reputation of its TV station. Toward that end, President Jacques Chirac submitted an unsolicited character reference on their behalf to the court hearing their libel suit.
Then there is the reassuring silence of the Israeli government.
In fact Enderlin relies heavily on Israel's failure to defend itself. A journalist in attendance at his Harvard address asked him: "If you know that the story of Arafat donating blood was fabricated, why do you reject any possibility that the shooting of Mohammed al-Dura was staged as well?" Enderlin's first response was: "We had an Israeli military reaction that admitted it was probably them."
The lower court that convicted Karsenty also referred in its reasoning to Israel's failure to retract its admission of guilt.
We are now several weeks before the endgame. Karsenty's appeal has afforded the Israeli government a second chance. This country's leaders have evidently been convinced that if the name al-Dura was never again mentioned, the story would eventually be forgotten. We have suffered enough for this catastrophic blunder.
The Israeli government must officially retract its admission of guilt and state unequivocally that it in no way contributed to Mohammed al-Dura's death, if indeed he was killed. A clear and public statement to this effect must be made well in advance of the February 27th court decision. The French judges will undoubtedly be listening raptly.
The question is: Are our leaders up to the challenge?
Frimet Roth, a freelance writer, lives in Jerusalem. She and her husband founded the Malki Foundation in their daughter's memory. Malki Roth was murdered in the Sbarro restaurant massacre in 2001. The foundation in her name provides concrete support for Israeli families of all faiths who care at home for a special-needs child.


text:
Strategic Plan Performance Indicators
The aim of the Performance Snapshot and the interactive dashboards is to provide transparency to our stakeholders and to track progress towards fulfilling our strategic goals as a district. (Read the Strategic Plan Overview for background information.)
You can access school-specific information, such as survey results, on the School Level Data Resources page.
Strategic Indicators– Performance Snapshot May 2017
If you have trouble seeing the document below, click here.
|Enrollment and Demographic
|Academic Excellence & Character
|Talent Development
|Community Partnership
|Strategic Use of Resources

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Good dog! NH Chinook shines at Westminster, winning best in breedStaff Report
February 11. 2014 10:50PM
New Hampshire's official state dog breed made its debut at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show with one of the Granite State's own taking home top honors.
Lakeside Run's Little Bear, aka Birr, was named best in breed of the Chinook competition on Tuesday. The 3-year-old male is owned by Kristine and Chester Holleran of Londonderry.
Birr and the other Chinooks took to the green carpet at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday afternoon for the breed's competitive debut at the event, which dates to 1877 and is second only to the Kentucky Derby as the longest continuously held U.S. sporting event.
As the breed winner among four Chinooks that competed, Birr advanced to the finals of the sporting group later Tuesday, where he didn't place among the group's top four. The top dogs from each of the competition's seven groups moved on to the best in show competition.
According to the Chinook Club of America, the breed was developed by Arthur Treadwell Walden, a sled-dog driver, author, explorer, and innkeeper from Wonalancet early in the 20th Century. Chinooks have a reputation for being friendly, gentle and intelligent with the necessary strength and speed to pull a sled.
The New Hampshire Legislature voted in 2009 to recognize Chinook as the Granite State's official dog; the breed received its official recognition from the American Kennel Club in 2012.
This is the first year Chinooks competed at the Westminster show, which featured dozens of other dogs from the Granite State in other breeds and groups. Gus, formally known as Grand Champion Belquest Fergus N Trouble@Snoo, received select honors among Labrador retrievers for owner Emily Elliot of Errol. Celtia's Riverdance, a black Labrador retriever owned by Kathleen Coleman of Swanzey, was selected third among open division Labs.


text:
Well, just a bit of a preface before we begin tonight: It was many years ago when I was studying the Book of Acts that I became aware of the fact that the Apostle Paul dialogued with people in the meetings that he had. The New Testament says he reasoned with them out of the Scripture, but it uses the word dialego, from which we get dialogue.
And there was the common expression on the part of Paul of the Gospel and the truth, and that engaged him in a dialogue, and in that dialogue, there was an interchange with the people as they asked the questions that were on their hearts, and we're going to do that tonight.
And I'm going to make a little bit of a rule as we begin tonight, and I'm going to ask that the questions initially be asked by folks who've never asked a question before because I want to make sure that if you haven't asked one in the past, you sort of get a first shot at me, and after we've kind of gone through the folks who have never asked a question in a question-and-answer time, we'll then, if we still have time; we'll let some of the other folks ask questions.
Now, there are microphones in the main aisles here in the center, and there are some of our pastors nearby. I think Jerry is going to be over here on my right, your left, and Bill Shannon is in the middle and Rick Holland, so you will only need to step up behind a microphone, and they will kind of ask you what your question is, and we'll go from there. Give me your name before you ask your question so I can know who I'm talking to. Jerry, we'll begin with you.
QUESTIONER: My name is Kimberly. I have a rather interesting question. This came across my mind during the Thanksgiving service on Wednesday. What would you say to encourage those who would want to take communion, but for medical reasons, could not; that they felt discouraged because they couldn't do so?
JERRY: Well, I would say they need somebody to help them to do that. For medical reasons, you mean?
QUESTIONER: No, what I mean is it would not be healthy for them to do so, so how would you encourage them in such a way that. . .because, medically, it would be a danger to their health; like say if somebody had needed to be fed intravenously because they couldn't swallow or for other reasons. In what way would you encourage them as to encourage them that it's not a negative thing to not do it if you can't.
JERRY: Oh, that's a good question, and I don't think I've ever been asked that question, but I understand that. Let me give you a parallel question, Kimberly. Thank you. And that would be the question that comes to. . .and I've faced this question a number of times, and it sort of broadens the picture a little bit. There have been people who have come to Christ in a very severe and final illness, maybe days, maybe hours, maybe just a few weeks from death that are, in no way, capable of being baptized. They miss that ordinance, and yet, certainly, God knows the spirit of obedience and the heart of obedience, and I would just say that the desire in the heart to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, the desire in the heart to exalt the cross and exalt the Savior on the cross; certainly, God counts as the act, where the act is impossible. You understand that. If a person cannot do because it is impossible for them to do what they would otherwise do, that the Lord does understand. If a person doesn't have the capacity to swallow; obviously, they can't eat the bread, and they can't drink the cup. I don't think we need to somehow reduce it to an IV drip. I don't think that's required.
I think the heart attitude counts for the act because it's the heart that God looks at anyway. I remember a dear old lady in her 90s that I had the privilege of being with when she embraced Christ in the hospital. She was in her 90s, and another lady had encouraged me to go there, and I gave her the Gospel, and she responded to the Gospel and she repented, and after we talked a little bit about that, she said to me; she said, "I wish that I could be baptized. I really wish that I could be baptized." Well, she was in the throws of death already and didn't live very long after that. It was an impossibility to immerse her, but I'm quite confident that the intent of her heart was sufficient to indicate to God the spirit of obedience that was there, and because of physical compunctions, it was unable to be fulfilled, but God looks at the heart in a matter like that.
Where we have the capability to do what God has asked us to do, we do it. Where we don't have the capability, the intent of the heart is sufficient to satisfy him, I'm quite confident. Thank you, Kimberly. Ron.
QUESTIONER: First, thanks for being my friend and being a riveting pastor.
JOHN: Thank you.
QUESTIONER: His Third Commandment, "Don't take the Lord's name in vain," so if a person is an actor and he's going to play a part in a movie and he's going to take the Lord's name in vain, should he not take the part, or if he takes the part, is he going to answer to God?
JOHN: Well, I think the Bible is pretty clear. It says, "Don't take the Lord's name in vain," and that doesn't somehow get set aside if you're playing a role. I think that as far as the audience is concerned, the Lord's name has been taken in vain. For me, I would have a difficult time doing that.
Somebody would say, "Well, now wait a minute. The people in the world take the Lord's name in vain, and you're simply playing a part of someone in the world that takes the Lord's name in vain." My answer to that would be you're still taking the Lord's name in vain.
And in the end, I wouldn't want to take the Lord's name in vain; certainly, I wouldn't do it myself, and I wouldn't want to pretend that I was doing it because I was playing a role. I think if. . .and this is a very difficult thing; I mean, through the years, we've dealt with a lot of people who are involved in acting, and they come up against this kind of thing, not just in that sense of taking the Lord's name in vain, but in playing roles where behavior is dishonoring to the Lord, and that is a very great challenge. It's very difficult for a committed Christian, who wants to honor God to find the kinds of parts where they actually are either neutral or honoring to God. That's a great challenge, but I don't think that because I'm playing a role, I have liberty to dishonor God, even through the person whose personality I'm only portraying. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Thanks.
QUESTIONER: Hello, I'm Andy. I have someone who's close to me who lives out of state, and he's a profession believer, but I fear his faith is a dead faith given the lack of fruits in his life, and he does not currently attend church, although I've encouraged him to go.
The last thing I want to do is point him to a church that might lead him to conclude falsely that he's delivered and he's really not. I was wondering if you could share some of your wisdom on this.
JOHN: Yes, I think it's very good, and this is a very pertinent question. He's saying, "I have a friend who thinks he's a Christian, but I don't think he is. I want to send him to a church, but I don't want to send him to a church so it'll reinforce him as a Christian when he isn't." That's not helpful.
You cannot make him a victim of any church, so what you have to do is you have to get him to understand the criteria. You can't make him depend on the church, and that's one of the reasons why when we preach series like the series on deliverance; we put it on tape. You could say to the guy, "Boy, I don't want to send you to the wrong place, so let me run around and try to find the right place." That's not really helping him. What you have to do is teach him the right criteria so he can make that judgment, so your responsibility is to find whatever material is necessary to bring him to a proper understanding of his condition and of the truth about salvation so that he is going to be able to make that judgment.
It's like your children. If all you ever do with your children is tell them what to avoid, you haven't prepared them for anything because when you're not there, they're not going to have the criteria to be able to make a choice that's right, so instead of telling your friend what to avoid or instead of protecting your friend from error, your friend needs to be taught the truth so that he then becomes the source of his own protection, okay?
And so take that series on deliverance and send it to him. All right? And make him take notes and write the notes down and send them back to you so you know he gets it.
QUESTIONER: Okay.
QUESTIONER: Good evening, John. My name is Mike.
JOHN: Hi, Mike.
QUESTIONER: In 2 Samuel, Chapter 24, Verses 1 and thereafter, about 5 or 6, it would almost seem as though God is prompting David to sin with respect to the taking of an inventory of his army and his troops, and, of course, in the footnote, in the NIV, it says that God did not create a cause for him to sin, which is true. Everybody has free will, but if it was to reveal his sinful nature; if. . .I'm assuming, if that be the case, would it not have come about regardless of whether God prompted him with the quote, where it says, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah," and yet that's clearly contrary. Because of pride, it almost seems as those He's prompting to do such, if I haven't muddied the water by that question.
JOHN: Well, no, and this is a question that has been asked and comes up very often. The bigger context, okay, has to be an understanding that God is "of purer eyes," Habakkuk 1, "than to behold evil, cannot look upon iniquity." Further, that God is Holy, Holy, Holy." Further, 1 James, "God tempts no man." Okay? And that's explicit, so the larger context is to understand that God doesn't tempt people.
Now, the answer to your question comes, and you're talking about 2 Samuel 24, "The anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel," and He moved David against him to say, "Go in number to Israel and Judah," but there is a comparative passage. Did you note 1 Chronicles 21 one; 1 Chronicles 21 one records the same account with these words:
"Now Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel." So in Samuel, you have the Lord aroused against Israel, and it appears as though He moves David, but in 1 Chronicles 21, the Holy Spirit has inspired the writer to tell us that it was only God who sovereignly permitted this to happen, but it was actually Satan who did the inciting. That is consistent with the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that God must allow sinful things because if he didn't allow them, none of them would happen, right, so God, for his own purposes, allows things.
In the little note that I wrote in the study Bible, 2 Samuel 24:1 reports that is was God who moved David. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by understanding that God sovereignly and permissively uses Satan to activate or achieve His purposes. God uses Satan, and I give a whole lot of different ways David's census brought tragedy, and that tragedy, in effect, was the judgment of God.
So God sovereignly comes to a point where he is prepared to judge Israel. He allows Satan to incite the action on the part of David that brings about that judgment, so I think you have to compare 1 Samuel 21 and the bigger picture that God does not tempt; that God does not incite people to do evil. That would be against His holy nature, but within the bigger picture, God allows Satan, as He did in the case of Job, to affect certain purposes, which, for His own glory, achieve his purposes. Okay? Good question. Yes?
QUESTIONER: My name is Angel Taylor, and I have a question. If everything happens in the will of God, then why do people say when you're doing something wrong, "Oh, that's not in the will of God. That's not the will for your life if everything is in God's will?"
JOHN: Okay, that's a good question, Angel. That's a great name, by the way, Angel.
QUESTIONER: Thank you.
JOHN: The answer to the question is that you have to distinguish between God's will in the sense of what He permits, and God's will, in the sense of what He desires, and God's will in the sense of what He loves or what is a reflection of His pure, holy will. In other words, let's go through those three. There is that big, large category of things that are the will of God, only in the sense that He permits them. We just talked about one, where God, for his own purposes, allows Satan to cause David to number Israel or God allows Satan to tempt Eve in the garden or God allows Satan to tempt Christ or God allows Satan to tempt us. There are calamities that are the result of sin and fallenness. There is even eternal hell. In the big scheme of things, God wills in the general sense that those things happen, but only in the sense of allowing them. He gives a certain latitude, a certain space, a certain freedom to mankind to function within his fallenness, and He wills that sinners have the liberty to express their sin and also wills that, in the end, they will be judged.
That is His broad will. Secondly, there is a narrower sense, in which God permits certain things that don't reflect his righteous nature, but they achieve his righteous purpose, and we just had an illustration of that. God allows or permits specifically Satan to cause a numbering in Israel that produces the need to judge or the occasion to judge which God had already planned to do.
So there are things in a narrower sense which, though they are sinful in themselves and do not express His righteous will; He uses for His own ends. For example, God allows believers to be persecuted. You could ask is it God's will that the church be persecuted? Is it God's will that Christians be martyred? Is it God's will that the apostles be killed? Is it God's will that Paul have his head cut off and Peter be crucified upside down? Is it God's will that missionaries be boiled in a pot and eaten by cannibals? Is it God's will that they be massacred, etc., etc.?
Well, in a sense, more than just the general sense that God tolerates evil, there is the secondary sense that God permits certain things, sinful things to happen to his people because they perfect their faith, because they strengthen the church, because they allow the believer to be stronger and more effective, and the great illustration of that, of course, is Peter in 22 Luke. Jesus says to Peter, "Satan desires to have you that he might sift you like wheat," and if you're Peter, you're going to say; well, you told him no, right? You told him he couldn't have me, and the Lord says, "No, I told him yes" because after he sifted you, you will be able to strengthen the brethren. In other words, there will be an impact in your life. You'll be stronger spiritually because of what you've suffered through this defection and this denial.
And I'm going to let Satan do this to you because I know the end result is going to be great strength, and it was in the case of Peter. The same is true of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12, where Paul has a thorn in the flesh, an angel from Satan, a demon, and this demon is tearing up the Corinthian church, and Paul says, "This is greatly disturbing," so three times you praise the Lord would remove that demon. The Lord would stop that disaster going on in the Corinthian church, and the Lord never does it because the Lord says, "It's in your weakness and it's in your humbling that you become strong."
So there is a category where God allows sinful things to happen to his people because there's a strengthening and there's a deepening, and there's an elevating of their spiritual capacities by that.
And then, thirdly, there is that will of God which is the perfect and precise reflection of His holy character, and that is always righteous and holy and good, so it is too general to say everything is God's will if you mean by that, everything is a direct expression of His holy nature. It isn't, and there are many things that He allows in the broad sense of allowing sinners to sin. There are some things that he allows in the life of a believer that, in themselves, are sinful, but produce righteous ends, and then there is that specific expression of his will, which, in fact, is righteousness itself, and when the Bible talks about doing the will of God from the heart to believers, what it means is he wants you to behave in a manner that is consistent with his own righteous nature. That is, He wants you to do what is holy and righteous. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Okay, thank you.
JOHN: Good question, Angel.
QUESTIONER: Hi, John. My name's Jim. Can you talk a little bit about Arminian theology? Is it biblical, and if a church embraces that theology, are they saved?
JOHN: Yes, are you talking about Arminian theology? We always want to make the distinction between Armenians and Arminians. Arminians, or people that are Arminian, is a theology from Arminius. Let me just say this. This debate comes up all the time, and I like to answer the thing by saying I really don't land necessarily labels very comfortably, and you can be called a Calvinist or a hyper-Calvinist or a four-point Calvinist or I've been called a four-and-a-half-point Calvinist.
One guy called me a one-point Calvinist. I don't know how he came up with that, and people can be labeled Armenian. I think it's. . .I understand what they mean by that, but I personally try to resist those labels because those labels are alerted with different content for different people, and people love to slap a label on you, and then everybody defines that label in a different way.
So I really run from those labels. At the same time, to put it simply, the debate of Calvinism and Armenian falls along five simple lines that we all know about called TULIP, total depravity, unlimited, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints; TULIP, T-U-L-I-P. John Calvin rightly interpreted the Bible to teach that man is totally depraved. What that means is not that every human being is as sinful as he could be or she could be, but that every human being is sinful to the point that they're incapable of altering their condition. That is to say total depravity means you can't do anything to save yourself. You can't even make a right choice. You can't awaken your spiritual deadness. You can't give life where there is life. You can't come to a right conclusion on your own.
Total depravity means that everyone is, by virtue of their own will and their own power and their own choices, incapable of redemption. That's total depravity. Arminius would say Arminian theology, Palagian theology, as it's also called, would say man is capable; that while man is, in the general sense, a sinner, he has capacities within himself to choose to be saved. That is the debate.
I don't think that's Biblical. I think we are dead in trespasses and sin, and dead people don't make choices. Dead people can't make themselves alive, so I think there is a clear distinction there.
In the case of unconditional election, you have the view in the Scripture that people who are saved are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition, whereas, typically, the person who holds Arminian theology would say that we are saved by acts of our own will. We have still the power to save, to believe on our own, and; therefore, when we choose to believe, we become elect. It isn't something that God determined in eternity past. It's something that occurs sort of de facto or ipso facto, after the fact. And then you have limited atonement in the typical reformed view; means that the atonement, in its actual work, the actual efficacy of the atonement, was only for the elect. That is, it's limited to those who believe and were chosen by God, whereas the Arminian side of it would say that everybody's sins have been paid for all across the world, whether people believe it or not, so that, in the end, Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of people who don't believe. That's a problem because if your sins are paid for already by Jesus and you go to hell, then that's double jeopardy. And then you have irresistible grace, which is the idea that when the spirit of God works on the heart of a sinner, the sinner can't resist. Arminian theology would say the sinner can resist, and perseverance of the saints, the last in the five points, is the idea that if you're saved, you're going to persevere to glory. Arminian theology says you might not. You could lose your salvation along the way.
So they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, "Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?" And I would hate to say they couldn't be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian, to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God's saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation.
But at the same time, while being confused or ignorant about those things, to know that you're a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you're actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith, and you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it's all a work of God.
But I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view or anyone who holds an Arminian view is by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don't understand rightly those things, but who know they're sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don't understand how what they're doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and, consequently, can't give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved by hoping in Christ and Christ alone.
QUESTIONER: Even if they are teachers of churches who teach that, why wouldn't they understand if they're so scholars, as well they say?
JOHN: Well, they don't understand. There are a number of reasons why people get it wrong. One is they are in a tradition where people have had it wrong for a long time, and so they just. . .that's the way they grew up; that's the tradition they're in, and that's what they understand. In other words, there is a predigested, passed-down system. Let me tell you, Arminian people can make an argument. They can make the case. They've been making the case for centuries for their viewpoint.
I remember one of the exercises that I had to do when I was a seminary student. In fact, I did it on my own. I don't think it was an assignment, but I did it. It was to read Shank's book on Life in the Son, which is, I think, the best concise argument for the Arminian position, and it is a very carefully thought-out, systematic argument. I also studied the theology of Arminians, Wiley and Miley; systematic theologies written by these men, and they can systematize their viewpoint, and once that viewpoint is systematized at some point in history and passed down and passed down and refined and refined and refined, they have a scholastic system.
I mean, essentially, Roman Catholicism is Arminian, and it's a pretty sophisticated system that can rise to pretty high levels of scholasticism, so it isn't that they're not scholars. It's that they tend to be in a mold or in a rut, I guess you could say, that traditionally gets passed down.
I also think a second reason why people get it wrong, and this is true for anything, is because they don't do the really hard work of studying the Word of God, and you have to drop your presuppositions at some point.
Now, one of the benefits that I had is I was. . .I grew up in an environment where my dad was the preacher, and it was basically a Baptist kind of environment, and what I learned growing up was sort of a middle ground, but in my upbringing, we didn't like the Calvinists, and we didn't like the Arminians. We sort of had that Baptist middle ground, and that's probably what a lot of you. . .you grew up in the same kind of environment. You didn't talk about predestination or election. That was kind of a frightening thing, and that was for dead Presbyterians, and there were only about 30 of them in the whole city of Los Angeles at the time, and they were over in a room somewhere, contemplating their naval and reading John Calvin. It was kind of introspective, and they were thrilled with their theology, but they were a small little group, and we weren't into that.
I went away to college, and, essentially, I went to two colleges, the roots of which were both Methodist, so they were steeped in Arminian theology. One was sort of a revivalist environment, and the other was a more traditional Wesleyan environment, where we read Wiley and Miley and all of that, and we had to imbibe all of this Arminian theology.
I got out of that. I went to a seminary that had Presbyterian influences, and so I went from Arminian kind of side to the reformed side, and there I was in the middle of this mix, and I just decided I'd go to the Bible and find out what the Bible said, and I think, in a sense, all of that experience sort of canceled each other out, which was good for me, and I went back to the Word of God, and in the Word of God, without all the presuppositions cast in stone, I was able to let the Bible speak, and through the years, the Bible, I believe, speaks very clearly about what the truth is.
But I think if people could divest themselves of their presuppositions and if they could be willing to eat a little humble pie and say, "It's possible that I might be wrong," and take another hard look at the Word of God, they would come to the right answers. It's a very simple point to make, and it is this. If two people take two opposing views of something, they cannot both be right. Somebody is wrong, and it's not us, right? Thank you; both of you, for that hearty applause. Well, I mean, I don't say that in a proud way. I just believe that we are where we are because we believe this is true. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Good evening, Pastor John. My name is Wayne Gibbs, and I have a question about worshiping and fellowshipping with a so-called or professing believer, but who is in sin, a hardened sin of a grievous nature. You come alongside them to confront them, and there is no repentance. They go to another church, and that church does not practice Matthew 18, and so you have a situation where the four steps of Matthew 18 are not applied by their church. They want to go to conferences with you, perhaps pray with you, have fellowship with you, and yet you're reluctant to do that because of their lack of repentance.
JOHN: Well, and I think you should be reluctant to do that. I think. . .I think that's the whole point of putting someone out of the church's fellowship. I don't think that means you can't come in the building. I mean, I think it means you're disconnected from the people who are the church, and I think that that's exactly the intent of Scripture, when we are instructed that we have to separate from these people in the fullest sense.
We. . .I think anybody who walks disorderly. . .I was just looking at the end of 2 Thessalonians. . ."who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which you receive from us, for you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you. We didn't eat anyone's bread free of charge, work with labor" and so forth and so forth and so forth.
If anyone doesn't work, then he shouldn't eat, and if there's somebody walking disorderly, not working at all; they're busy bodies, and He says these are the people who affect the fellowship, and He says in Verse 14, "If anybody doesn't obey this word in our epistle". . .note the person. . ."do not keep company with him." That's Verse 14.
Why? That he may be ashamed. In other words, you want to heap the real shame on him that he deserves. You don't count him as an enemy. Don't consider him an enemy, but admonish him as a brother, and how would you admonish a brother? Get it together, confess, repent. It's your life right, but do not keep company. That's as explicit as it can be.
QUESTIONER: Even without the application of the four steps of Matthew 18?
JOHN: Oh, sure. Yeah, because that's going to be very difficult. I mean, how many churches are doing that? I mean, where is that going on? QUESTIONER: Right.
JOHN: I think regardless of that. . .and there are those sort of free-willing Christians that don't ever attach to any church. I always worry about people like that. Even people who come here; when I see people's attendance at the church becomes sporadic or fragmented and inconsistent, I only make one conclusion: Sin. Sin, because that's what keeps people away. They don't want the exposure; they don't want the accountability; they don't want to sit under the conviction of the teaching of the Word of God; they don't want to have to answer to the people. In fact, it kind of works this way. You take it if it applies and if it doesn't. You watch some people in the front of the church; then a little later, during the middle of the church, and finally, they're in the back of the church.
Now, when that. . .there are others who are in the back and are moving toward the front, but what that tells me is people in the front; they're here because they love to be here, and they're here all the time. As soon as they don't want to be here all the time, they don't sit in the front anymore or people know they're not here all the time, all right? They start in the back because people don't know if they're here or not, and when you start to see people follow that kind of pattern, you know that there's an increasing difference for church and the things of the Lord, but there are just people who just. . .and you never are able, sometimes, to deal with that because they sort of move away, so when you know about it, whether the church has acted on it or not, whether you have had anything official or not; I mean, if you know about that, then I think you have to follow that instruction. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Thank you.
QUESTIONER: Hi, John. My name is Mark, and my question essentially arises from your presentation of Like, Chapter 4 this morning, and as I drove home, I thought about this quite a bit, and then I got home, thought about it some more, and I'm still thinking about it. So the question in synopsis, in the line of reasoning goes, essentially, something like this. If Christ, as you presented him this morning, heals by one of two ways in His early ministry; it's either by direct touch and divine intervention, where people are coming to Him in, essentially, a petitionatory manner and making requests of Him. He is either making a touch or someone else is making a direct petition to Him, person to person, and then He is, by word, healing some distance from where He is standing.
Knowing that Christ is completely raised from the dead; he lives forever and lives on our behalf now and has ascended to the right hand of the Father, what then, if anything, keeps Him from, either by the petition of the individual who is directly afflicted or one on his behalf, through the petition of prayer, keeps Him from essentially doing the same thing, where He supernaturally, directly and completely, even though He is not physically present?
JOHN: Yeah, that's a very good question, and I made somewhat of a reference to that this morning in the first hour, but not in the second. My wife pointed out to me that that would have been helpful if I'd have said something about it, so I'm glad you asked the question. I may comment on that next week. There are a number of ways that I need to approach the question in order to give you a full answer. The first one is this. No one is saying that Christ cannot heal. I was talking about the gift of healing, which He exercised on earth, but for the purpose of demonstrating his Messiahship and revealing Himself to be the One who had power over the physical world, which the Messiah must have if he's going to grant to us a glorified body.
So I'm not saying He couldn't heal, but the gift of healing, which Jesus demonstrated, was unique to Him, the 70, and the apostles, and even diminishes with the apostles, as I commented on this morning. Paul met Trophimus when he was sick and left him sick, so even in Paul's case, the power to heal had diminished as his ministry went on. So I was talking about the gift of healing; that is, somebody here has the power to heal. Jesus had it, and He gave it to those who were around him who were His representatives in order to affirm that the gospel that He was bringing and they were preaching was, in fact, from God. The gift of healing was the specific issue to deal with in the life of Jesus.
The question of whether Jesus can still or does still heal is a different question, and the answer to the question is He can do whatever He wants, but mark this, and this is very important to notice. There is no healing ministry that Jesus can do now that can prove that He is the Messiah because there is no way that even if He does heal somebody; that it is necessary to connect that with Him. He's not here.
You can say to someone, "You know, I had cancer and I prayed, and I don't have it anymore." That's your belief, but that doesn't say anything to the public at large. That doesn't say anything to people about the power of Jesus Christ because there is no natural connection between what happened to you and Jesus. He's not there. He isn't speaking, and He's not touching, and He's not visible.
So the purpose of Jesus' miracles was clearly demonstrated. It was His voice, and it was His touch connected to that healing, and it was not arguable because there were vast crowds, in most cases, who saw the touch and heard the voice, and Jesus was making that necessary link that was really not arguable. Today, somebody says they were healed. Somebody might say, "Well, your view is that God did it. My view is you were lucky."
A Christian scientist could say they were healed, and they do, without medicine, and a Mormon could say God healed them, and it might have been certain physiological things that were going on. Somebody could say they were healed by Allah. Somebody could say they were healed by praying to Buddha. Somebody could say that the witch doctor them or the Shaman healed them or whatever it is, and you might say, "Well, that's your belief,"
and somebody comes along and says, "I had an illness and God healed me."
We, as believers, might affirm that, but that does nothing to demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ, which was the purpose of those miracles. It does nothing to unarguably enforce the authority of Scripture because there's no immediate connection. Do you see what I'm saying? So it can't achieve that purpose, so we set that whole thing aside.
Then we come back to the issue of, "Does the Lord heal believers who pray for healing?" And the answer to the question is He can do whatever he wants to do. That is not; however, a major emphasis in Scripture. In fact, if you go through the New Testament and try to find a verse that says, "Pray for people to be healed," you won't find one. It's not explicitly part of what we do as believers. Paul prayed for the deliverance of the thorn in the flesh. Didn't get it. In James, we have a situation where "if any is sick among you," which I think has to do with being spiritually wounded, spiritually weak, but even if we grant that it's some kind of sickness, it says, "Go to the elders of the church and let them pray over you and confess your sins."
So, in that case, if we take it as a healing, it would be a healing connected to some chastening for sin. The elders of the church pray on behalf of the person; the person confesses the sin, and when the sin is dealt with, then the reason for the chastening can be set aside, but apart from the passage in James, there is no command for us or demand of us to go to God and ask for physical healings.
Can we do it? Of course, we can do it. We can cast all our care on Him in the general sense. That's part of our care. We can go before the Lord and say, "Can you glorify yourself in a physical healing or a recovery? Put your glory on display, and the Lord may choose to do that. There are times when people are restored, and when they become well when they've been ill, and the doctors can't give a natural explanation to that, but there is no guarantee, and there is no. . .let's put it this way. It is not the normal thing.
I, personally, have never seen a quadriplegic walk out of a wheelchair or a paraplegic move limbs that weren't moved. I've never seen someone completely blind who could see as a result of prayer or completely deaf who could hear as a result of prayer. I'm not saying God can't do that. The idea that I was trying to point out this morning is that miracles are very, very rare, extremely rare, not at all to be considered as normal-course events, so I do believe that we can go to the Lord and say, "Lord, you know, I'm praying for my dear friend who's ill." The Lord may, through medicine; He may through his own power, working through the healing of that body for His own purposes, bring about restoration. You remember that Paul, when Epaphroditus was sick, he said, "Epaphroditus was near to death," but he said, "The Lord delivered him;" remember that? And the Lord spared Paul the pain that his death would have brought on Paul and, as well, allowed him further usefulness.
So I do think that, for God's purposes, providentially, not in some massive kind of flow of miracles that are all around us, but, at times, providentially, God can spare the life of a believer through medicine, through the restorative power of the body, even through His own supernatural intervention, and we have every right and every reason to ask God to do that because those are the kinds of cares that we can cast on him.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. I just know it seemed to me this morning that you were making the presentation to deal with a certain heretical, doctrinal line of thinking rather than just extrapolating from what was in the text, and I asked this question, essentially, from an ulterior motive because my girlfriend is an MD, specializing. . .she's a director of a major trauma unit here in Los Angeles.
And she tells me about times, where there are people that come in; they go through the whole ultrasound process. She does a very, very through examination before they send them off to surgery, and she says sometimes that they go back and they do a second one, and when they've shown physical symptoms of a particular disease, and she says later on, one, two days later, maybe, there will be no signs, and so she questions me about that, saying, "What essentially has happened to her?" And I essentially give her the reasoning that one of these three things has occurred. Either, 1.) You made mistake. She doesn't like that one. Point No. 2: The person never really had it, and you essentially diagnosed something else that was correctable or whatnot, and the third one, actually, is that God did a providential action that was essentially non-dependent upon the theology or the relationship that that person has to Christ in eternity, and it's completely separate. Would you agree with that?
JOHN: Well, I think that's reasonable. The other thing would be that the typical thing of the amazing recuperative powers of the body. I think the diagnosis issue is really big. I think; you know, the medical science is very advanced, but doing the right diagnosis; I mean, you can miss the diagnosis, and then when you look for what you thought was there, it's not there. I think all of those are very right, and there's just a little sidelight on this.
I've been doing some work on a book on. . .I'm going to do a book on the origins and the beginnings and all. . .we've talked about that, and recently, I have been digging into things that are way beyond my mental capability, but I've been studying a little bit about what's called "zero-based energy." Zero-based energy is so. . .it's so beyond comprehension. Let me see if I can define it in a simple way. If you can create a vacuum, a perfect vacuum. . .now, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of everything but space, okay? You have space with nothing in it. In other words, that would be a vacuum. There's nothing there. There's no. . .There's nothing there but empty space. There are no nothing there, no molecules, nothing; I mean, it's hard to conceive of that. There's no air there; there's no hydrogen; there's no oxygen; there's no chemicals; there's no nothing; it's just empty space, a vacuum.
They have been able to do this experimentally, and what is absolutely mind-boggling to me is that when they create a complete and perfect vacuum and they study that vacuum, let's say of a molecule, what they see in there are oscillating waves of energy, but there's nothing there. What is this? Well, the power is so great, and I don't have this right. I'll get this down exactly when I get the book done. I'm still working through the material, but it's something like they calculate that the amount of energy, the amount of what they call "zero-based energy" in one molecule would be enough to keep the stars of the universe lit for some number of millions of years. That's in one molecule. That's the kind of energy that exists in the universe.
Now, understanding that and understanding when the Bible says, "Almighty God" and the "power of God;" that that just blows our mind, just add up every molecule in the universe and imagine what His power is like. For him to do a little tweaking on your anatomy is not a major problem, so this is where Einstein; you know, at the end of his life, died in total disappointment because he got all the way down to that, and he couldn't define it because it doesn't have a chemical definition, and it is God who upholds all things by the word of His power.
So I only say that to point out the fact. . .look, there is energy the likes of which we cannot even comprehend, and if God chooses to activate, at any point, that massive energy in the recuperative process of the body, who's to say He can't do that? But again, I say, no matter what's going on in the trauma ward, I doubt whether people who had their legs chopped off are getting new ones, and I doubt whether quadriplegics, whatever is going on diagnostically or recuperatively, who have their spinal cord cut, are getting up and walking out. I really doubt that. I doubt whether people who have lost their eyes can see and so forth and so on. These kinds of things, the Lord does, but this is not an age of those kinds of dramatic miracles that were protected and preserved for that unique explosion that demonstrated the arrival of the Messiah. Okay? All right.
QUESTIONER: Hello. My name is Brent, and I've been involved in a couple of Bible studies, where women have ended up sharing throughout the time, so I did some studies on it, and I was reading the MacArthur 1 Corinthians commentary, and I came to a sentence that I wanted you to clarify for me.
JOHN: Or defend, right?
QUESTIONER: It says, "There are times in informal meetings and Bible studies where it is entirely proper for men and women to share equally in exchanging questions and insights."
JOHN: Well, I think that's exactly right. If you'll read in the Book of Acts; I mean, it's in the. . .I mean, I would hate to have a Bible study with my wife and her never say anything, you know? She has so much to bring to the discussion. I think the key New Testament illustration is the illustration of Aquila and Priscilla in the Book of Acts. There was a man named Apollos, and Apollos was a great preacher of the Old Testament, but Apollos was uninformed about Christ. He was informed about; well, it says in 18:24 he was a "certain Jew named Apollos, born in Alexandria;" eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures. "He came to Ephesus. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught accurately the things of God, though he knew only the baptism of John." His whole theology ended with John the Baptist. He didn't get to the Messiah. He spoke boldly in the synagogue. When "Aquila. . .that's Mr.. . . and Priscilla. . .that's Mrs.. . .heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."
Here is a husband and wife taking home not just any yahoo off the street. This is a great, eloquent, Old Testament theologian and preacher, and they sit him down, no doubt, over bagels or whatever. No, these are Greeks. They sit him down over whatever Greeks ate; baklava, is that what it is? And they explained to him the truth.
So I think that's entirely right, and that's what should happen in a Bible study, and it should happen in times of fellowship with men and women. There is no male nor female in the body of Christ. We're only talking about the limitation that's imposed upon the church in its due course of worship, where women are not to take authority and they are not to preach and teach. That's explicitly taught in 1 Timothy 2, and it's reinforced in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, but as far as the Spirit of God working in the heart of women, and as far as the spirit of God teaching them and instructing them and guiding them in the grasp of Scripture and through the work in their lives and them making a contribution to Christian fellowship and mutual study of the Word of God, I think that is absolutely essential to the growth of the body of Christ.
QUESTIONER: And when would be a church circumstance?
JOHN: Well, I think when the church comes together. . .you have 1 Timothy. . .this is, of course, in 1 Timothy 2. 1 Timothy is designed. . .the third Chapter gives the purpose of the book; to teach people how they ought to behave in the church, so when you come into the worship of the church and it's leading the church, to take leadership in the church and preaching and teaching; that's reserved for men because that's reserved for elders, and the elders are men, clearly by qualification 1 Timothy 3, Titus, Chapter 1. Anything outside that official service of the church is merely a matter of Christian fellowship and sharing in the Scriptures. There is no limitation on the participation of women.
QUESTIONER: So if there aren't elders, then it's okay?
JOHN: Well, even if there are, it's okay. I mean, everywhere I go, there's an elder present, but if I want to have a Bible study, I want women to participate. I want them to share the things that they're learning, give testimony to the work of Christ in their life, testimony to their understanding of Scripture. I don't think there's any restriction on the informal, normal fellowship in the life of the body of Christ. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Thank you.
JOHN: Good.
QUESTIONER: Hello, John. My name is Victor Sholar. I met you earlier today from. . .
JOHN: Welcome. Victor is just arriving from Missouri?
QUESTIONER: Yes.
JOHN: And Victor has arrived with his wife, Athena, and they have come to go to seminary, and Victor was telling me this morning he'd been praying about that for quite a while, and finally, the Lord opened the door. He was working for the Governor of Missouri, who was killed in the plane crash recently, and working for a governor is a wonderful thing, but preaching is a higher calling, right?
QUESTIONER: That's right.
JOHN: So we're. . .and, by the way, he was telling me that one of the men who was also killed in the plane was a believer that you knew. Well, we're glad you're here. Go ahead, Victor; I'm sorry.
QUESTIONER: Okay, well, thanks. . .
JOHN: Just want to get to know who you are.
QUESTIONER: Well, I told you I wanted some friends.
JOHN: Well, you got them now.
QUESTIONER: Okay.
JOHN: Where's your wife? Where's your wife?
QUESTIONER: Right there.
JOHN: Stand up. Stand up so everybody can see you. Now, they said they hadn't met anybody, so now, you got a whole church full of friends.
QUESTIONER: Praise the Lord. I've been studying the topic of the Atonement, and Romans 5:10; it's profound, but it's kind of. . .it's messing with me. I can't get it. It says, "If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life," and John Murray led me to a book, John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. My question is this. In what way can the elect be viewed as reconciled to God on the historic day of Christ's death, apart from the experience of the elect? Are there two aspects of redemption, objective and subjective? JOHN: Well, let me answer the question by saying there is obviously the overwhelming supernatural reality in redemption that we will never grasp. In other words, if you're asking me in what sense was I there when Jesus died; I mean, I can only take you so far. I can only say that Jesus Christ died on the cross, and I would put it this way, "and paid in full the penalty for my sins." In that sense, I was there. I don't think I was there mystically. I don't think I was there in some pre-birth spirit being. I just. . .what was there were my sins, and really, essentially, that was all there was of me. So I believe that an actual reconciliation was purchased for me, then, historically, that day in the Council of Almighty God, when my sins were punished in Christ; it could not be delivered, though it was purchased; it couldn't be delivered to me until I was born, believed, was redeemed, okay?
That is a very important verse. There's another element there that Paul is pointing out. If/when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son; the verbs there, the language there would seem to indicate that the actual realization of that reconciliation occurred when we stopped being enemies, so it didn't occur before we were born. The actual application and realization of reconciliation occurred when we stopped being enemies.
So at the point of faith, that's when reconciliation takes place, and the great point of the verse is that if God could reconcile us or if God could reconcile us through His Son through death, how much more, having already been reconciled in that we're no longer enemies, but friends by His death; we shall be being saved by his life, and what He's saying there is if Jesus, dead, reconciled us to God, Jesus now living and interceding can keep us. That's the point.
But I think the actuality of our reconciliation was accomplished historically on the cross when, specifically, our sins were paid for. The elect who would believe the application of that occurred when we stopped being enemies; when we were awakened and given grace and faith to become Children of God.
QUESTIONER: So is the language of Paul pretty much speaking from an aspect of like in the mind of the Father and the Son on that historic day?
JOHN: Well, I think no. I think He's speaking from our viewpoint.
QUESTIONER: Okay.
JOHN: We were reconciled when we stopped being enemies. That's when. . .that reconciliation had meaning to us, okay?
QUESTIONER: Okay, thank you.
JOHN: I think this is the beginning of many discussions with you. Your professors are going to have a great time. It's wonderful.
QUESTIONER: Thank you very much.
QUESTIONER: My name is Corinna Karabetta, and in Matthew 12:39 and 40, the Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, and he says, "No sign will be given to it except that of Jonah, the Prophet, as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." I was wondering what that meant and how it relates to Jonah; how Jesus is relating himself to Jonah.
JOHN: Well, first of all, those guys had had plenty of signs up to them. Really, their unbelief was inexcusable, and Jesus, essentially, is saying, "You're not going to get any more signs, but one more sign, and the one more sign you're going to get is the sign of a resurrection, and they hadn't believed any of the other signs. Is that Matthew 14?
QUESTIONER: Twelve.
JOHN: Matthew 12, yeah; it's in the 12th Chapter. I thought you said 14. I thought it was 12. In 12, He says, "You have taken everything I've done and attributed it to Satan," right? "And that's all; I mean, you're not going to get anything else. Everything I've done, you've attributed to Satan. You're beyond the point of forgiveness, so all that's left now is going to be one more great sign, and that's the sign of resurrection." And I think He just uses this story of Jonah as an analogy, as a picture. They all knew that story. They all knew that. Jonah's story was very well known, as it is to all of us, and He is simply saying in the same manner that Jonah was dead, as it were, and came back to life. The Son of Man is going to be dead and come back to life. QUESTIONER: You're saying Jonah was physically dead when he was in the whale?
JOHN: Well, if he was dead, he couldn't have had a prayer, and he was praying there, but I'm saying. . .I'm not saying Jonah had a resurrection. I suppose it is possible that he had a resurrection. I think they only point is he is saying just as Jonah was in the grave, and for all intents and purposes, was dead, and three days later, came out; I think the analogy here is that he went into a death experience and came out of it in three days.
So the Son of Man is going to go into a death experience and come out of it. You could even argue that while Jesus' body was dead, certainly, his spirit was not dead, but I think the whole point is to take something that they know very well, and from that very common story, which they all knew, draw an analogy that he's going to go into the grave, into a death experience, and he's going to come out alive in, essentially, the same period of time, the three-day period. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Thanks.
JOHN: Okay. All right. Who's next?
QUESTIONER: My name is Evvie, and my question is going to be a lot easier to answer than some of these.
JOHN: Good.
QUESTIONER: When the children of Israel were in the desert complaining about the Mana and begging for meat, as I understand it, they had been eating meat since the flood. Why did they not eat? They had their flocks and herds there with them that they came out with. Why did they not eat that meat?
JOHN: Well, I guess the question to ask is how long and how much they would have had? It becomes apparent that they need food, and they don't have any, so I guess the only answer to the question would be whatever flocks they may have gotten out of there. . .now, remember, you've got 2 million people, or up to 2 million people would either have been diminished by that point, unable to reproduce, not being able to find food. That would be a very tough place to find food in the wilderness of the desert.
So the assumption would have to be that at whatever point they reached. . .they needed food and they needed meat. They didn't have any. I guess that would be the only way to answer the question.
QUESTIONER: So they had already used up the meat.
JOHN: Well, yeah, whatever they had was long gone, obviously, and would have perhaps been long gone very early because they had no other resource; I mean, when you're traveling like that and you have nothing. You have no crops; you're not planting; you're migrating. Whenever it was there, it was eaten fairly rapidly, and then the Lord began to forgive them, as we would remember Mana, the supply for them, and they wanted meat, and so the Lord provided that for them. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Thanks.
JOHN: All right. We'll take a couple more. I think our time is gone. We have two ladies, and we'll have to catch the rest of you next time. Sorry. QUESTIONER: Hi. My name is Gloria, and my question is this. My family and I just watched a video, Left Behind. At the end of the video, the main character let the audience know that in the beginning of February, the video will be released in the theaters. What is your opinion of Hollywood making a film like this, and would you support it, or in the church, by sending out flyers and announcing it, sending people to the movie theater to see it or just buying the video and having people in your house?
JOHN: Well, I think the answer to that is I'd have to see it to know whether I felt it was something I want to support, but it's now available in a video? I need to get that video and look at it. Many years ago, there was another video that was done on the Rapture. I forget the name of it.
QUESTIONER: Thief in the Night?
JOHN:Thief in the Night, yeah, and that had quite an impact on people who watched that video. I have not. . .I confess. I have not read any of those books, but I know the Gospel is in those books, and I know people have enjoyed reading those. I really don't know how to evaluate the video. I get a little nervous, to tell you the truth, when fiction gets mixed with Scripture because I don't. . .it comes with interest, and it comes with emotion, but it lacks authority. The Scripture carries such tremendous authority, and as soon as you dilute it in a fictional environment, then it only becomes a matter of interest or emotional, sort of emotional stimulation, and it loses something of its authority, but before I could even answer that, I would have to watch it. If you felt that it was good and that it brought to attention, the reality of the future and the coming of Christ and it could stimulate conversation that could take you to the Scripture, I would say invite people in to look at it; I mean, make your own evaluation if you think it was well done. I've never heard complaints about any of the books being shy on the Gospel or not emphasizing appropriately the return of Jesus Christ. I just don't know how it would be dramatized in the film, and again, I get a little bit nervous when fiction is mixed with Scripture because I'm such a purist about the Scripture. I don't. . .I just think some authority is lost when you do that, but again, if. . .I will look at it, and I'm quite sure, like the books, that it could bring people to a reasonable fear about the future and give you an opportunity to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a clear biblical presentation of what's going to happen, so it might be a very good thing to use. You probably have an opinion on it, and if it's good, go ahead and use it.
QUESTIONER: Well, I didn't know if you felt that it was something that was beneficial to other people. Would the church be able to put flyers up and that?
JOHN: Yeah, if we thought it was something beneficial, sure; we might even. . .we don't carry a lot of videos here, but it might be something that if everybody feels as good, we would certainly want to promote.
QUESTIONER: Okay, thank you.
JOHN: I'm not sure. We have a number of videos in the library. Sometimes, you can check them out. I'm sure something like this could end up in the library, a number of them there for families to check out if you'd like to use them. Yes?
QUESTIONER: How many verses out of the Bible have you memorized?
JOHN: Well, not enough, not enough.
QUESTIONER: Okay, that's not the serious question. JOHN: You know, honestly, I used to when I was younger, memorize Bible verses, and then, unfortunately, I memorized them all in the King James, and then there came the New American Standard; then there came the NIV; then there came the new, New American Standard; then there came the new King James, and we were all kind of befuddled about what to memorize.
I don't consciously memorize verses anymore, but I remember them because of the intensity of my study of them, you know what I mean? And by the time I preach a passage, just because I've worked it over for so many hours, I pretty much have it in memory, and while I can't necessarily verbatim recite the verses, I pretty well know where they are and, generally, try to remember what they say. I admit to having a number of senior moments, however, when I can't. . .okay, anyway, what's your question?
QUESTIONER: Okay. When Jesus said, "You have heard eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, but I say to you when somebody smacks you, turn the other cheek." I recently told a friend, "Hey, you know, if you say that the Bible contradicts itself, show me one and I'll renounce my faith," and I was thinking about that, and I wanted you to explain to me how that's not a contradiction.
JOHN: How would you see it as a contradiction?
QUESTIONER: Well, because it's a change, like if you're going to be even with somebody by doing what they did to you, like that's them, and that's different from when somebody smacks you; you turn the other cheek because you're doing the opposite.
JOHN: Let me answer that question this way as a bigger context to a bigger question. The Bible forbids personal vengeance. It forbids, in the Old Testament, "Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth; a life for a life" as an act of personal vengeance. It establishes that; however, as an act of national law so that an eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth, life for a life was prescribed as a part of social justice, right? In other words, if you take somebody's eye, then you lose the compensating eye or a compensating value. If you take somebody's sheep, you lose a compensating value. If you take someone's life, you lose your life, capital punishment, but that was never personal vengeance, and what had happened by the time you get to the life of Jesus; they have taken this social law, which is a matter of social justice, due process in the court before the judge, and they had turned it into personal vengeance.
And Jesus was saying, "You think that you can just reap personal vengeance on anybody who offends you, but I'm telling you on the personal level, when somebody offends you, you show them love in return." That's how you deal with it personally. There are courts for vengeance and even a God, who says, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." But the law of LexTalionas, the law of retaliation, was never instituted by God to be applied on a personal basis. Okay?
QUESTIONER: Okay.
JOHN: Good. Well, boy, let's stand. Went a little over. Good questions, though, huh? Maybe we'll do this again for those of you folks who didn't get your question answered tonight. I would just encourage you, if you have questions like this, write them down and send them to us through the mail; you know, like grace, to you; we get these by the bag load every day at the radio ministry, and through the years, we've written volumes and volumes and volumes of answers, and many of them that I've written through the years and others have written are in the computer, and we have lots of answers. If you have these kinds of questions, don't hesitate to fire them off to my office and we'll be glad to get back to you with an answer so that you don't need to struggle with these things, and I would really encourage you if you don't have a MacArthur Study Bible; you know, I'm almost useless up here because the Study Bible has so many notes. Tonight; however, we've dealt with a lot of things that aren't in the notes, but you'll find in the 20,000 or 25,000 footnotes. . .we've never figured out how many quite yet. . .many of the answers to these questions, but this is really important to do. It really helps me to know what you're thinking, and, frankly, it's extremely encouraging to me because the questions indicate the depth of your study of Scripture, and that's wonderfully encouraging. Thank you for loving the Word and loving to delve into it. This is. . .it's a joy for me, and I hope our times like this are helpful to you. Let's have a closing prayer.
"Father, thanks again for tonight. Thank you for Your Word. The inference of Your Word does give light. The Word gives us the answers to the questions that come up, and it's so refreshing to know in a world of confusion and deception, there is truth, and that truth is readily available on the pages of Your precious Word. Thank you, too, for other pastors and teachers and those who have preached and written and provided all the tools that we need to search the Scriptures. Thank you for the illumination of Your Holy Spirit in the lives of so many who've left us a legacy of understanding, and may we lean on that illumination, as well as on the work of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts as we open the Word, and may we come to understand its rich truths; that we might better love You, better know You and serve You, proclaim Your truth. We pray in Christ's name, Amen.
ANNOUNCER: You've been listening to Pastor, Bible Teacher and Author, John MacArthur, and we trust that you've been encouraged. John is featured speaker on Grace to You, a daily half-hour teaching program, available on Christian Radio, streamed audio and Podcast. For more information about the ministry of Grace to You or a catalog of all of John's print and audio resources, this is
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
BCS Bits – How are teams selected for BCS games? (October 7, 2009)With BCS Selection Sunday (December 6) two months away, this week's Bits topic is "How are the teams chosen for BCS games?"
The answer really is quite simple: some earn automatic berths, others are selected by the bowls. Basically there are four ways to qualify:
1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings qualify automatically.
2. The champions of six conferences have annual automatic berths.
3. Other teams can qualify automatically as follows:
A. The highest-ranked champion from the MAC, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt or C-USA qualifies if it finishes in the top 12; (or top 16 if ranked higher than the champion of a conference that has an automatic berth)
B. Notre Dame qualifies if it finishes in the top eight.
4. If spots remain after the above teams are slotted, a bowl can select any other team that finishes in the top 14, but no more than two teams from a conference can participate.
That's the Cliff's Notes version. But it's always useful to understand the entire novel, and so the full selection procedures are here . As you will see, they include a handful of steps to address other scenarios.
The ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC earned their automatic qualification by virtue of contracts with the host bowls and by meeting performance standards. As agreed by all 11 conferences, the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons were evaluated using three criteria: rank of the highest-ranked team, rank of all conference teams and number of teams in the top 25. Those six met the standard.
The 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons will be evaluated to determine if a seventh conference achieves automatic qualification for the BCS games that will conclude the 2012 and 2013 seasons.


text:
Site Navigation
Visit Pine Tree Orthopedic Lab on Facebook
... more info
We are a full service Pedorthic Lab that offers a variety of custom and non custom products to health care providers across the country. All products are manufactured at our facility in Livermore Falls, Maine. This allows us to maintain the strict quality control standards that we have built our business on. Furthermore, by not outsourcing any fabrication, we are able to maintain fast turn around times on all products. Please feel free to browse this site to learn more about our central fab services that include Ankle Foot Orthoses (AFO), Footwear modifications , Diabetic Insoles, and Articulating AFO.
View this short video to see some of the State of the Art technology that PTOL uses to manufacture our products.
At Pine Tree Orthopedic Lab we offer Competitive Pricing, Quality Maine Craftsmanship, Fast Turn Around Times, and Excellent Customer Support.
Please use the navigation bar above to explore more about the products and services that we offer. If you have any specific questions about our shoes or services that this site does not answer, please call us at (207) 897-5558.
Welcome to Pine Tree Orthopedic Lab's Foot Care & Comfort Shoe Center. We are here to help people alleviate or prevent foot related issues.
Our state of the art facility in Livermore Falls, ME carries over 20 brands of footwear each specifically designed to meet a certain need. Our facility is staffed by five Certified Pedorthists who are specifically trained to use conservative measures to alleviate foot related pain.
Even if you are pain free, you can benefit from our expertise to ensure your feet remain trouble free for years to come!
Please use the navigation bar above to learn more about the products and services that we offer. If you have any specific questions about our shoes or services that this site does not answer, please call us at (207) 897-5558.
Y910 Mens Ariya - BROWN
Keen Utility
PTC Clog
310 Skill GT


text:
Mt. St. Helen's isn't a disaster these days. It towers majestically in the Pacific Northwest, doing grandly what a mountain is supposed to do, sporting a snow cap and being quite picturesque. The College Football Playoff Committee will probably do about the same thing in most years. It will look majestic and stately and not do anything in particular to upset in any way as it surveys the college football landscape.
Mt. St. Helen's isn't a disaster these days. It towers majestically in the Pacific Northwest, doing grandly what a mountain is supposed to do, sporting a snow cap and being quite picturesque.
The College Football Playoff Committee will probably do about the same thing in most years. It will look majestic and stately and not do anything in particular to upset in any way as it surveys the college football landscape. The members introduced Wednesday simply radiate dignity and gravitas and, for most people, at least an air of neutrality.
But, like Mt. St. Helen's, it isn't completely benign. The Committee isn't going to bellow ash and spew lava and cause actual human tragedy the way the volcano did in 1980. College football isn't that serious, so let's not get indignant over a metaphor. What the Committee could do, though, is create a big mess when circumstances are right. And not one thing that was said Wednesday made me think the looming, majestic committee is dormant.
Instead, there is a subtle tectonic shift going on, already visible in the members' language, just like tiny cracks in the Earth's crust. No longer is the mission what it should be — to determine which teams actually performed the best on the field over the course of the regular season. Instead, the mission is to determine the four "most deserving" teams, which is something entirely different and far more subject to whims and, yes, the pressure exerted by the advocate of a particular team.
Here are a couple of examples from the list of "considerations" the committee will apply to distinguish between teams. They are not quite "criteria," because the committee isn't pinning itself down to anything concrete (especially when it comes to "transparency," which is another matter). Still, they are apparently things that will carry some weight. For sanity's sake, we won't even consider BCS chairman Bill Hancock's comment that "total offense" would be an important statistical measure.
First, there will be added weight for "conference champions." I think that is fine, if you are deciding between two teams from the same conference. A title should be rewarded. But in most years — certainly the past two — the second-best team from the best conference is much more qualified than the fourth-best conference champion. So we are already moving away from the "best," maybe only by a few inches, but moving nonetheless.
Then there are injuries. So let me get this straight — a team (let's randomly say Iowa) goes undefeated, dominates a strong schedule, wins its conference and then has its leading rusher tear an ACL in the second half of the Big Ten title game — and that keeps them out? Or affects their seeding? What if Iowa keeps its medical report secret until after the selection show? Then what?
It is easy to dream up these nightmare scenarios, and I have done a lot of it. I don't do it to impugn the integrity of the committee members, any more than I would deny the majesty of Mt. St. Helen's. But that doesn't mean I would feel entirely comfortable building my cabin in its shadow either.
Reach Cecil Hurt at firstname.lastname@example.com or 205-722-0224.
TideSports coverage on Facebook
Follow @CecilHurt!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs'); Tweet to @CecilHurt!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');


text:
Orange & Black Breakdown
What a Difference a Week Makes
by Marc Siciliano on 05/08/12 at 04:28 PM ET
Comments (0)
From seemingly the highest of highs to the lowest of lows, the Flyers have seen it all since the regular season concluded. And if we have learned anything from this entertaining postseason ballad full of fresh sounding narratives it would be this: what a difference a week makes.
Now facing elimination and doing so without the overwhelming postseason points leader, the Flyers will have to channel the devil from within if they wish to stay alive in a series and playoff run that has turned hellish in a mere 197 minutes of hockey.
What a difference a week makes.
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Jake's Make or Break Season
by Vindisi on 05/02/12 at 01:43 PM ET
Comments (0)
A guy who has quickly grown on me as one of my favorite Flyers since the beginning of the year is Jakub Voracek. My man crush has gotten to be unreasonable at times for some of my friends. I am a little sour that Homer was proactive in his signings of Coburn (which looks like an absolute steal at 4 years for 18 million) and van Riemsdyk (which looks risky outside of his playoff performance from yesteryear), while forgetting about Voracek, leaving him to prove his worth all year after receiving a one year contract this past offseason. I understand loyalty and prior knowledge (Voracek was labelled as lackadaisical when with Columbus) is a huge driver in those dealings; but after the jump, I will get into the fact why I have such a huge fixation for the guy and why Homer is kicking himself for not jumping on the bandwagon sooner…
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Minus a Devilish foe, the Flyers look to maintain status quo
by Marc Siciliano on 05/01/12 at 03:18 PM ET
Comments (3)
The big news surfacing out of Philadelphia this morning reverberated through the hockey-sphere quicker than a piece of glass can hit the floor of a New York Knicks visiting locker room: Ilya Kovalchuk will miss Game 2 due to a lower body injury sustained in the first round.
This vicarious bit of news surely bodes well for a Flyers team already riding high with a 1-0 lead that came despite their best all-around effort, but it should not change their approach. They would be wise to learn from the misfortunes of the Rangers who are now facing a home ice disadvantage after letting Game 2 be decided in favor of the visiting Capitals. This game is a must-win if the Flyers wish to stay in control of the series.
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Another Atlantic Altercation Awaits - ECSF Preview
by Marc Siciliano on 04/27/12 at 05:49 PM ET
Comments (4)
You might almost be inclined to call the Flyers lucky.
The only way to overcome their defensive shortcomings versus the Penguins last round was to put on a supreme display of offensive and special teams work. The Flyers rose to the challenge in record breaking fashion, dominating Pittsburgh with a lethal power play and slick penalty killing, a tenacious offense hell bent on disrupting Marc Andre Fleury, and an overall attitude that made it clear the second round would be their only option. They took an always disciplined Pittsburgh completely off their game en route to a convincing 4-2 series victory. Furthermore, a Game 7 upset by the Capitals over the Bruins assured the Flyers of a Rangers-free Cup run until at least the Eastern Conference Finals. The Flyers would either have home ice advantage versus a division foe or a matchup versus the Panthers upon the completion of their Game 7.
Five Periods of hockey later, the matchup with the Devils was set – and I couldn't be happier about it.
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Top 3 1st Round Flyers series
by Vindisi on 04/24/12 at 02:53 PM ET
Comments (4)
The Flyers have the luxury of spending the next few days watching (scouting) their next possible opponents battle it out. Call it torturous all you want to not have a set opponent, but this is way better than preparing for a Game 7 tonight in Pittsburgh. Looking back on the series, this series is easily in my 'Top 3' for 1st round series as far as entertainment/joy is concerned (and it didn't even go 7 games). After the jump, it is chocked full of goodies as I round out my top 3 favorites as well as give you a breakdown of the 2nd round possible match-ups:
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Flyers brass lost game 5
by Vindisi on 04/21/12 at 11:04 PM ET
Comments (5)
First thing I think of when last night's Flyers game comes to mind is "what if". They played great for 2 thirds of the game, but their second period was atrocious. There are two prevalent reasons that come to mind when explaining last nights 2nd period meltdown:
1) Flyers let their foot off the gas pedal
2) Penguins took their level of play to a new level
But I'm going to hit on my 2 KEY reason for the Flyers loss last night after the jump
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Game 6 Is a Must Win
by Marc Siciliano on 04/21/12 at 09:52 PM ET
Comments (0)
Through the first three games of the series, the Flyers played like a team possessed. Up and down the lineup, the players all seemed to maintain the perfect underdog demeanor. They played like a team confident in their ability to come out on top when they executed, and even more confident in their ability overcome and deficit that might lie before them. But up 3-0 in the series, that demeanor changed.
The Flyers went from being confident underdogs to the team that didn't look confident with a lead. At the worst possible time, it would seem the Flyers are starting to succumb to the intimidation that comes with being matched up against the cup favorites, and it has reflected in their play.
Game 6 has become a must win, and the Flyers will need everything they've got to win. At the very least, they have history on their side.
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
PHI @ PIT: Game 5 - Believe
by Marc Siciliano on 04/20/12 at 07:44 PM ET
Comments (0)
This one took a while.
As the madness that was Game 4 unfolded, I found myself in complete awe of what was happening - and not in a furious manner. I was so genuinely blown away by what I was witnessing that I had completely scrapped my desire in the outcome and instead started focusing on trying to figure out what could possibly come next (spoiler alert – it was always a goal).
Here was a Flyers team fresh off two back-to-back 8-goal performances and on the verge of sweeping the seemingly listless Penguins, but getting completely shelled in all aspects of the game. Here was a team that had matched the Penguins power-play tallies up to this point with shorty's of their own on an endless parade to the box that would ultimately lead to 4 power play goals for the opposition.
Simply put, here was a team that didn't look like it was on the verge of advancing in the NHL Playoffs.
But hockey doesn't rely on the aggregate total of goals or just one game to decide the superior team, and the position the Flyers were in on Wednesday has not changed. With just one more win, the Flyers can advance and send Pittsburgh packing. It's time to treat Game 4 like one of its many pucks and forget about it, because it's already behind them. They need to believe, because they stand on the verge of the ultimate vindication.
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
PIT @ PHI: ECQF Game 4 - Sweep dreams?
by Marc Siciliano on 04/18/12 at 07:09 PM ET
Comments (5)
Regardless of how many wins and losses you may (or may not) have in a series and how much help you receive from the hockey gods along the way, it's the decisive fourth win that is always the toughest to come by. Even when factoring in the Penguins rag-tag roster decimated by injury and pugilism, tonight should prove to be no different. The Flyers need their best effort of the series if they want to be rewarded for their hard work with time off.
Just a week ago, this scenario didn't seem feasible in even the wildest of dreams. Tonight, this sweep dream can become a reality.
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
Flyers Mania is Running Wild!
by Marc Siciliano on 04/16/12 at 05:18 PM ET
Comments (18)
Just when you thought the Pittsburgh Penguins couldn't look any more defeated, the final blow was sent in true American fashion.
"Watcha gonna do when Flyers Mania runs wild on you!?!?" bellowed Hulk Hogan to a raucous crowd of over 20,000, as a helpless Sidney Crosby could only muster a fully-deflated upwards glance at the perfectly timed message ringing through the arena in crystal-clear HD with just a few minutes left in Game 3.
Much like any shirt the Hulkster has ever worn, the Penguins have managed to destroy a complete body of hard work, blood, and sweat in an instant, needing only nine periods and change to bust the seams and tear apart the fabric of a season that has become synonymous with the term 'cup favorites'.
Even if you were saying your prayers and eating your vitamins, Flyers fans couldn't ask for a better start to the postseason. But now what?
(PS – Hulk video after the jump)
Filed in: | Orange & Black Breakdown | Permalink
About Orange & Black Breakdown
The Orange & Black Breakdown looks to be the ultimate, around the clock source for news and information on the Philadelphia Flyers organization and it's ever-present quest for the Stanley Cup. Focusing on what the team can do to achieve success is the ultimate goal.
The OBB is written and maintained by myself - Marc Siciliano. I'm a college graduate and media production professional in the sports industry with credits on projects like Hard Knocks: Bengals and 24/7 Penguins vs. Capitals: Road to the Winter Classic. A man of many hobbies, I always seem to find a way to spend a disproportionate amount of my daily routine with two things: Flyers hockey and social media (much to the dismay of my hockey impartial friends on twitter).
So what does this mean for you? The plan is to combine these
time-wasting habits passions with my love for writing to provide you with complete coverage of the Flyers from both my head and around the web, 24/7.
This is my second writing stint focusing on the Flyers, but for a much larger audience - so do be gentle. Different perspectives and opinions on the organization are welcome and encouraged. Just because I see it one way doesn't mean I'm beyond seeing it your way as well, so speak up!
I'm always interested in interacting with readers, so find me on twitter (@marcs797) or email me (email@example.com) and let's talk hockey.
Thanks for reading; Lets go Flyers!
Recent Blog Posts (Page 2)
PIT @ PHI – ECQF G3 - (Orange) Crush Them
ECQF Game 1: PHI @ PIT (It begins)
Back in Bryzness + NHL94 Tourney!
Streaking has Exposed the Flyers
Game 69: NJD @ PHI: Voracek Yo'self
Consistently Inconsistent - NYI @ PHI


text:
One teen killed, another injured when hit by cars while crossing Route 28 in DerryBy SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News
May 04. 2013 8:12PM
DERRY - A Manchester teenager has died after she and another girl were struck by vehicles while crossing Route 28 Friday night.
Sophia Christen, 15, was airlifted to UMass Medical Center in Worcester, Mass., with serious head injuries after the accident. She later "passed away as a result of the injuries she sustained during this collision," police said in a news release.
The other girl, Lauren Gendreau, 13, of Derry, was taken to Parkland Medical Center with what police said were serious but non-life-threatening injuries. The girl was released from the hospital Saturday night, a nursing supervisor said.
Police said the two girls were in a group of youngsters that was crossing Route 28 (Manchester Road) when two vehicles heading north struck them shortly after 9 p.m.
Sgt. Kevin Jackson said the collision is still being investigated, but it appears that the older girl was hit by both vehicles and the younger one was hit by one of them. He said the youngsters had been attending a carnival set up in the parking lot of Ocean State Job Lots.
On Facebook Friday night, about two hours before the accident, Sophia Christen had posted: "At the Derry carnival ... anyone else here? Like."
Sophia had graduated from Hillside Middle School last year and was a freshman at Manchester Central High School. Ron Mailhot, Central's principal, said she was "a lively little girl" and always had "a happy smile."
She was the daughter of Mark and Elaine Christen and had two sisters, Noelle, a senior at Central, and Annalina, a sixth-grader at Hillside, according to school officials.
Mailhot said counselors will be on hand Monday at Central to help students cope with the tragedy. And he said the school will observe a moment of silence to remember Sophia.
"We're going to be ready to take care of our kids and make sure they have what they need," he said.
Police identified the drivers involved in the crash as George Draper, 63, of Bow, who was in a Toyota RAV 4, and Anne Bartlett, 58, of Manchester, who was in an Acura RDX.
Police closed Route 28 for about five hours after the accident. Derry police's Accident Reconstruction Team is investigating.
Jim O'Connell, president of the Hillside Parent Teacher Organization, said his daughter plays softball with Annalina Christen, and the team had its first game Saturday. That's where teammates and their parents found out what had happened to Annalina's sister, he said, and the girls were very upset.
Saturday morning, Annalina Christen posted a photo on Facebook that she said depicted "me holding my sister's hand when she died."
Sophia's friends and family used the social media site to share their loss and grief.
Tina Lysogorski Wade wrote: "Late last night my 15 year old cousin was hit by a car. Early this morning the man upstairs took her hand and guided her to heaven. Sophia you are loved and will be missed. Keep a eye on the family from above and say hello to gram and gramp for me. RIP my sweet cousin...."
"No. I don't believe this at all," one friend wrote. "I (had) just seen her 2 days ago with a smile on her face & now she's gone?...RIP Sophia I will miss you SO much & I will never forget our memories at hillside."
And another girl posted, "Waking up and finding out you're gone just broke my heart...your a perfect girl with the perfect smile..rest in paradise babygirl...I love you!"
No information was available about Lauren Gendreau's condition last night. A nursing supervisor at Parkland Medical Center said she was not a patient there, and a supervisor in the emergency department said she could not release any information about her.
O'Connell said the tragedy has hit home with families in the city. "There's a sense of sadness and regret across the Hillside and Central communities," he said.
"When something like this happens, you realize how small a community Manchester is," he said. "Sometimes we look at Manchester and it seems like a big city. But something like this happens and you realize we are all interconnected."
O'Connell said he looked at his own four children and thought about Sophia's family. "I picture the family going home tonight and having an empty seat at the table. I feel for them."
Union Leader staff writer Michael Cousineau contributed to this report.
Public Safety High schools Human Interest New Hampshire Derry Manchester Top Section Stories Top Lede Story