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

@SaraGonzalesTX @seanmdav To be fair, it would have been better to ask him why he voted against it, with poignant follow-up questions, rather than ask if [super controversial reason] was the reason why he voted against it.

I asked Senator Thom Tillis about his vote against the Save America act and whether it has anything to do with the money he’s receiving from industries who profit off of cheap illegal labor. He was VERY mad about the question. We deserve better than these America Last losers!

My Narnia Rankings: 1. Mercury 2. Mars 3. Sun 4. Moon 5. Jupiter 6. Venus 7. Saturn

Serious Bible Question: How did Lazarus die? Specifically, if Jesus tells Lazarus in John 11:4: “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” Then why do most take it as fact that Lazarus died of his illness? And what exactly was that illness? And when Martha talks to Jesus at the funeral gathering, why does she bring up how his PRESENCE would have kept her brother from dying, without ever bringing up HIS POWER TO HEAL the illness she had previously sent a message about in John 11:3? And why do some of the Jews who were present say in John 11:37: “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?” What does blindness have to do with it? Why wouldn’t they say something like: “Could not the man who healed others heal this man?” In thinking about this, I don’t think Lazarus died of the illness (because Jesus explicitly said his illness wouldn’t lead to death). I also think “blindness” is related in a metaphorical sense. As for the illness in question, I think it is leprosy. I think this for many reasons, including that it is very likely that “Lazarus” is the name in John for the man called “Simon the leper,” in Matthew and Mark (compare John 12:1-8 to Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9) and “Simon” the Pharisee (in Luke 7:36-50) and the “Ruler of the Pharisees” who hosts Jesus in a large dinner that was attended by many on a Sabbath in Luke 14-16, which ends in a parable about a man named “Lazarus” (the only parable-character with a name) who has “sores” and died. In other words, Jesus told a story about Lazarus in Lazarus’s home prior to Lazarus getting leprosy and dying. But how did Lazarus die? Does leprosy kill you? We have no evidence of it being a deadly disease. Naaman was both the leader of the Syrian army and a leper at the same time. Also, we have ancient sources that say the opposite. Pliny the Elder, in Natural History Book 26, chapters 1-3, describes leprosy in the 1st century, saying: “Though unattended with pain, and not dangerous to life, these diseases are of so loathsome a nature, that any form of death would be preferable to them.” Think about that and take it very seriously. There is an unspoken fact that makes all the datapoints make sense: Lazarus killed himself whenever Jesus responded to the request for healing by denying that request and saying: “Don’t worry. You won’t die, and I say that God will be glorified THROUGH YOUR SUFFERING, and not through a miraculous healing.” That actually makes the story that much more powerful. It also means that Lazarus fits in with “the Jews who believed in [Jesus]” when Jesus says the following to them in John 8:43-47 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. … But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. … If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” Because Lazarus could not bear to hear about the way he had been appointed to suffer, he became a murder of himself, a man deeply loved by God. But God heard him, even in the grave, and had compassion on him. And he rescued him from his own suffering, sadness, iniquity, and sin when he raised him up and said “Lazarus, come out!”

@SiliconConley @MichaelCarlino Oh. So that’s what it was about.

@MichaelCarlino Sssshhh…don’t let them know that’s what’s going on here.😆

Put differently: do you affirm the active obedience of Christ is necessary for us and our salvation?

BREAKING: USA comes back from huge deficit to defeat Belgium 5-4 after receiving four surprise mail-in goals at 3:00am

Luke 2:52 says: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” And when you think about it from. Christology point of view, this verse is wild.

Because one of the benefits of Jesus’s redemption is him being the new nature of man (“the last Adam”), this means that logically speaking, you can’t be the nature of man if you are a baby, which is a less-than-full-teleological-endpoint of man state of being. Hence, the answer is “no,” in addition to all the other examples I gave. But I think the precursor question you didn’t ask is “What are the benefits of our redemption through Christ?”

@JCalebJones If you don’t understand the question, you can choose “not sure.”

Disregarding the clear pedagogical deficiencies of missing his earthly ministry, would we receive the same benefits of redemption—i.e., justification, sanctification, glorification, etc.—if Jesus had died for us as a baby?

@SiliconConley Jesus’s hypothetical in Matt. 11:21 made sense, especially since it basically happened in real life in Matt. 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. My critique isn’t that your hypothetical disregarded established reality. My critique is that the hypothetical doesn’t make sense.

@JCalebJones Jesus was willing to entertain hypotheticals that required disregarding established reality for the sake of consideration (Matthew 11:21). We should be able to as well.

Whoa. Dude. What does “died for us as a baby” even mean? I can see you have something specific in mind, but the question lacks sense. Are babies capable of preaching to Israel as was the calling of Jesus? Can they even speak? Are babies capable of predicting their own deaths multiple times in the lead-up to their deaths? Are babies capable of doing signs and miracles to prove to the masses who they really are? Are babies capable of following the law of Moses, including by going to the temple (which Jesus apparently did not do until he was 12, per Luke 2:41-52) likely due in large part to his father’s fear of Archelaus (mentioned in Matthew 2:22)? Are babies capable of calling apostles who will then establish a church that will be sanctified by their apostolic teaching? Are babies capable of deliberately choosing to not speak at their trials when they are wrongfully accused? Are babies capable of being “hanged on a tree” which makes them “cursed” according to the law (per Deut. 21:23), which is what allowed Jesus to be even though he did no wrong? Is a baby able to be, per Isaiah 53:3, “rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces” who was “despised”? Are babies capable of being joined together with their bride, which is necessary to accomplish the redemption available through the law of Moses in Numbers 30, which allows a husband to free his bride from the consequences of a rash vow like “We have no king but Caesar” and “Let his blood be on us and upon our children”? Etc., etc. All that to say: Jesus did so much more than “die for us,” and the reason his death for us is beneficial is not MERELY that he died “for us,” but also because of all the other stuff that happened around his death and in his life. As such, this is, unfortunately, a ridiculous question.

Marco Rubio finding out he has to run as a Progressive in Maine now too.

Friendly reminder: The definition of “Substitute” has changed over the centuries. In Medieval Latin, substituten used to mean “to appoint to a position.” It used to describe someone who was appointed to a particular duty of which he was not originally burdened. In English starting in the 1580s, it now describes someone who literally switches places with another person in some sort of an exchange. PSA with the original Latin definition of “substitute” is true, because Christ became a man, which is what saves us. He is the last Adam: the new nature of mankind, who also is the evidence in the courts of heaven that “Man” as a species is not depraved by design, but instead was corrupted by the actions of Satan. That only happens if Christ “stands in the place of” Man, which was the original, non-exchange definition of “substitute.” PSA with the new definition of “substitute” is not true, because: 1.) Man was never “cursed” in Genesis, and Christ did not take a curse that was never put on man 2.) Man does not escape death, and so if “death” is the curse, that so-called curse has been neutered (1 Corinthians 15:55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” Quoting Hosea 13:14), but it is not removed from us to Christ in an exchange. 3.) The true fate and curse of unrighteous man after the final judgment is the lake of fire, to which Christ did not go. Instead, he descended into “Hades,” which is the general realm of the human dead, not the specific place prepared for the devil and his angels. So, once again, no exchange. Hope that helps.

Football fans after Cape Verde’s elimination:

@swils0608 I just don’t see this as a very strong argument. It’s an assumption about the dreams of all people based on an interpretation of your personal experiences. I don’t even see scripture mentioned. Agree to disagree.

@JCalebJones Many of my dreams have definitely come from my own history. It's not an assumption. I can tell you from ministering to many guys that the intensity of their sexual dreams fades the further they get away from use of porn. Those dreams are not innocent.

Oh boy….. Okay. Below: Piper was right and Moore is wrong. Giving someone responsibility for what the do in a dream because “You had the dream” is like saying “You got hit by the bus.” It’s fundamentally wrong, because, as everybody who has had a dream knows, dreams HAPPEN to you. We are never told that “dreams” come from your heart, mind, flesh, etc. Instead, it is usually indicated that something else is the case: that dreams are GIVEN to you by spiritual powers, and people are judged by their REACTIONS to dreams, not their experience of dreams. This is reflected is scripture, too. The Old Testament is full of examples of important dreams and none of them are ever understood to be produced by one’s flesh, one’s heart, or one’s mind. Instead, they’re understood to come from the spiritual places. For Example: - In Job 4-5, Eliphaz describes a dream in which a spirit comes to him and delivers a message. He is not chastised by God in the story because he had the dream, but instead, because he believed it and spoke as a mouthpiece of Satan after having that dream and believing it. - In Genesis 28, Jacob dreams something that is not “in his heart,” but is rather a vision of something in the spiritual places. This is a unique dream, but even that is not considered to be an action of Jacob. It’s an action of God. -In 1 Kings 22:23-24 a particular spirit in God’s heavenly council says he “will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of these your prophets.” Though it doesn’t mention dreams, dreams are definitely a means utilized by prophets, and it demonstrates that non-human entities can have their say. - In Matthew 2, both the Magi and Joseph are warned in dreams about future and hypothetical events. These did not originate inside of them. - Acts 2:17 (Quoting Joel 2:28-32) describes God as the source of particular dreams. - Jude 1:8 describes people relying on dreams as a bad thing, but the dreams are never described as bad. Therefore: The original man’s reaction to the original dream (he didn’t like it) was a good one. Therefore, there is nothing to repent of. The only wrinkle is that in the original article, the man calls his dream a “lucid” one, which typically means that you know that you’re dreaming and that you can control it. But his questions concern why the things in his dream “are happening to him,”which doesn’t match up to true lucid dreaming. So, that’s a complicating factor involving a bad description, but the answer is the same.

I don’t “assume” that all dreams just happen to you. I give several examples in scripture where dreams did just come TO a person and not FROM a person. I also pointed out that everybody knows from experience that you can’t control a dream. The belief that dreams come from past experiences, internal desires, chemical reactions in the brain, etc., is an assumption of modern psychology. That’s not how scripture talks. And I think your primary error is believing that dreams, thoughts, or “innate” things of the mind come from your own history. The word “innate” means “existing in one from birth” or “inherent in the essential character of something.” That means that any “innate” thing is (by definition) something that does not come from your own history of things.

@JCalebJones I think your primary error is resting on the assumption that all dreams "just happen to you" and do not come from any sense of innate desire or your own history of things you've actively thought or fantasized about. You can't definitively make that assumption.

Where are we ever told that dreams are of your flesh or under your control? Doesn’t scripture say the opposite? Doesn’t scripture describe the spiritual realm (including particular spirits) as the SOURCE of dreams? Doesn’t scripture only judge your reactions to dreams? Why repent of something that is not of your flesh and not under your control?

John Piper is wrong here, saying an adulterous dream isn’t sin. We are responsible for our thoughts, even when we dream. Why not just go to Jesus in repentance and faith if you have an adulterous dream? Jesus is at the Father’s right hand interceding for us. Go to Him.