Posts

Showing posts from December, 2010

Give it away Goff!

The latest TV 3 Reid Research political poll spells the end of Goff's leadership (http://www.3news.co.nz/Goff-falls-further-behind-Key---poll/tabid/419/articleID/190496/Default.aspx). He is being slaughtered by Key. The stats say it all:
National 55.5%; Labour 31.2%; Greens 7.3%. The rest are also-rans: NZ First 1.9%; Maori 1.7%; ACT 1.3%; United Future 0.1%.
The preferred PM rankings are no better: Key 54.1%; Goff  6.8%; Helen Clark 5.3%.
A few things jump out of this: 1) National can govern alone so don't need ACT. They will have to make a call on Epsom, will they effectively stand aside for ACT or consign them to political history? I suspect the former because long term the centre right will need the extreme right, but is Rodney worth it? In recent years his hypocrisy has been exposed. 2) NZ First for all the noise about Winston's return are not making much of a dent. He is fish and chip wrapping now; 3) United Future is virtually dead in the water, can't see any way…

Brian Tamaki and Others and The Abuse of the Notion of Being In Christ

Paul uses the language of 'in Christ' some 83 times and 'in the Lord' 47x (Dunn, Theology, 296-97). It is part of his participationist Christology. If we accept what appears on the Cult Watch website about all believers being Christs, there is a lack of understanding of the idea of what Paul means by 'in Christ.' BT is not alone in this, in my view, many theologians are little better flirting with the way in which Paul uses the idea. BT appears to think that as we are 'in Christ' we are 'Christs' ourselves. The implication of this could be that we are of the same status and empowered to the same level as Christ himself. He reminds me a little of contemporary theologians who argue that all humans are 'in Christ' by virtue of Christ being the 'elect one' and all humans are now participants of him, they just have to realise it. Another element of 'in Christ' thinking that is held by many today is believing that, as we are &…

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus and Brian Tamaki

I got an email yesterday which connected me to an article on the Cult Watch website which discusses the latest claims of Brian Tamaki (see http://www.cultwatch.com/BrianTamaki.html). The site has audio of Brian Tamaki saying that the Jesus who died (Jesus of Nazareth) is not the same Jesus who came out of the tomb; rather 'the flesh Jesus died in the tomb.' Jesus then put off his 'flesh body' could become a 'life giving spirit.' He also claims believers are all God, 'they are the actual same divinity and substance of spirit as God.' He says that the church is made up of 'many Christs.' Assuming that this is the position of Bishop Tamaki, here I will deal with the first of these issues. Did Jesus of Nazareth enter the tomb and not come out? Is he merely a 'life giving Spirit?' If we take the Scriptures seriously the evidence points strongly away from this:
1. Mark 16
The ending of Mark is difficult with it likely that v.8 is the end of th…

Alien Life? Yeah Right.

So all over the news yesterday was the great headline that a great discovery had been made greatly increasing the possibility that there is alien life out there (e.g. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10691723). It turns out that all had been found was some bacteria that can grow not only off scoffing phosphorous but arsenic. As far as we know, 6 elements are required for life, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulphur and phosphorus. It is a very interesting discovery for sure, but it proves little to me. It at best opens up the possibility that there are life forms that do not need all 6 to be around to survive, as they can convert one or other. This being still needed all 6 elements, and converted one element close to phosphorous on the periodic table into the missing building block. Such life will still need to be generated in the first place and live in conditions conducive to life. In terms of alien life, we would still have to find a wa…