Israel – Reportaj de la (presupusul) mormant de unde a inviat Hristos precum si alte locatii mentionate in Evanghelii

AlfaOmegaTV incepe repotajul cu  gradina in care se presupune ca se afla moamantul lui Iosif din Arimateea de unde a inviat Domnul Isus.  Published on Apr 26, 2012 by alfaomegatv ultimele stiri la http://alfaomega.tv/stiri

Din sumarul editiei:
– Gradina Mormantului: locul in care a inviat Isus ?
– Colectia Green dezvaluie traseul Cuvantului lui Dumnezeu
– Traseul Evangheliei permite turistilor sa paseasca pe urmele Domnului Isus
– Un pastor din Filipine a fost ucis din cauza credintei sale
– Copiii saraci din Las Vegas au ajutat-o pe directoarea scolii sa isi descopere adevarata chemare
– Marsul Invierii din Timisoara a ajuns la a XXI-a editie

Literatura – Jane Austen – Emma subtitrat in Limba Romana

Cineva a subtitrat filmul dupa Romanul „Emma” scris the Jane Asuten. Este un film educational pentru tinerii contemporani care ar invata multe din actiunile tinerilor din perioada filmului. Despre Jane Asutin, scrie Adriana Laliu – editor Studentie.ro aici:

Una dintre cele mai celebre scriitoare, Jane Austen, a scris cateva romane care raman si astazi unele dintre cele mai iubite lucrari din literatura. Printre acestea se numara „Mandrie si prejudecata”, „Emma” si „Northanger Abbey”.
Jane Austen scria intr-o perioada in care femeile scriitoare erau foarte putine. Cele mai multe dintre cartile sale erau semnate prin pseudonime. Jane Austen avea sa deschida calea  urmatoarei generatii de femei scriitoare.
Jane Austen s-a nascut in Steventon, Hampshire (Marea Britanie) pe 16 decembrie 1775. A fost cel de-al saptelea copil din cei 8. Tatal ei, George Austen, a fost vicar si aducea familiei un venit de 600 de lire pe an. La acea vreme, aceasta suma ii plasa in clasa de mijloc. Nu erau bogati, de aceea tatal lor nu a fost capabil sa le sprijine suficient din punct de vedere financiar. Jane a crescut alaturi de cei 5 frati si sora sa mai mare, Cassandra. Un alt frate, Edward, a fost adoptat de o familie de nobili fara copii. Jane a fost foarte aproapiata de familia sa, in special de Cassandra, careia ii era foarte devotata. Cele doua surori au corespondat in cea mai mare parte din viata lor. Multe dintre lucrurile care se stiu despre Jane provin chiar din aceste scrisori. Din nefericire, Cassandra a ars o mare parte din corespondenta.
Jane a studiat la Oxford si mai tarziu a urmat cursurile unei institutii in Reading. La inceputul anilor 1800, doi dintre fratii lui Jane s-au inrolat in marina si au luptat in razboaiele lui Napoleon. De altfel, unul dintre romanele scrise Jane, Mansfield Park, a fost influentat de aceasta etapa a vietii sale.  Dupa moartea tatalui ei in 1805, Jane sora si mama sa s-au intors in Hampshire. In 1809 fratele ei, Edward, le invita sa locuiasca pe timpul verii in resedinta de la Chawton. Aici Jane avea sa produca cele mai valoroase lucrari din cariera sa.

Romanele lui Jane Austen
Romanele sunt reflectia perspectivei ei asupra vietii. Si-a petrecut cea mai mare parte a vietii criticata de anumite clase sociale. Cei mai apropiati prieteni erau de fapt cei din familie sau cei din aceeasi clasa sociala. Nu este deloc surprinzator de ce majoritatea romanelor ei sunt centrate pe 2, 3 familii din clasele mijlocii.
Principala tema tratata de Jane in romane este problema obtinerii unui mariaj convenabil. De altfel, casatoria era o incercare deosebit de dificila in acea perioada. Consideratiile financiare reprezentau parametrii esentiali in incheierea casatoriilor. Ca autoare, Jane satiriza adesea aceste motivatii financiare. Spre exemplu, in „Mandrie si Prejudecata”, mama este ridicularizata pentru ambitia ei de a-si casatori fiica pentru o remuneratie financiara maxima. Jane Austen nu s-a casatorit niciodata. In afara unor flirturi inofensive, Jane a ramas singura si nu s-a aratat foarte interesata de un posibil mariaj, spre deosebire de majoritatea personajelor sale.
Jane Austen s-a remarcat prin abilitatea de a patrunde in interiorul caractererelor si naturii relatiilor umane. Marele aport pe care l-a adus literaturii se traduce prin redefinirea rolului si aspiratiilor femeilor apartinand clasei sociale de mijloc din care facea parte. Prin satirizarea conventiilor sociale, lucrarile lui Jane Austen au contribuit la eliminarea stereotipurilor privind aspiratiile femeilor din acea vreme.
Romanele ei au devenit populare inca din timpul vietii. Unul dintre cei mai puternici sustinatori ai romanelor sale a fost un alt scriitor remarcabil, Walter Scott.
Regele George IV i-a cerut lui Jane ca unul dintre romanele sale sa-i fie dedicate. „Emma” este, prin urmare” rezultatul dorintei regelui, desi Jane nu s-a limitat in intregime la preferintele regelui.
Jane Austen a murit in 1816 la doar 41 de ani. Viata i-a fost curmata de boala Addison, o maladie care se manifesta prin dereglarea glandei suprarenale.
I-au fost dedicate doua muzee:
– The Jane Austen Centre in Bath
– The Jane Austen`s House Museum, Hampshire, acolo unde a locuit in perioada  1809 – 1816.
In 2005 „Mandrie si Prejudecata” a fost votat „Cel mai bun roman Britanic din toate timpurile” intr-un sondaj efectuat de BBC. De asemenea, Jane face parte din „Top 100 Britanici Remarcabili” si figureaza intre cele 50 de „Femei care au schimbat lumea”.

A disparut ‘Emma’ cu subtitrare deocamdata din Youtube

In schimb, se mai gaseste Emma, in Limba Engleza cu subtitrare in Limba Portugheza. VIDEO by Lilly Yehoshua

Part 1

Part 2

What do we know about Mormonism? Apparently not much…

I have subsequently added 2 useful links here for anyone interested in learning more about the doctrine that Mormons hold to. (04/28/2012):

1. One is form the Gospel Coalition here, explaining some of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/24/the-faqs-are-mormons-christian/?comments#comments
2. and the second is a full study, from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries here http://carm.org/mormonism

Since I have had some encounters, some very strange ones at that with some Mormons, or seekers of Mormonism (I say seeker because they do not know much about their own religion), I have come to the conclusion that I need to understand Mormonism myself before I can engage in any conversation). The truth is that as much as I have a huge interest in reading about doctrines and the differences of doctrine of different denominations (among other reading interests) I do not relish reading about strange tales of denominations or religions where strange and sinful practices occur (i.e. occultism, polygamy, exaltation of men to god stature). In looking around and reading what is out there on the internet I am seeing a lot of comments mirroring this statement: „If not for their stance on polygamy, Mormons are just like any other Christian group who believe in Jesus Christ just like the Christians do.” WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Historical, orthodox Christianity believes Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, but that He is God and part of the trinity and that Jesus Christ coexisted eternally with God (that is before the earth was even created). Just for starters: According to Mormons (their president-Hinckley who wrote their doctrine- believe that Jesus is the offspring of God and his goddess wife and also the brother of Satan.

From the CARM website:

In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589).   Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, p. 192, 589).  Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.

Very few, if any, of the ‘different’ Mormon doctrines are found in their Standard Works:  the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.  Rather, they are taught by Mormons of high standing:  prophets, apostles, members of the 70 Quorum.  McConkie, for example, was a member of the 70’s Quorum, a very high ranking Mormon and wrote the book, Mormon Doctrine, from which much of the documentation for this is taken.

Even President Hinckley, the prophet and revelator of the Mormon church, has publicly declared that the Jesus of Mormonism and traditional Christianity are not the same.

The following information is taken from CARM apologetics website and you can access the full article here – http://carm.org/hinckley-says-mormons-believe-different-jesus

I will just post a comparison chart here:

The Mormon Jesus	The Christian Jesus
The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence. The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence. One of 3 gods in the godhead. The Trinity is three separate gods. First one to receive a spirit body. Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.	Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife. Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence. Not one of 3 gods in the godhead. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God. Was always spirit from eternity. Atoned for sin on the cross alone.

This brief comparison should help you see the difference between the two.  Jesus cannot be both the literal son of god and his goddess wife and not the literal begotten son.  He cannot be both one of 3 gods, and not one of 3 gods.  They are different.  In fact, it would be a lot easier if the Mormons called him by a different name.  For example, Bolok would be good.   Bolok is one of three gods, but Jesus is not. etc.  That way, it would be a lot easier to tell them apart.

Mormonism definitely does not teach the same Jesus as Christianity.

The entire article is also available in Spanish at the bottom of the Web page at http://carm.org/hinckley-says-mormons-believe-different-jesus

(5) Martyn Lloyd-Jones – On Schism (5th February 1961)

Pentru traducere automata, fa click aici – Romanian

Read Part 1 here – a history

Read Part 2 here – 1962 Address by Lloyd-Jones

Read Part 3 here – An accounting from those who attended

Read Part 4 here – What the newspapers reported

 From Affinity.org.uk via Reformation 21 blog, Eryl Davies: This article attempts to summarize the main teaching and challenge of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the important subject of schism.

Schism in the writings of Lloyd-Jones

The 5th February 1961- One of his sermons based on Ephesians 6:10-13 dealt with the subject of schism. He maintained that churches eager to adhere believingly to Scripture faced a major problem: „How are we to draw the line between allowing heresy and apostasy on the one hand, and being guilty of schism on the other?”.1 Lloyd- Jones was clear concerning the answer and this can be expressed in the following way:

1. Only Christians who are agreed on fundamental doctrines can be guilty of schism.
2. Schism involves the division of Christians concerning non-essential or secondary matters.
3. New Testament commands concerning unity and warnings about schism are addressed only to Christians, those who enjoy Gospel unity.
4. Evangelicals have not taken these commands and warnings seriously enough and ecumenism has exposed this inconsistency.
5. The New Testament requires a unity of churches, not merely individuals or movements; Evangelicals need to express their claim to unity in a meaningful way at church level.June 1963 – A major address based on Haggai 1 and given to the Westminster

Fraternal touched again on the present situation, the evangelical commitment to movements and the failure of this strategy. He then addressed key questions, namely, the nature and marks of the Church before discussing „the true nature of schism”.2 He does not discuss the latter subject in detail as his intention was „simply raising it as an issue”.3 Here are the main points:

The Protestant Reformers were not guilty of schism when they left the Church of Rome for they separated themselves from apostasy.
1 Corinthians „is the locus classicus with regard to this matter”. Schism is „division in the true visible Church about matters that are not sufficient to justify division and separation”, e.g. personalities, learning, observance o f days and meats, variations in spiritual gifts. The „sin of schism occurs when such people allow themselves to be divided from one another for inadequate causes and reasons”.4

„The trouble has been always that men have tended to approach schism in terms of the existing state of the churches instead of taking it right back to the New Testament conception of the Church and asking: Are we dividing that? We have allowed the opposition to govern our thinking on this question of schism, and…put ourselves into a false position. What I should ask myself is this … Am I guilty of dividing the truly spiritual New Testament Church?”5

June 1965 -Westminster Fellowship address from Psalm 74. „Two years ago”, Lloyd-Jones declared, „I tried to make a statement. I appealed for unity, a unity at the church level .. .I was convinced two years ago that many were not convinced of schism and so should be given the opportunity to be convicted…”.6 He asks: „Is there any hope of evangelical unity?…My conclusion is that there is no hope at all at the church level…because there is no agreement among Evangelicals…”.7

18th October 1966- NAE address in which Lloyd-Jones discusses schism after considering the nature of the Church. His view of the sin of schism is unchanged: „It is division among people who are agreed about the essentials and the centralities, but who separate over secondary and less important matters…that is the only definition ofschism which can claim to be Biblical…the only people…who are guilty of the sin of schism are Evangelicals”.8

July 1967- Westminster Fellowship address majoring on the unity to be sought on the part of those opposed to ecumenism. Here Lloyd-Jones warned of a danger because while Ecumenists go for minimum and ambiguous doctrinal content, Evangelicals „tend to become too precise…the opposite extreme…”.9 Major essential doctrines for him included the sole authority of Scripture in faith and practice, the Trinity, the devil and evil powers, the plan of redemption, the person and work of Christ, man in sin, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification by faith alone, sanctification. The non-essentials („not so important as to divide us”) included election, views on baptism, church policy, assurance,

prophecy and gifts. „We must not break fellowship”,10 he warned.
13th November 1968- An address by Lloyd-Jones to the BEC on What is the

Church?. 11 The uniqueness, spirituality and unity of the true Church „makes schism a terrible sin. It is not merely that you disagree with others: it is that you are dividing Christ, you are dividing a body, you are dividing a family. And so the apostle brings out his mighty powers of ridicule in 1 Corinthians 12…For brethren who are agreed about the essentials of the Gospel, and who are sharing the same life, to be divided by history, tradition, or any consideration, is the sin of schism, and it is a terrible sin”.12

4th November 1970- The Doctor’s theme at this BEC conference was Wrong divisions and True Unity13 and he distinguished between separation and schism. Again, he turned to 1 Corinthians and showed how the Corinthian Christians had a defective understanding of the Church and failed „to draw the line properly between” essentials and those matters which are „important but not essential”. 14 He nescribes the Corinthians as „standing and dividing on carnal matters”,15 „intellectualism”16 and „false spirituality”.17 Lloyd-Jones is adamant that the essentials „on which me must stand”18 include the Scriptures,19 the Fall,20 God’s plan of redemption21 and the Person of the Lord.22 On these doctrines we must stand „unflinchingly… even unto death, but be very careful about anything else you stand on, lest you become guilty of the sin of schism and offend a dear brother for whom Christ died. I f you think he is mistaken, patiently, quietly, prayerfully, try to instruct him and to help him. And as you value your own conscience and always try to obey it, remember that he has got a conscience also and you must not cause him to offend it. Let us love one another. Let us bear with one another but hold the centralities, the first things, boldly, courageously and unflinchingly, together”.23

Dr Eryl Davies is the Principal of the Evangelical Theological College of Wales

I have been in the ministry and trying to preach now for getting on for forty-four years. I have seen strange things in the life of the churches, but I have never known such confusion as prevails at the present time. Of course, those of us who belong to this Evangelical Council are not a bit surprised that there is confusion among people who are not evangelical. They cannot but be confused. Indeed they are not evangelical because they are confused. So that does not surprise us. But, even in that realm, the confusion is more and more confounded than I have ever known it.

But what should be of particular concern to us is that we have to confess, if we are honest, that there is some confusion amongst us. This is serious…

This is important because the greatest need in the world tonight is for a united evangelical message. It is the only hope for mankind. It is the only hope for the world and, in general, it is the only hope for the church. The people are confused, utterly confused. All their famous ‘nostrums’ fail to give them healing. All the prophecies of the false prophets have been falsified. They are all just disillusioned. That is the real meaning of this calamitous drug-taking and alcoholism. I believe the world is waiting for an authoritative statement. And it can only have it from those who take a scriptural view of the way of salvation-that is from evangelicals. That is why it is so urgently and vitally important that there should be no confusion amongst us but that we should speak with a united and a certain voice concerning these vital matters.

DM Lloyd-Jones, Wrong Divisions and True Unity, in Unity in Truth

Foundations 37 – Autumn 1996.tiff

http://www.affinity.org.uk/downloads/foundations/…/37_27.pdf