J Caleb Jones

If you’ve ever wanted to know what is happening in the sky in Matthew 2 with the star that the Magi saw, the video that is only available at this website will explain everything that is happening. And yes, it actually happened exactly as it is described in the text. The price to watch the video is for you to provide your email address so that you can be informed of future videos, explaining other aspects of the Nativity based on this information about the Star of the Magi. themagistar.com

Genuine question: Why are data centers bad? I live next to lots of them, and yes, you’re ugly, but no more ugly than a big Walmart or Costco or distribution center. Why do people not want data centers? As far as I can tell, they are just big warehouse buildings. It’s like a sterile industry building. I understand things like water usage, power usage, ugly presence of high-voltage transmission lines, and stuff, but all of those can be mitigated. It would be worse to have a chicken farm next to you than a data center. This is just regular zoning issues. So why do people not like data centers?

Friendly Reminder: As anyone can see from modern surrogacy (and as those who know the power of God would be able to intuit without surrogacy), we have zero indication that Jesus shared any DNA with his mother Mary. So stop making arguments based on that premise.

@JayTC53 I know nothing about this. Who is Spatz? Where is the backstory? What is the context?

NEW 🚨 THOMAS MASSIE FILES BOMBSHELL FROM AXIOS. Axios confirms the $60,000 settlement and NDA is legitimate. Spoke with both Massie office & West. Thomas Massie threatened West at a Cracker Barrell in Kentucky. Axios states Cynthia West had "issues with transparency & accountability" that's why she couldn't remain silent with money. Assuming from hypocrites like Thomas Massie. To make things worse, West was let go because she spoke up when Victoria Spartz hired a NON CITIZEN as a district director position over Ukraine. Not very "America First" This story seems 100% legitimate. Cynthia should be treated as a Patriot & hero for speaking out & refusing to be bought off with money to stay silent.

@FinanceLancelot @douglassmackey Nobody’s eating it because we know it’s poison.

Are you starting to get it now? National wheat harvest will be a 55 year low in 2026.

@ModernApocrypha It’s like that part of Perelandra where Ransom realizes the un-man is going to corrupt the entire planet. And he’s like “God! What do I do? This situation is so confusing!” And God through the story is like “Kill him with your bare hands, you idiot. That’s why you’re here.”

@JCalebJones Ahhh... There I agree with you fully. I DO know of instances where individual evil spirits did not automatically (or quickly) submit to authority. ...In that situation, I'm prepared to bring all the powers of heaven to bear (as well as my own will if helpful).

Correction, John Piper is being chided because he had a bad illustration for his incorrect point. Piper doesn’t summarize the verse he is referencing correctly. 2 Corinthians 10:4 says: “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.” Likewise, Ephesians 6:12 says: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” The problem is that these verses do not say that our weapons are “not of this world.” Piper’s interpretation goes an extra step from scripture and incorrectly implies that the “strongholds” and “cosmic powers over this present darkness” and “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” are partitioned off from “this world.” The text says our weapons are: “not of the flesh.” But regardless, when you use David and Goliath to push this point, when David literally kills the man with a sling and then cuts Goliath’s head off with Goliath’s own sword, that’s kind of silly. It does not support the claim that our weapons as Christians are “not of this world.”

The reason I’m saying this is that Christian evangelicals of the stripe I grew up around have a weird trust in “the government” using force and extreme violence, with zero category of making Jesus Christ be the authority that allows the government to use force. A policeman using force? Categorically good! A fist-fight in a bar? Categorically bad (without even questioning how the fight started)! Nuking Japan? That was World War II! Categorically good! The teachings of scripture needing to give permission to the nuking of Japan? Hey now, we’re just supposed to make disciples! It’s crazy when you think about it. Along these lines, I find that Christians weirdly think that “violence” is categorically prohibited by scripture, when in fact violence is constrained to its proper place. It is governed as it should be governed. “All authority” in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ. That includes violence: both personal and governmental. Thats what I’m trying to address.

@JCalebJones I'm going to have to think about that (so I don't miss anything). My impression: When the enemy tries to do that without court permission, God is pretty quick to crush them for it. The times when they get away with it involve things like witchcraft, which borrow human dominion.

@ModernApocrypha I didn’t say he can prevail with raw power. I just said he can fight with raw power. Because Satan fights and oppresses with raw power, Christians may also be expected to occasionally use raw power when they resist the devil and all his schemes. That’s all I meant.

@JCalebJones What makes you say he can use raw power to any effect (without heavenly court permission)? I can't see any evidence of that. (As opposed to dominion, which is rightfully-given authority. Satan usurps that by coopting the rightful owners, of course.)

Eh… I’m not so sure about that either. The enemy certainly fights God with raw power. He also fights with lies and arguments and many other “high things” that are raised against the knowledge of God. The problem is that he ONLY HAS raw power and lies and empty arguments and lower things than he needs. He will not prevail. He has been exposed by Christ. Satan’s previous power was based on God’s law and an evidentiary claim in the courts of heaven that, as Isaiah 53:6 says, all have gone astray, and that humanity is CATEGORICALLY fallen, sinful, and fit for death. (Hence his title: “Adversary” or “Prosecutor,” better known as “Satan.”) But because Jesus IS a man, he showed clear evidence in the Courts of heaven that humanity is NOT categorically evil. Instead, the righteous king can look at humanity and say “this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,” as Ephesians 5:29-33 references.

@JCalebJones My basic foundation: The enemy can't "fight" God (or His people) with raw power. (Silly notion.) Their only real approach is to use God's laws both to shield themselves and prosecute us, thus getting permission to persecute us. And yeah, spiritual is just 'unseen.'

When thinking about spiritual warfare, remember this: In the Star Wars universe, why do X-Wings fly like they are in an atmosphere even when they are in the vacuum of space? And why do Tie Fighters sound like that, when there is no sound in space? The answer is that X wings fly like that because they are copies of P-51 Mustangs in our world and the tie fighters deliberately made to sound like German Luftwaffe dive bombers. You know who the good guys are based on those seemingly random attributes. Our world is “unseen” to them. “Spiritual” just means something “unseen” that has an effect on the visible world. There is a reason you are called to imitate Christ.

@JCalebJones Interesting. Hadn't seen it rendered that way. That gives me something to think about. (I'm writing a book on Spiritual Warfare 101 right now, and that passage got a brief mention--granted I hadn't done a great deal of digging on that point.) Thank you.

Eh, I’m not so sure about that. Arguments are involved, but it’s not the purpose. The larger passage says at 2 Corinthians 10:3-6: [3] For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. [4] For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. [5] We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, [6] being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. The “lofty opinion” in verse 5 is actually ὕψωμα (hypsōma) or “high thing.” It’s a word that implies spiritual realities that influence the world. There is no “opinion” in that sentence in Greek, and so this verse isn’t merely something about “ideas.” But importantly in verse 6, we are supposed to be “ready to punish every disobedience.” That’s definitely not about “ideas.” It’s about physical realities and actions. If something is “raised against the knowledge of God,” we should be ready to “punish” it, in the way that our positions and authorities in this world (all of which have been established by God, per Romans 13) would allow.

@JCalebJones When you dig into the context and translate it properly, the 2 Corinthians 10 passage is specifically speaking of weapons designed to tear down strongholds of wicked ideas. Our weapons' primary purpose is to dismantle bad arguments.

If you think “Love your enemies” is a statement of pacifism, you’re wrong. And Jesus never used violence? Do you think it was a coincidence that the Romans sacked Jerusalem just as Jesus predicted? Do you think Jesus was a casual and uninvolved observer in that event? For another example, do you think it is an COINCIDENCE that after the Christian conquistadors landed in America, diseases wiped out the violent, pagan, human-sacrificing Aztecs? “Jesus never used violence” is like saying “Magneto doesn’t get involved in any of the X-men fights. He just passively stands back as shards of metal fly through the bodies of his enemies. He punches no one.” This misses the big picture. Jesus didn’t merely “overthrow” the Roman government. He used weapons that are not of this world to take control of it, starting with Constantine, Theodosius, etc. Many shots were fired, just not by him (directly, anyway). The shots were fired by those (like Constantine) whose calling in life made the use of violence within their proper sphere. The same is true in our day. And no, Jesus never prayed for us to be martyred. He told us to expect it. There’s a big difference. And despite not mustering any armies or ordering any campaigns, he did tell his disciples to buy swords.

I will have to disagree respectfully. Jesus never used violence, told us to love our enemies, and do good to those who do evil to us. He prayed we would be martyred. His disciples culturally conquered the Roman Empire within four generations and never did it by firing a shot. If Jesus was okay with violence, why did he not overthrow the Roman government by using it?

Thank you for raising the issue, but if you think that’s a simple statement of Jesus in John 18:36, you are wrong. The ruler of this world (per John 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11) and the god of this world (per 2 Corinthians 4:4) is Satan. But now, after the resurrection (per Matthew 28:18), all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ. Jesus is also (per Revelation 1:5) the “ruler of the kings of Earth” and (per Revelation 17:14 and 19:16) the “King of Kings,” which is a title that in the Old Testament was only given to the king of Babylon. But Babylon, per Revelation 18, is fallen. And our weapons are “not of this world,” in much the same way that the force, a lightsaber, the infinity stones, or whatever other metaphor you want to use is “not of this world.” Just because something is “not of this world” (like Jesus, as he explains in John 8:23) that doesn’t mean it can’t exercise dominion and/or conquer this world. “The world” - in every sense of the word - is precisely the thing that Jesus Christ is capturing. That’s not a statement of pacifism. All orders of society (including the ministers of God in Romans 13 who wield the sword and individuals who exercise self-defense in their individual capacities) are being conquered by spiritual means by Jesus Christ. When such orders are conquered, (including the ministers of God who offensively wield the sword), they rightfully use their powers in the service of God and against Satan, who will be crushed underneath our feet, per Romans 16:20. Most people are not in a societal order (like the police, the military, or a person faced with violence, creating the need for self defense) that requires violence to crush the head of Satan underneath our feet. But that doesn’t mean that violence is prohibited when crushing the head of Satan underneath our feet.

So, can Jesus possibly have the last word here? I do believe Jesus said his Kingdom was not established by violence, for it was not of this world. When Jesus returns to rid the world of evil, he will use violence. Until then, we overcome the world by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. Again, not violence.

Friendly reminder: The Greek word διάκονος (diakonos), or “Deacon,” means “servant,” and women can be deacons of the church because women can be servants of the church. Obviously. This entire controversy over women being deacons comes from Baptists calling the elders “deacons.”

Voting is politics. Virginia Supreme Court decisions and constitutional requirements are the rule of law. The Court quite literally put the rule of law over politics. As usual, what Democrats say is the opposite of the truth.

@douglaswils @Countcristo44 …and before the structure of each of the twin towers were even completed in 1970 and 1971 or when it opened in 1973?

@Countcristo44 An airplane crashing into a scroll of the prophet Isaiah?

It's probably just a coincidence.

Yes. I like the structure of 1.HEADING .2 ..3 …4 ….5 …..6 ….7 …8 ..9 .10 That actually makes sense. It also is cool because Satan is described by Jesus in John 8:44 as a “murderer from the beginning,” and the whole structure of God’s commandments is centered around not murdering.

@sorendayton @JCalebJones Yes, that's right. Sorry to be vague about that. And I concur re: numerology. One of the options for 'why say 10 if the chiasm is right' is that it forces us to attend to the text differently. The 'six things, seven things' pattern is strange in a similar kind of way.

My latest theological hot take: there are only nine commandments in Exodus 20, not ten, and they form a nearly-perfect chiasm.

@mattleeanderson @harkening Well, that certainly makes sense and answers my original question. Thank you for clarifying.

@harkening @JCalebJones Yes, that is certainly one way of resolving the discrepancy that might be plausible. It would also fit one of evangelicals' favorite talking points (which is true!) about (mostly Pauline) ethics, which is that the 'imperative follows the indicative.'