4:1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit3 in4 the wilderness,5 4:2 where for forty days he endured temptations6 from the devil. He ate nothing8 during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished. 4:3 The devil said to him, “If10 you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4:4 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man12 does not live by bread alone.’”13
4:5 Then the devil led him up16 to a high place17 and showed him in a flash all the kingdoms of the world. 4:6 And he18 said to him, “To you19 I will grant this whole realm20 – and the glory that goes along with it,21 for it has been relinquished22 to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. 4:7 So then, if23 you will worship24 me, all this will be25 yours.” 4:8 Jesus answered him,27 “It is written, ‘You are to worship28 the Lord29 your God and serve only him.’”30
4:9 Then the devil brought him to Jerusalem, had him stand34 on the highest point of the temple,35 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 4:10 for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’37 4:11 and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”38 4:12 Jesus answered him,40 “It is said, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’”41 4:13 So when the devil43 had completed every temptation, he departed from him until a more opportune time.44
The Beginning of Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee
4:14 Then Jesus, in the power of the Spirit,46 returned to Galilee, and news about him spread throughout the surrounding countryside. 4:15 He began to teach in their synagogues51 and was praised52 by all.
Quote on suffering
“To be a follower of the Crucified Christ means, sooner or later, a personal encounter with the cross. And the cross always entails loss. – Elisabeth Elliot
Is it a Sacrifice?
People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply acknowledging a great debt we owe to our God which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice which brings its own reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny? It is emphatically no sacrifice. Rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, danger, foregoing the common conveniences of this life—these may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing compared with the glory which shall later be revealed in and through us. I never made a sacrifice. Of this we ought not to talk, when we remember the great sacrifice which He made who left His Father’s throne on high to give Himself for us. – David Livingstone
What is Gospel? Do you still need it even after you dedicate your life to Christ? Is this good news still for you and me? Where do you get your strength from and why are you being sent to the people who don’t know God? (John Piper)
Is evolution spectacular? Are we missing some or even significant amount of the necessary information before we can make such bold claims? Are people that have doubts just too stupid and unable to understand what Evolution is?
And now for some more advertising for those who are truly interested in asking searching questions. I have found this post and as it very much brings same sentiments I have about the theory I though I will include small paragraph with link to the rest of the post and I would highly recommend that you should look at the other material linked to this blog.
By Dr Cornelius Hunter
“Richard Dawkins’ new book about evolution is aptly titled The Greatest Show On Earth, for evolution is an incredible show. In fact it is a spectacle. Evolutionists routinely make false claims, commit logical fallacies, and contradict themselves, all with the air of absolute confidence. But this is not all. This spectacle has been on stage for centuries now, and the players have remained oblivious to their blunders. We may as well be watching a group of belligerent teenagers for some sign of intelligence. Here are some of the latest absurdities from this greatest show on earth”.
Brilliant exposition of his faith Dr Tim Keller visits Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, “The Reason for God.” This event took place on March 5, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series. reason for God
Brilliant as often he can be, touching upon the subject that many will ignore. Question is can we call ourselves Christians and at the same time miss on the fundamental teachings of Jesus? “What Is the Recession For?” 2 Corinthians 1:1-11
Good news for creation narrative and ID proponents and I’m sorry to say yet more bad news for Evolution, now that “Finally discovered missing link” is discovered not to be the missing link after all. Should we go back to the fact that we don’t have the missing link now? Good to see the retraction except now we have no big advertisement no big media coverage press conference with David Attenborough or National geographic. Will they own up now and say we still have the problem of missing link? I doubt it but at least they don’t persist with the lie, and that can only be good.
Quote Taken from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm
Primate fossil ‘not an ancestor’
The exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate known as “Ida” is not a missing link as some have claimed, according to an analysis in the journal Nature.
The research is the first independent assessment of the claims made in a scientific paper and a television documentary earlier this year.
Dr Erik Seiffert says that Ida belonged to a group more closely linked to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us.
His team’s conclusions come from an analysis of another fossil primate.
The newly described animal – known as Afradapis longicristatus – lived some 37 million years ago in northern Egypt, during the Eocene epoch. And the researchers say it was closely related to Ida.
This study would effectively remove Ida from our ancestry.
Erik Seiffert, Stony Brook University
Ida lived some 47 million years ago and was given the scientific name Darwinius masillae.
Dr Seiffert and his colleagues say that both Afradapis and Darwinius were in a sister group to the so-called “higher primates”, which includes humans.
This extinct sister group, they say, was more closely related to lemurs and lorises.
Ravi Zacharias responds to a student’s question about atheism, feminism, and the Bible at Penn State University. Ravi asks, “When someone denies the existence of God, what are they affirming in its place?” Watch as Ravi exposes how some atheists borrow from a Judeo-Christian worldview to debunk it.
I have just discovered that brilliant new resources are being made available by the Church of Tim Keller (Redeemer church) with 150 free sermons and lectures available now. I will add this web page to my blog roll and for now just follow the link and make good use of great resources. Dr Keller is wonderful Christian, eloquent in his exposition and thought provoking when needed, it is hard to find anyone who can truly say they did not enjoy listening to his style. Even if you find minor theological disagreements, they are always on very minor issues, this may be on the style of worship or how we should evangelise but his message is solid and his arguments are strong. Please let the others know, thanks for your help in spreading the good news.
Cultural Relativism and the Emasculation of Truth The 19th century writer George Macdonald once said, “To give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him plentiful material for misinterpretation.” Indeed, Ravi argues that the ideas of rationalism and agnosticism and the institution of the media have altered our social landscape, such that belief in God’s revelation seems wholly implausible for many individuals. Without such an understanding, proclamation is pointless.
Here are some interesting views by Dr Tim Keller on how best to engage modern atheist. there are many pitfalls but should we be afraid and ignore our calling or dare to something even when the possibility of making few errors is still there. question is what are we called to do? If we are to be called by the Name of Christ should we not also answer his call to go out and be his witnesses. As someone sad to me Church needs to stop preaching to the converted and engage these who need the good news of the salvation that Christ brings.
Dr Williams said relations between the churches would not be damaged
Groups of Anglicans will be able to join the Roman Catholic Church but maintain a distinct religious identity under changes announced by the Pope.
The Vatican said the new rules follow requests from Anglicans wanting to join but retain their liturgical heritage.
It comes amid splits among Anglicans worldwide over homosexuality and the ordination of women.
But Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said he did not think it was a “commentary on Anglican problems”.
Causes of discord in the worldwide Anglican communion have included the election of an openly gay bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions.
‘Worldwide phenomenon’
In the Church of England, the ordination of women as priests, and the prospect of their appointment as bishops, has led many Anglicans to consider joining the Roman Catholics.
Under the terms of the new Apostolic Constitution announced by the Vatican, groupings of Anglicans would be able to join “personal ordinariates”.
This would allow them to enter full communion with the Catholic church, but also preserve elements of the Anglican traditions including the possible use of Anglican prayer books.
Speaking at a Vatican press conference, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the constitution was a response to “many requests” from groups of Anglican clergy and worshippers wanting to enter into full communion with the church.
Cardinal Levada said it “provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a worldwide phenomenon”.
Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot (Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter’s interest in the theory of evolution involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects of the theory. His website is www.DarwinsPredictions.com
Just a quick note to anyone who may be questioning evolution but had always wanted to look at some information that had little bit of science but light enough that ordinary lay person interested in science could understand. Well I cam across this one today. Its called Darwin’s Predictions.com it is written by Dr Cornelius Hunter.
Here is the excerpt from his web page followed by the link to his blog.
1 Introduction
Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.
1.1 How to compare findings with expectations
It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.
When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.
Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell?
1.2 Two examples
Classical physics was elucidated in the seventeenth century. It explained how objects move and the theory worked well for many years until it was found to fail at very high speeds and in the subatomic world. Objects travelling near the speed of light and tiny particles did not obey the venerable laws of physics, and the new areas of physics known as relativity and quantum mechanics were required. Classical physics still worked well for traditional types of problems, but it was now understood to be a special case of the more general descriptions provided by relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems obvious that classical physics ought not to be dropped. It simply has a limited domain of applicability. In this example, it seems reasonable to say that the new findings are not so much a problem for classical physics so much as a refinement. We learned more about how objects move, regardless of the precise relationship between classical physics and quantum mechanics. [2]
Geocentrism dates back to antiquity. The idea that the objects in the sky rotate around the earth seems quite reasonable. After all, the stars can be seen to move across the sky every night. So do the moon and planets, and the sun by day. Was not the earth at the center of the universe? But there are anomalies in these motions. Sometimes the planets move backwards, for instance, and the geocentric model did not always work very well. Its false predictions, however, could be accommodated by adding adjustments. The anomalous motions of heavenly objects were described with dozens of epicycles. This highly complicated version of geocentrism worked very well. The positions of objects in the sky, and even eclipses, could be predicted in advance. Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler. [3] In this example, it seems obvious that the failures of geocentrism are not merely a case of refining the theory. In this case it seems that the theory is false.
Today, there is absolutely no excuse for Christians to be ignorant or lack understanding on what the Bible is teaching. If one is to be called a follower of Christ he/she should obey his commands. Jesus wanted us to be aware and prepared ourselves, when any Christian becomes complacent, he is as good as dead in his faith. Faith and reason, explored through logic with the Help of the Holy Spirit is what is required. We live in the world that increasingly places far greater emphasis on our ability to argue our case than the times past when Christianity had a realy easy ride. Those times are gone, unless we wake up and smell the coffee, we must shape up with intellectual muscle flexing, otherwise we will stay intelectual dwarfs in our faith, if we are to grow we need to be reminded that in 1 Cor 1 Paul is reminding us that we could not grow as we are still being fed “spiritual milk”.
There are so many people, that feel that wishy washy is OK and is good enough. Note that this not only brings embarrassment upon the Church, but will shame anyone who is genuinely seeking, but will recognise serious limitations of simple sayings like “Jesus Loves you”. Whilst these are fundamental truths of the Bible, we must dig deeper, we must be open to the criticism and understand that part of our calling is to be the light. If you are going to be the light then you have to get all the necessary answers and understanding. Otherwise we are in deed like in that parable that Jesus said “blind leading the blind”.
This study would effectively remove Ida from our ancestry. 
