The Messengers – Te Rog Mă Iartă

poza via Facebook Pasiune pentru Inchinare. Multumesc lui Ion Paul pentru atentionare!





BUCURESTI – 6 MAI – BISERICA BETEL + Alin & Florina Jivan

PLOIESTI – 7 MAI – CASA DE CULTURA + Alin & Florina Jivan

ALBA IULIA – 8 MAI – CASA DE CULTURA + Alin si Emima Timofte ; Elim Harmony ; Otto Pascal

TURDA – 9 MAI – BISERICA FILADELFIA + Alin & Emima Timofte ; Elim Harmony ; Otto Pascal

BEIUS – 10 MAI – CENTRU CIRESARII + Alin & Emima Timofte ; Elim Harmony ; Otto Pascal



Pastor, Moise Ardelean (Alba Iulia ; Turda)
Pastor, Nelu Brie (Ploiesti)
Evanghelist, Stefan Tohatan (Dublin ; Londra ; Bucuresti ; Beius ; Timisoara ; Arad)

poza din video


The Messengers – Te Rog Mă Iartă

Uploaded by Dan Damian

Inima Inchinarii – la AlfaOmegaTV

Vladimir Pustan – Intrarea Domnului Isus in Ierusalim

Luca 19:29-48 

29Cînd S’a apropiat de Betfaghe şi de Betania, înspre muntele numit al Măslinilor, Isus a trimes pe doi din ucenicii Săi, 30şi le -a zis: ,,Duceţi-vă în satul dinaintea voastră. Cînd veţi intra în el, veţi găsi un măgăruş legat, pe care n’a încălecat nimeni niciodată: deslegaţi -l, şi aduceţi-Mi -l. 31Dacă vă va întreba cineva: ,Pentruce -l deslegaţi?` să -i spuneţi aşa: ,Pentrucă Domnul are trebuinţă de el.„

32Ceice fuseseră trimeşi, s’au dus şi au găsit aşa cum le spusese Isus. 33Pe cînd deslegau măgăruşul, stăpînii lui le-au zis: ,,Pentruce deslegaţi măgăruşul?„34Ei au răspuns: ,,Domnul are trebuinţă de el.„

35Şi au adus măgăruşul la Isus. Apoi şi-au aruncat hainele pe el, şi au aşezat pe Isus, călare deasupra.

36Pe cînd mergea Isus, oamenii îşi aşterneau hainele pe drum.37Şi cînd S’a apropiat de Ierusalim, spre pogorîşul muntelui Măslinilor, toată mulţimea ucenicilor, plină de bucurie, a început să laude pe Dumnezeu cu glas tare pentru toate minunile, pe cari le văzuseră. 38Ei ziceau: ,,Binecuvîntat este Împăratul care vine în Numele Domnului! Pace în cer, şi slavă în locurile prea înalte!„

39Unii Farisei, din norod, au zis lui Isus: ,,Învăţătorule, ceartă-Ţi ucenicii!„

40Şi El a răspuns: ,,Vă spun că, dacă vor tăcea ei, pietrele vor striga.„

41Cînd S’a apropiat de cetate şi a văzut -o, Isus a plîns pentru ea, 42şi a zis: ,,Dacă ai fi cunoscut şi tu, măcar în această zi, lucrurile, cari puteau să-ţi dea pacea! Dar acum, ele sînt ascunse de ochii tăi.43Vor veni peste tine zile, cînd vrăjmaşii tăi te vor înconjura cu şanţuri, te vor împresura, şi te vor strînge din toate părţile: 44te vor face una cu pămîntul, pe tine şi pe copiii tăi din mijlocul tău; şi nu vor lăsa în tine piatră pe piatră, pentrucă n’ai cunoscut vremea cînd ai fost cercetată.„

45În urmă a intrat în Templu, şi a început să scoată afară pe ceice vindeau şi cumpărau în el. 46Şi le -a zis: ,,Este scris: ,Casa Mea va fi o casă de rugăciune. Dar voi aţi făcut din ea o peşteră de tîlhari.„

47Isus învăţa în toate zilele pe norod în Templu. Şi preoţii cei mai de seamă, cărturarii şi bătrînii norodului căutau să -L omoare; 48dar nu ştiau cum să facă, pentrucă tot norodul Îi sorbea vorbele de pe buze.

Cristian Barbosu – Floriile si Plansul Ierusalimului

La o Conferinta 2011 (sursa Facebook)
2 Cristian Barbosu  2011


John Piper – On Querying the Biblical Text

By John Piper. ©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Website: (photo via

If the Bible is coherent, then understanding the Bible means grasping how things fit together. Becoming a Biblical theologian means seeing more and more pieces fit together into a glorious mosaic of the divine will. And doing exegesis means querying the text about how its many propositions cohere in the author’s mind.

If we are going to feed our people, we must ever advance in our grasp of biblical truth. And to advance in our grasp of biblical truth we must be troubled by biblical affirmations.

It must bother us that James and Paul don’t seem to jibe. Only when we are troubled and bothered do we think hard. And if we don’t think hard about how biblical affirmations fit together, we will never penetrate to their common root and discover the beauty of unified divine truth. The end result is that our Bible reading will become insipid, we will turn to fascinating „secondary literature,” our sermons will be the lame work of „second-handers,” and the people will go hungry.

„We never think until we have been confronted with a problem,” said John Dewey. He was right. And that is why we will never think hard about biblical truth until we are troubled by its complexity.

Habitually Disturbed

We must form the habit of being systematically disturbed by things that at first glance don’t make sense. Or to put it a different way, we must relentlessly query the text. One of the greatest honors I received while teaching at Bethel was when the teaching assistants in the Bible department gave me a T-shirt which had the initials of Jonathan Edwards on the front and on the back the words: „Asking questions is the key to understanding.”

But there are several strong forces which oppose our relentless and systematic interrogating of biblical texts. One is that it consumes a great deal of time and energy on one small portion of Scripture. We have been schooled [quite erroneously] that there is a direct correlation between reading a lot and gaining insight. But in fact there is no positive correlation at all been quantity of pages read and quality of insight gained. Just the reverse. Except for a few geniuses, insight diminishes as we try to read more and more. Insight or understanding is the product of intensive, headache-producing meditation on two or three verses and how they fit together. This kind of reflection and rumination is provoked by asking questions of the text. And you cannot do it if you hurry. Therefore, we must resist the deceptive urge to carve notches in our bibliographic gun. Take two hours to ask ten questions of Galatians 2:20 and you will gain one hundred times the insight you would have attained by reading 30 pages of the New Testament or any other book. Slow down. Query. Ponder. Chew.

Another reason it is hard to spend hours probing for the roots of coherence is that it is fundamentally unfashionable today to systematize and seek for harmony and unity. This noble quest has fallen on hard times because so much artificial harmony has been discovered by impatient and nervous Bible defenders. But if God’s mind is truly coherent and not confused, then exegesis must aim to see the coherence of biblical revelation and the profound unity of divine truth. Unless we are to dabble forever on the surface of things (content to turn up „tensions” and „difficulties”) then we must resist the atomistic (and basically anti-intellectual) fashions in the contemporary theological establishment. There is far too much debunking of past failures and far too little construction going on.

A third force that opposes the effort to ask the Bible questions is this: Asking questions is the same as posing problems, and we have been discouraged all our lives from finding problems in God’s Holy Book.

Rightfully Respecting God’s Word

It is impossible to respect the Bible too highly, but it is very possible to respect it wrongly. If we do not ask seriously how differing texts fit together, then we are either superhuman (and glance all truth at a glance) or indifferent (and don’t care about seeing more truth). But I don’t see how anyone who is indifferent or superhuman can have a proper respect for the Bible. Therefore reverence for God’s Word demands that we ask questions and pose problems and that we believe there are answers and solutions which will reward our labor with „treasures new and old” (Matt. 13:52).

We must train our people that it is not irreverent to see difficulties in the biblical text and to think hard about how they can be resolved.

I do not accuse my 6-year-old son, Benjamin, of irreverence when he cannot make sense out of a Bible verse and asks me about it. He is just learning to read. But have our abilities to read been perfected? Can any of us at one reading grasp the logic of a paragraph and see how every part relates to all the others and how they all fit together to make a unified point? How much less the thought of an entire epistle, the New Testament, the Bible! If we care about truth, we must relentlessly query the text and form the habit of being bothered by things we read.

Reading for Reverence

This is just the opposite of irreverence. It is what we do if we crave the mind of Christ. Nothing sends us deeper into the counsels of God than seeing apparent theological discrepancies in the Bible and pondering them day and night until they fit into an emerging system of unified truth. For example, a year ago I struggled for days with how Paul could say on the one hand, „Have no anxiety about anything” (Phil. 4:6), but on the other hand say (with apparent impunity) that his „anxiety for all the churches” was a daily pressure on him (2 Cor. 11:28). How could he say, „Rejoice always” (1 Thess. 5:16), and „Weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:15)? How would he say to give thanks „always and for everything” (Eph. 5:20) and then admit, „I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” (Rom. (9:2)?

More recently I have asked, What does it mean that Jesus said in Matthew 5:39 to turn the other cheek when struck, but said in Matthew 10:23, „When they persecute you in one town, flee. . .”? When do you flee and when do endure hardship and turn the other cheek? I have also been pondering in what sense it is true that God is „slow to anger” (Ex. 34:6) and in what sense „His wrath is quickly kindled” (Ps. 2:11).

There are hundreds and hundreds of such seeming discrepancies in the Holy Scripture, and we dishonor the text not to see them and think them through. God is not a God of confusion. His tongue is not forked. There are profound and wonderful resolutions to all problems. He has called us to an eternity of discovery so that every morning for ages to come we might break forth in new songs of praise.

In 2 Timothy 2:7 Paul gave us a command and a promise. He commanded, „Think over what I say.” And he promised, „God will give you understanding in everything.”

How do the command and promise fit together? The little „for” (gar) gives the answer. „Think . . . because God will reward you with understanding.”

The promise is not made to all. It is made to those who think. And we do not think until we are confronted with a problem. Therefore, brothers, let us query the text.

An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – Alvin Plantinga at USC

PlantingaSome points/notes from the Plantinga lecture, in which he argues that naturalism and evolution do not fit together:

–Plantinga defines naturalism (3:45) as the belief that there is no such person as God, or anything like God, Naturalism is stronger than atheism.  Naturalism entails atheism, but atheism doesn’t entail naturalism. You can be an atheist without rising to the heights of, or sinking to the depths of naturalism. For example, someone like Hegel, who thought there was this giant absolute that includes all the realities, but didn’t think there was an omnipotent, omniscient, holy, good person. Such a person would be an atheist, but would not be a naturalist. Naturalism, as I say is stronger than atheism.  Naturalism and evolution are usually thought of as bosom buddies, supporting each other. Evolution is always thought of as kind of a pillar in the temple of naturalism. I would argue that one can’t be a naturalist and also accept evolution, as evolution is ordinarily thought of. They conflict with each other. They go against each other. The conjunction of the two is self referentially incoherent. Christians should not only argue against naturalism, and only assert that naturalism is false, but Christians ought to provide arguments here. We’re enjoined in the New Testament to always be ready with a ‘reason for the hope that is within us’. So, I think the Christian community- Christian students and the like, should be willing to give arguments of this sort.

According to theism, we human beings have been created by a holy, good, all powerful, all knowing being, namely God, who has made us in His own image (made us like Him), and has aims and intentions- He intends certain things, aims that certain should happen, and aims that certain things should happen, and can act in such a way to accomplish those aims. That’s part of what it means to be a person. So there is God, on the one hand, in the theistic story, who has created the world, and on the other hand is creation, that which is created. You might think of naturalism as the theistic world picture minus God. Among famous, well known naturalists there would be the late Carl Sagan, with his portentous incantation ‘the cosmos is all there is or ever has been, or ever will be’, also the late Steven Jay Gould, David Armstrong, the philosopher, the later Darwin, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, John Lucas, a former philosopher at Oxford, who says that ‘naturalism is the contemporary orthodoxy  of the academy’. Naturalism is certainly strong in the academy, certainly among philosophers

My argument will have to do with cognitive faculties, memory, perception, the faculty by which one forms beliefs, the faculty whereby one knows things, memory, perception, insight, where you learn mathematical truths and logical truths, maybe reads sympathies- whereby you know what other people are thinking and feeling, induction- where you can learn by experience. So these would be cognitive faculties.

The structure of the argument

In brief, here’s how my argument will go. I’ll argue: If naturalism and evolution, if that pair of propositions, if they were both true, than it would be improbable that our cognitive faculties (memory and so on) are in fact reliable. That they give us, for the most part, true beliefs. Once you see that, then if you accept naturalism and evolution you have a defeater for this proposition  that ‘your cognitive faculties are reliable’, a reason to give that belief up, a reason to to believe it. Once you have a defeater for that proposition for that ‘that your cognitive faculties are reliable’, then you have a defeater for any proposition that you take to be produced by your cognitive faculties. Naturally, that’s all of them. I mean, where else would they come from. So, then you have a defeater for also for naturalism and evolution itself. So, you might say it’s self defeating. It’s self referentially inconsistent. (11:00)

YOU CAND READ more of these notes from here-

Video Published on Feb 23, 2013 – Alvin Plantinga is known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics. Notably, he has argued that some can know that God exists as a basic belief in the same way that people usually claim to know that other minds exist. VeritasForum·

Related posts

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari