text:
Platform(s): PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Publisher: Activision
Developer: Radical Entertainment
Release Date: June 10, 2009 (US), June 12, 2009 (EU)
About Thomas Wilde
PS3/X360/PC Preview - 'Prototype'
by Thomas Wilde on Aug. 28, 2007 @ 6:05 a.m. PDT
Prototype tells the story of Alex Mercer - a man haunted by his past, fighting a secret war in New York City. As the action spirals out of control, a conspiracy tied to his origins threatens the future of mankind itself. Mercer's amazing shapeshifting powers allow him to become an exact replica and steal the skills or powers of anyone who crosses his path.
Genre: Open World Action
Publisher: Sierra
Developer: Radical
Prototype is the Miracleman of open-world superhero games.
That's a relatively obscure reference, which you'll probably only get if you're really into comic books. I'll explain. In brief, Miracleman is one of the seminal works of the superhero genre, although a combination of its small independent publisher and a long-running debate over the rights to the series have kept it under most fans' radar. It was written by Alan Moore in the early '80s, and concerned a man who suddenly discovered he could transform into a nearly invincible version of himself: Miracleman. The "point" of Miracleman was that once a human gains an extraordinary amount of power, it would logically follow that he would have a hard time holding onto his basic humanity.
Moore's run on the series culminated in one of the bloodiest fights ever seen in comic-book history, as Miracleman and his archnemesis fought each other across the face of London. As you expect to see with superhero fights, there was an extraordinary amount of property damage; as you don't expect to see, there was also a lot of death amidst the destruction. Miracleman threw occupied cars at his enemy; they blew up crowded streets; they killed dozens, if not hundreds, of people while trying to kill each other. It was one of the bloodiest, most shocking issues in comic history.
At its most hyperkinetic, Prototype recalls that kind of imagery. Radical Entertainment, the developers of games like Scarface and Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, describe it as "the ultimate power fantasy," with you put in control of an amazingly powerful, nearly unstoppable monster, then cut loose on the streets of a New York that's under martial law.
Alex Mercer wakes up one day in New York City as a viral epidemic is sweeping across Manhattan. The infected are physically changed, going from ordinary humans into clawed, armored monsters. As a result, parts of the city are put under military quarantine, while others turn into virtual no-man's-lands. As time goes on, the city becomes a battlefield between the infected, the military, and Alex, who counts as a third faction all by himself. Your goal is to stay alive, and if you feel like it, to track down some answers about who you are.
Alex, incidentally, is basically a monster in human form. You can shapeshift, assuming various forms for attack or defense; you can grow claws, sprout armor, block gunfire with a chitinous shield, pick up cars, rip things apart with your bare hands, and more. Alex moves through the city like a parkour runner on PCP, bouncing across traffic, running up buildings, ricocheting off walls, and leaving chaos in his wake.
More disturbingly, Alex can also bodily consume any human being he gets his hands on. At will, you can grab any passerby, whether they're a soldier or a civilian, and slap on some kind of deeply violent finishing move — crushing the head, tearing out throats, beating them to death with a few quick punches — before liquifying and devouring the entire body. Alex then learns everything that person knew, and can shapeshift into their form.
You do not even have the ability to try and be a nice person in this game. You are a monster. You are Godzilla in a hoodie, and you are here to wreck things.
This allows you to play the game in a couple of different ways. Devouring people allows you to get further into the mystery of Alex's origins, as they can't lie to you when you've eaten their spicy brains (there are about 250 steps on the road to discovering who Alex really is), and also allows you to play things sneakily. You can disguise yourself as damn near anyone, such as military commanders or police sergeants. In the latter cases, this also lets you give people orders.
Alternatively, you could go on homicidal rampages. The military is out to kill you, and the infected are out to kill everyone. The end result is that Prototype can turn into an intensely violent game at a moment's notice, above and beyond what's usually possible in open-world games. You can seize military hardware and blow up entire city blocks; the infected are superhumanly fast and strong; and ordinary people caught between the two of you have the lifespan of a snowball in a cyclotron. They just fly apart.
The big fight scenes are where Prototype really comes alive, where you're fighting the military and the infected all at once. Before then, it's difficult to appreciate what Radical's done; on the surface, they've made an open-world game with the player as the biggest possible son of a bitch in gaming history. This is not unusual or noteworthy. It's only when the onscreen action really starts to heat up that the game becomes impressive. Prototype can turn into the world's goriest disaster movie at a moment's notice, and you're there in the middle of it throwing cars and making noise.
At this point, Prototype is about 20 percent done and is slated for release next year. The developer knows the genre it's working in, and Radical is finally doing its own thing after years of making licensed titles. This could be one of the big titles in 2008.
More articles about Prototype


Diani Beach Masai Picture Of Diani Beach Diani Beach Tripadvisor Concept Of Diani Beach is free HD wallpaper. This wallpaper was upload at March 05, 2016 upload by Walter Douglas in Uncategorized.
Description: Diani Beach Masai Picture Of Diani Beach Diani Beach Tripadvisor Concept Of Diani Beach from the above resolutions which is part of the Uncategorized. Download this image for free in HD resolution the choice "download button" below. If you do not find the exact resolution you are looking for, then go for a native or higher resolution.
Design graphics gallery make sure you stick to this specific web page link.
Download Diani Beach Masai Picture Of Diani Beach Diani Beach Tripadvisor Concept Of Diani Beach with original resolution Click Here!
33 Photos of "Diani Beach Masai Picture Of Diani Beach Diani Beach Tripadvisor Concept Of Diani Beach"
Related Posts of "Diani Beach Masai Picture Of Diani Beach Diani Beach Tripadvisor Concept Of Diani Beach"


text:
the word was god
A Study of the Prologue of John's Gospel
The First Fourteen Verses
Most versions of the prologue of John's Gospel have been crafted to say something very different than what John intended. They have lifted his words out of the context within which they were written, and framed them so as to set forth a strange dogma, which flows completely against the rest of his Gospel.
John was not some world renown theologian or philosopher who sought to place before his readers the great mysteries of the godhead. He was a simple fisherman, from an obscure village around the lake of Galilee. He was called by his Master to teach that which he had been taught; to offer to his listeners the simple words of truth.
Thus, our first chore in this Study will be an attempt to dispose of the crazy notion that in his prologue John was proclaiming an entirely new and radical ideology, that Yeshua (Jesus) was somehow GOD the Son, that He was the second person of the so-called blessed trinity, and that in the beginning He was also a participator or joint creator in making this world.
For instance, if John's purpose in his Gospel was to lay out for his reader the revolutionary supposition that Yeshua was GOD the Son, then why didn't he just say so? Why would he have been so cryptic in his language, if that was his true and important reason for writing? Why didn't he just simply and plainly say that Yeshua was GOD Himself, if that was his intent?
We will find that when the Church's theology and bias is stripped away, that not once did John ever intimate that Yeshua was GOD. Sure, he may have quoted Yeshua as saying that He was from heaven, but never does John come out and plainly say that Yeshua was GOD. And even though Yeshua taught that He and His Father were one, He himself never said anything like He was GOD, or that He was GOD the Son, or anything of the sort.
There are certainly passages which warrant our further scrutiny, which when wrongly rendered might lead some to suppose that somehow Yeshua was co-equal with GOD Almighty, but I think these can all be understood without us upsetting the whole theological system of the scriptures.
Let us consider that just a few passages before John's Gospel, Luke told us of an occasion where the risen Lord appeared to His disciples while they were behind closed doors. He instructed them, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (24:39). Yeshua plainly stated here that He, even in His resurrected body, was not a spirit. And yet just a few pages later in John's Gospel we have the record of Yeshua saying that GOD is spirit (4:24). Obviously, if Yeshua is not spirit and GOD is spirit, then how can Yeshua be GOD?
On another occasion Yeshua stated, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (JOHN 8:17-18). He was plainly speaking here of two separate and distinct individuals, Him and His Father. If on the other hand they were not two different individuals, then His argument was absurd.
Howbeit, when we come to another passage where Yeshua did in fact state that He and His Father were one, we have to stop and ask ourselves of what was He speaking? Are they one or are they two?
Yeshua pretty much answered this question for us in a prayer to His Father, just before He was betrayed by Judas. He asked, ". . . Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are" (JOHN 17:11). Clearly, if Yeshua being one with the Father is akin to Him being GOD, then how are we to explain the disciples also being one? Yeshua gave further light on this as He continued His prayer.
JOHN 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
page 1/12^
We may surmise that Yeshua was intending that they were one in purpose, not one in being. Nevertheless, the point which is clear is that being one with GOD could not have meant that He was GOD, or that the disciples were GOD, or that any of them were of the same nature of GOD, only being distinct persons of some mystical godhead. These are all silly inventions of a Church theology from around the third century after Christ (see the Study, Origins of the Trinity).
Another important point that we should gather from Yeshua's prayer, was the very fact that He was praying to His Father. If Yeshua was GOD, then how do we explain to whom He was praying? And how do we account for the fact that He often referred to GOD as His Father? A father is usually superior to the son, the source and authority of the son, so if this is the kind of relationship Yeshua considered Him and GOD to have had, why would we suppose them to be the one and the same individual, except for the fact that this is what Church Tradition has attempted to shove down our throats throughout the centuries?
And besides this, are we to suppose that John would have opened up his Gospel account with this new and strange doctrine, that Yeshua was GOD, but then not somewhere further and more fully explain it for his readers? Throughout his writings, John never developed or even referenced how Yeshua could have been with GOD in GENESIS 1:1, or how Yeshua made the world, or anything about this so-called trinity. Let us then search and see what he really was trying to unfold to the reader in the opening words of his Gospel. What other renderings might these passages have which would flow with the context of John's writings and not completely against them.
Howbeit, we must acknowledge that we live in a trinitarian world. Practically every theologian, every denomination, every Church devoutly believes that the Trinity is a proven fact. Nearly every Bible version, almost all of the Bible commentaries, together approach John's prologue from the perspective that Yeshua is and was GOD almighty. This being the case, we must be extra diligent to ferret out the truth and look past the biases to see our way through to the other side. Let's not just assume that their consensus is accurate or even honest.
In order to assure ourselves that we are on the right and correct path, let us first consider the context of John's prologue; let us review what was the exact purpose of John's entire Gospel. What were the themes which he repeatedly laid out for his readers?
We have our answer to this question in the concluding passage of his book. In this summary he gave us a complete overview of all that he had been endeavoring to set before his readers (note that chapter 21 was probably added by John later as explained in another Study, The Last Supper, page 6).
JOHN 20:30-31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
These two themes we will see John develop and expand upon time and again throughout his Gospel; first that Yeshua was the Messiah, the Son of GOD, and secondly, that those believing this might have life. He will include in his account the testimony of many players and participators in the life and ministry of the Lord, including John the Baptist, Yeshua himself, the other apostles and disciples, the additional testimony of the followers and unbelievers as well as himself, all pointing to the fact and giving evidence that Yeshua was the Messiah, the Son of GOD. John will also weave in and out of his account how the gospel brought life and salvation to those believing its message.
Thus, the great and general theme of the Gospel was for John to first establish Yeshua's credentials; that this teacher from Nazareth was indeed the one of which they had awaited and looked for, the promised Messiah, the redeemer of those of their nation as well as the world at large. And John's ultimate purpose in demonstrating that Yeshua was indeed the Messiah, the Son of GOD, was that His followers might believe and therefore have life through Him. Over sixty times in his Gospel and almost twenty more just in his first epistle, John catalogues occasions where it was referenced that Yeshua was the Son of GOD, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah or the Prophet of whom they had awaited (to see these references, go here).
Thus, throughout his Gospel John laid out for the reader truths which he had first set forth in the prologue; that Yeshua lived and spoke GOD's word, indeed that He was that word made flesh. And further, that He was the bread of life, giving eternal life unto those that kept the words He spoke and taught. And even further, that He was the light of the world, that men no longer needed to dwell in the darkness. These are the simple truths repeatedly set forth throughout JOHN, but first introduced in his prologue.
As he penned the opening passages of his Gospel, John was not introducing some preposterous new and strange doctrine that Yeshua was an equal and joint creator with GOD Almighty. Throughout the next twenty chapters he could have easily said so in plain words on any number of occasions, but he never did. Instead he was diligent to recall statements made by Yeshua Himself that He was inferior to His Father, that all which He possessed was from the Father, both His words and His actions. And even though John boldly declared that Yeshua was the Son of GOD, never, not once did anyone in scripture ever suggest that Yeshua was GOD the Son.
The critical distinction we would do well to recognize, was that the things which made Yeshua great were the words of GOD which He had welded into every fabric of His being. He was not great because He was some part of a triune godhead, for He wasn't. He was great because He believed GOD's words. He was great because He spoke and lived GOD's words. The focal point of it all was GOD's words. That is why John opened up his gospel account with GOD's word.
Towards this end, John's prologue had basically two initial objectives which he would more fully develop as his account progressed. First, he wanted to demonstrate for the reader the greatness of the word of GOD. He wanted to show the necessity and vitality of that word. How that it was not only the driving force of Yeshua's ministry, but also how it gave light to those in darkness, indeed, how it gave eternal life to those who heard and believed it. Secondly, he wanted to demonstrated that Yeshua was not only that word of life in the flesh, but also that He was the light of life.
Thus John opened his Gospel, writing that "In the beginning was the word". Every single commentary I have found all agree that this phrase either referred to the creation of the world in GENESIS 1:1 or to some undetermined age before the creation of the world. Their efforts have been an attempt to establish that Yeshua, as the Word, was in the beginning with GOD. But let's consider what John meant, what he himself was intending, for he was not a Trinitarian. He was not writing to establish something which ran at complete cross purposes to the rest of scripture, but he was writing, according to his own summary at the end of his Gospel, to show that Yeshua was the Messiah, the Son of GOD, and that believing that the disciple could obtain life.
We find this Greek word arche, translated beginning, used twenty-one times in John's writings; eight times in his Gospel, nine times in his epistles, and four times in REVELATION. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word can mean either, (1a) the absolute beginning of all things or (1b) the beginning of things spoken of, (2) the first person or thing in a series, (3) that by which anything begins, (4) the extremity of a thing, or (5) the first place or principality as an authority.
But what did John mean when he used the word beginning. Did he intend for his reader to understand that he was reaching back to the dawn of time to set forth some new and shocking revelation about Yeshua being with GOD in the beginning of creation? Was he writing to declare that Yeshua was indeed GOD himself? Or did his prologue instead flow with the rest of his writings, for we will see that at no other time did he ever use this word arche to indicate the beginning of the creation.
Because this phrase in the beginning sets the whole direction of his Gospel, let us take the time necessary to scrutinize each of the occurrences of this Greek word arche in John's writings, that we may better be able to distinguish for ourselves what he intended.
Following John's prologue, the next occurrence of this word arche was just after Yeshua had turned some water into wine at a wedding feast. John wrote,
JOHN 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
This usage should give us pause and inspire us to consider that the word beginning doesn't always mean the beginning of creation. John's use of the word here doesn't suggest or imply anything like we are told by commentators that John meant the word to mean just one chapter back. Thus, if we discover that throughout his writings, John never used the word beginning to indicate the beginning of creation, might we then surmise that he didn't mean the beginning of creation in the opening verse of his Gospel?
John's next two occurrences also speak loudly to this.
JOHN 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
JOHN 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
Clearly John was prone to use this word beginning in a sense wholly different than how many commentators have suggested that he used it in the prologue. These occurrences should at the very least elicit from us a consideration that John had something else on his mind as he wrote his Gospel, besides the beginning of creation.
The next occurrence also substantiates John's usage of beginning as not having to do with the beginning of creation.
JOHN 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. . . .
Some readers think that this statement referred to Cain killing Abel while others suppose that it must have referred to the downfall of man when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Either way, was the devil a murderer from the beginning of creation? I think not. He might have been a murderer from the beginning of his own personal history, or from the beginning of his dealings with mankind, but we have no evidence that he was a murderer from the beginning of creation.
The Gospel's final two occurrences harmonize perfectly with John's other usages of this word.
JOHN 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
JOHN 16.4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
Clearly, the beginning to which Yeshua was referring here was the beginning of their relationship together. Perhaps it was when they were all gathered together to hear John the Baptist preach the word. Or perhaps He was referring to some time after they chose to follow Him. Either way, a firm foundation has been laid so as to give us confidence that in his prologue John might very well have been speaking of the beginning of Yeshua's ministry and not the beginning of creation.
An important consideration which we would do well to ponder, is that if John did in fact open up his Gospel speaking of the beginning of creation, with Yeshua being with GOD there, why didn't he further expand or explain this as his account unfolded? Why would he only briefly touch upon it but not then fully clarify what he meant? Why was it left for theologians during the next three centuries to argue and figure out?
Because John repeatedly used this word beginning to indicate the beginning of Yeshua's ministry and not the beginning of creation, why then would one set aside this clear meaning throughout the rest of John's Gospel and then decide that he was speaking of the beginning of creation in his prologue? Perhaps it is because one is trying to make the apostle say something very different than what he intended. Howbeit, when we cut ourselves loose from Church Traditions and simply read what is written, it is more than likely that in his prologue John was also speaking of the beginning of Yeshua's ministry, not the beginning of creation.
But let us not leave this important consideration of the meaning of the word beginning, without also investigating how John used the word in his epistles.
1 JOHN 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with [pros, towards] the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
We can see that the opening of John's epistle is very similar to the opening of his Gospel. So to what exactly was John referring here that was from the beginning? Was he referring to that which was from the beginning of the creation of the universe, or was he referring to that which was from the beginning of their own conversion, or of Yeshua's ministry?
This passage is also rendered by Andrews Norton in his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (page 512), as
"What took place from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld, and our hands have have handled, concerning the life-giving doctrine, -for Life has been revealed, and we saw and bear testimony, and announce to you that Eternal Life which was with the Father, and has been revealed to us, -what we have seen and heard, we announce to you, so that you may share with us."
That which took place from the beginning was what they had heard, what they had seen and what they had handled. It was the word which had been made flesh. It was the life-giving doctrine, that eternal life which had been revealed to them from the very beginning of their conversion, from the very beginning of Yehsua's ministry. Thus, John simply stated here that the apostles had been giving testimony to all which they had experienced from the very beginnings of their discipleship.
There is little here to incline us to depart from John's clear theme and set off in some new and unknown direction where John was trying to put forth some strange doctrine about Yeshua being in the beginning of creation. He never alluded to anything like that throughout the rest of his epistle, but he does often revisit the idea of the beginning of Yeshua's ministry.
We therefore have every reason to expect that John was saying the same thing here which he also wrote in the prologue of his Gospel, that from the very beginning of Yeshua's ministry, they (the apostles) had been witnesses to the reality that He was indeed the word of life. That from the beginning of their acquaintance with Him, they had heard Him, they had seen Him with their own eyes, that they had beheld and handled Him. And now, they were bearing testimony concerning what had been revealed to them, that He was indeed life everlasting.
Thus John continued this same theme throughout his epistle, which throws important light upon our Study.
1 JOHN 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
From the beginning meant for these believers, the time beginning with their hearing the word of GOD. The beginning for them was when they first heard the word preached. For some of them, including some of the apostles (ACTS 1:22), the beginning was when they stood on the river Jordan witnessing John the Baptist declaring, "Behold the Lamb of GOD" (JOHN 1:35). For them, in the beginning was when everything which mattered, everything which made life meaningful, began.
A few verses later in this same epistle is the only time in John's writings (except one possible occurrence in REVELATION) where it at first glance seems that he might have been referring to Yeshua being in the beginning of creation.
1 JOHN 2:13-14 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. . . . .
But the Greek text from which the English was translated doesn't actually read that they knew "him that is from the beginning" but rather that they knew "him from the beginning", as is evident by the italics which show that the phrase that is was added by the translators. Note that The New English Bible, in a footnote on this passage offers the alternate rendering, "him whom we have known from the beginning". What John wrote was that they knew the Lord from the beginning, probably from the beginning of His ministry, when they first became acquainted with Him at John's baptism. The furthest thing from John's mind was to imply that Yeshua was there in the beginning of creation.
In the very next occurrence John twice reiterated the same theme, that for him the beginning meant the beginning of their hearing the gospel. "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father" (1 JOHN 2:24).
Next John referred to the devil again, but this time that he sinned in the beginning (3:8). No amount of speculation can say exactly what event John referred to. It is hard to imagine though that he was thinking of the devil sinning from the beginning of creation. John then finished his usage of the phrase in this epistle with the same idea, that in the beginning represented the times in which they first heard the gospel.
1 JOHN 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. . . .
From the beginning, when John the Baptist was baptizing and they were being converted to the faith, from that early time they had been taught to love one another. The apostle then continued this same theme into his second epistle, writing,
2 JOHN 5-6 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
John again referred here to the beginning of their time in the faith, the beginning being the time from which they first heard the gospel, and became followers of the Lord. From that early time they had been taught to love one another.
John's REVELATION must also be considered if we are to complete a precise understanding of his intentions in the prologue of his Gospel. The first occurrence of this word beginning is in the first chapter.
REVELATION 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
According to all the best sources (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordworth), the text should read "the Lord God" and not just "the Lord", which erroneously implied that the passage was referring to Yeshua, which it evidently wasn't. It referred to GOD almighty, who was indeed the beginning and the ending of all that was about to be revealed in John's visions. HE was the beginning and the ending of all that Yeshua accomplished and was about to accomplish with His return, as was set beautifully forth in REVELATION.
The next occurrence is in the third chapter.
REVELATION 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God . . . .
This occurrence is probably the closest we have of John identifying Yeshua as being in the beginning of the creation, yet the passage may not say that at all. Consider how a couple of other translators have rendered it.
Concordant Literal New Testament. "And to the messenger of the ecclesia in Laodicea write: 'Now this is saying the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, and GOD's creative Original. . . .
The New English Bible. To the angel of the church write: ' "These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the prime source of all GOD's creation. . . .
It seems awfully precarious for us to base a radical Trinitarian theology towards John's prologue upon passages like this one. And the very fact that Yeshua was said to be GOD's creative original, or GOD's prime source, clearly demonstrates that He was not GOD himself. With every other occurrence by John of this word arche never referring to Yeshua being in the beginning of creation, we are well within reason to expect that that was not John's intention here.
Our study of this word closes with the last two occurrences in REVELATION, where we are again told of the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
REVELATION 21:6 And he [Yeshua] said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
The natural question for us to ask is, The beginning and the end of what? Was He the beginning and the end of creation? Howbeit, even if He could have been in the beginning, that doesn't make Him the beginning. What was Yeshua intending for us to understand? He must have been referring to the beginning and the end of something that had to do with Him. If He was the beginning and the end then He must have been its source and its center and its final culmination.
If we consider the previous verses of this chapter, the immediate context of this passage, that this was about another vision which John had seen, a vision where a new Jerusalem was coming down from GOD out of heaven (21:2), and that John was told to Write! evidently what he was seeing (21:5), then we can better understand what the beginning and the end had reference to. No doubt it was the new heavens and the new earth, the new kingdom of GOD in which Yeshua was to rule with a rod of iron. There, in the new Temple He was indeed the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. There is nothing here about Yeshua being in the beginning of creation with GOD, creating the world.
The final occurrence of arche is in the final chapter of the Bible.
REVELATION 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
It is not easy to determine who is speaking here, for the conversation with John evidently passes back and forth between Yeshua and His angel several times. In verse six it is the angel while the next verse seems to indicate that Yeshua is speaking, but then in verse eight John reiterates that it was the angel speaking. Then it appears as if the angel speaks right through to verse fifteen where in sixteen Yeshua is said to again speak, acknowledging that He had sent this His angel to testify unto John concerning these things.
If it is indeed the angel speaking in verse thirteen, then he no doubt was simply alluding to the fact that he was the first and the last messenger to warn them of the impending calamity which was about to fall upon their nation and city. Nevertheless, nothing is intimated here about the beginning of the creation of the Universe.
In summation, there is little if any evidence to support the notion that John ever wrote of Yeshua being in the beginning of creation. His motivation for writing didn't concern itself with philosophical reasonings about by who or how the world was made, but rather John sought to give evidence that Yeshua was their Messiah, the Son of GOD and then believing that the disciples could obtain eternal life. This was his repeated theme throughout his writings. This is what we should expect to find him concerned with in the prologue of his Gospel. It was the beginning of Yeshua's ministry, of their relationship with Him of which he wrote.
If we were going to interview some famous person and ask him about his life and career, he may very likely say something like, "Well, in the beginning. . ." and then go on to describe how his life or career began. This is exactly what John was doing. He was trying to describe for his readers the origins of their new found faith, their newly established religion. When we read his prologue in the context of his whole Gospel, this is overwhelmingly evident.
We might also consider the opening phrases of the other Gospel accounts. MATTHEW begins in the very first verse with "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ". MARK starts with "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ". Luke in his account referenced individuals who "from the beginning" were eyewitnesses (1:2) and then claims his own knowledge to be "from the very first" (1:3). No doubt we should expect that John would open up his own record in the same fashion as his fellow evangelists.
With this forthright and fresh perspective into what John most surely meant by the phrase in the beginning, let us now return to his prologue and see if we can better discover and understand what was his actual intent as he opened up this most enlightening book of Yeshua's life and ministry.
Some of the following quotations of John's prologue are not from the KJV but instead from other renderings, which will be noted: CLV representing The Concordant Literal New Testament Version; LTG representing Berry's Literal Translation of the Greek; NEB representing The New English Bible and then KJV representing The King James Version.
JOHN 1:1-2 CLV In the beginning [of Yeshua's ministry] was the word, and the word was toward [pros] GOD and GOD was the word. This was in the beginning toward [pros] GOD.
Most versions of the Bible read that the word was with GOD, yet that rendering is hardly honest. The word which they have translated as with, is from the Greek word pros. This word is used over one hundred times in John's Gospel, and yet in the KJV it is rendered with only twice, in verses one and two. That alone should arouse our suspicions that the translators might have had a bias towards the text. They evidently wanted the passage to say that Yeshua was with GOD in the beginning so they chose to render pros these two times as with. In the KJV of John's Gospel, this word pros is rendered- forty seven times as unto; forty one times as simply to; five times as among; twice as for; four times as at; and twice here as with.
A. E. Knoch's Concordant Commentary has an enlightening explanation of the word pros in connection with this passage.
"With" suggests two Greek words neither of which is used here, hence for accuracy's sake it is best to translate literally "toward". "With God" has no cogency in this connection. "Toward" indicates that the revealed Word pointed the creature in the direction of God. Take every "thus saith the Lord" in the Hebrew Scriptures and they all point us to God, and reveal some attribute of the divine character.
Even the ardent Trinitarian Frederick Louis Godet acknowledged this same meaning of pros in the prologue, noting,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;" literally, tended to God, moved toward God (page 174, Commentary on John's Gospel).
Evidently John was wanting the reader to understand that in the beginning of Yeshua's ministry, the reason that GOD sent HIS word was simply to point the listener back towards HIM. GOD's word is like an echo, sent out but then echoing back to HIM.
John further explained this in the eighteenth verse where he wrote, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". Overall, John's Gospel was presented to first prove Yeshua's credentials; that He was indeed the promised Messiah, the Son of GOD. But the Gospel also laid out for the reader how that by speaking GOD's word, Yeshua was pointing the listener back towards GOD. GOD is an invisible spirit, but Yeshua made the invisible visible.
Thus, on a number of other occasions John related Yeshua's claim that the words which He spoke made known the Father.
JOHN 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
Looking at Yeshua, listening to His words, coming to know Him was going to reveal to them the Father. But as some of them refused to take heed to what He taught, they were unable to understand who GOD was or what HE was all about.
JOHN 12:44-45 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
He could not have said it any clearer or plainer. Yeshua was the perfect reflexion of His heavenly Father. As such, the Gospel was never intended to point the believer solely to Yeshua, nor was our worship ever to be focused on Him personally. Instead, it was all suppose to point through Him to GOD. All of Yeshua's words and actions were intended to point the believer towards the Father, not towards Himself. He specifically said that on a number of occasions. Thus, when someone obeyed His word, when they listened to and followed His teaching, they were in essence obeying the Father's word, listening to and following HIS teaching.
JOHN 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
This tells us that it was really the word which Yeshua taught and not just Yeshua himself. When He passed along that word which He received from the Father to His disciples, and then they in turn passed that word on to their listeners, the salvation of GOD flowed with it. It was the word which carried the deliverance, and whoever spoke that word brought that same salvation. This is according to Yeshua's own testimony. It was the word of GOD, first given to Yeshua but then passed along to His apostles, which pointed the believer back towards GOD.
JOHN 17:6-8 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
In Yeshua's prayer here to His Father, we learn again that the word originated with GOD, and that it was then given to Yeshua, and that it was ultimately passed along to His disciples. Believing that Yeshua was sent from GOD, that He spoke GOD's word, and that He inturn had given this word to His apostles, gave these first century believers an opportunity to finally see exactly who GOD was, and what was it that HE truly required.
Thus, the word of GOD always pointed the believer back towards GOD. It proclaimed who GOD was and what was it that HE intended. The word was sent by GOD to turn the wanderer around and steer him back onto the right path to life. It was sent to give light and direction for the weary traveler, to set him upon the right and true course.
John catalogued many occasions where it was said that Yeshua was sent by GOD. He also presented numberless examples where Yeshua spoke GOD's word. Thus, its is easily understandable how Yeshua was the word sent by GOD. Whenever GOD's servant is sent to speak GOD's word, then it is GOD's word which is being sent.
One final comment on these first two important passages of the prologue before we move on the next verse. John wrote that the word was not only pointing us back towards GOD, but also that it was GOD. How can this be? The language sounds confusing and contradictory. Again, A. E. Knoch in his Concordant Commentary on the New Testament may help us understand what John was intending.
It is impossible for the mind to entertain the two thoughts that the Word was toward (or with) GOD, and the Word was God. Nothing which is toward (or with) an object can actually be that object. The difficulty lies in the difference between English and Greek idiom. "Was" and "is" are usually omitted in Greek, unless they are used in a figurative sense. Thus, "This is my body" does not mean that the bread of the communion actually is the Lord's body but represents it. As the bread stands for the Lord's body, so the Word took the place of God.
The Bible is an Eastern Book, written by orientals who thought and spoke in a fashion not always familiar to the western mind. Figures of speech such as parables, idioms and similes were often their mode of expressing themselves. Unless we understand this language, much of the word of GOD will be foreign to us. The student may want to consult E. W. Bullinger's massive work of over a thousand pages entitled, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It behooves us therefore to always pause when we come to difficult passages and consider what figure the writer or speaker might have been employing.
JOHN 1:3 LTG All things through him [autou, it] came into being and without him [autou, it] came into being not even one [thing] which has come into being.
Many translators have rendered the Greek word autou here as him when it could just as easily have been rendered it. John was speaking of an item (the word) and not yet of a person. When one leaves out his own bias, the actual word or words of GOD should be considered as an it and not as a him. Tyndale's very first English translation of the Bible renders autou here as it, as well as a few other versions (see Concordant Literal New Testament), so we are not without a foundation in thus understanding that John was speaking of the actual word and words of GOD, and not speaking yet of the Messiah.
Concerning John's statement that "all things through it came into being", if we accept the supposition that "in the beginning" directed us to the beginning of Yeshua's ministry and not to the beginning of creation, then these all things must also have been the things which related to His ministry. In that case, all the things which came to pass during the life and ministry of Yeshua were under the direct influence and the complete result of the word of GOD.
John then continued to expound upon the greatness of this word of GOD.
JOHN 1:4 CLV In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
John had not yet specifically introduced Yeshua into the Gospel because he first needed to set forth to the reader the vital importance of GOD's word. He needed to show that GOD's word was the foundation for all that HE was about to do; the driving force for all of HIS actions. John would gradually move his readers to understand that Yeshua was the way into this life, but he is not there yet. GOD's word was the way into life, howbeit that word was too little known until Yeshua manifested it in His life and work.
This life to which John referred was eternal, everlasting life. What gives or produces this everlasting life is GOD's word. John is on the cusp to unfold for his reader that it was indeed Yeshua who spoke that word, that it was Yeshua who had the words of eternal life, but the first all important point John needed to make as plain as possible was that it was the word of GOD that gave eternal life.
Of course it was the general purpose of John's Gospel to demonstrate that Yeshua was the Messiah, the Son of GOD, so it all firstly pointed to Him. But ultimately it all pointed back to GOD. Let us then consider a few of the passages in John's Gospel which spoke to the fact that it was the words of GOD which Yeshua proclaimed which ultimately gave eternal life.
JOHN 5:24 Verily, verily, I [Yeshua] say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
JOHN 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I [Yeshua] speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
JOHN 8:51 Verily, verily, I [Yeshua] say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
These passages clearly demonstrate that which John was endeavoring to set forth in the opening words of his Gospel, that the words of GOD give life, eternal life. Yeshua spoke those words, and therefore any and all who believed and harkened unto those words, passed from death unto life. Obviously it is eternal life with which we are dealing, because Yeshua stated that those disciples who kept His words would never see death.
His disciple Lazarus died. Yeshua Himself died. Thus He could not have been speaking of the believer's earthly physical death, but rather of their permanent death. Whosoever kept His word would not die permanently, but would be raised again sometime after his physical death (see JOHN 6:54).
Yeshua also said on a number of occasions that what He spoke was what GOD wanted Him to speak (JOHN 12:49). Thus, they were the words of GOD, originating from GOD. They did not originate with Yeshua. They were only His words inasmuch as He was the mouthpiece, the vehicle of communication through which GOD's words passed.
John also wrote in this passage (1:4) that this eternal life was the light of men. It was the light of men because the knowledge of eternal life awakened the believer to the reality and importance of living not simply for this earthly life, but rather for that heavenly life, that after-life. Living in darkness is living only for earthly pleasures and treasures. Living in the light is realizing that this mortal life is no more than a classroom for learning, a field trip if you will. The primary purpose of this life is to teach us how to be righteous, how to be holy, how to be godly. But to live in darkness is to think that this worldly existence is all that there is to live for.
Thus, to walk in the light is to recognize that the sole and ultimate purpose of our earthly existence is to give us the opportunity to develop the fruit of the spirit within us. To substantiate this, John set forth Yeshua's teaching about the Lord being the true vine, His Father the husbandman and the people either as branches bearing fruit or branches which bear no fruit (JOHN 15). If one is dwelling in the darkness, it is going to be pretty difficult to produce any fruit. Thus we need the light of the word for us to be producers of fruit, spiritual fruit, indeed, the fruit of the spirit (GALATIANS 5:22-23).
John further developed and expanded upon this whole idea of walking or dwelling in the light or walking and dwelling in the darkness in his first epistle.
1 JOHN 2:9-11 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
To think only of ourselves, our own position on the corporate ladder, our own pleasures and treasures in this temporal world, is to be living in darkness. But to step outside of ourselves, to turn our backs on our own personal gain and offer help and assistance to our struggling brethren, to live for the life after this one, the after-life, is to enter into the light. (see also 1 JOHN 1:6-7; 2:15-17; 3:14, 17; 4:11, 17 etc.)
Thus, John reinforced for us the truth in his epistle which we gather from similar passages in his Gospel, that awakening to the reality of eternal life and all that is therein required, delivered one into the light. The word gives life everlasting; awakening to the reality of everlasting life then gives light and illumination to the believer's earthly existence. Now knowing the purpose of life makes our daily routines meaningful. It gives purpose to all of our trials and temptations, as well as all of our blessings. We begin to see that events in our lives have no doubt been ordered and shaped by an omnipotent GOD.
JOHN 1:5 KJV And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended [katalambano] it not.
John is here beginning to introduce Yeshua into his Gospel as the light of the world. This is evident to us because throughout his Gospel John repeatedly identified Yeshua as that light, for He was the receptacle of the word. The word is the true light and Yeshua was that same light inasmuch as He manifested forth GOD's word.
The KJV translates the Greek word katalambano in the above passage as comprehended, which makes little sense, but there is no doubt a better rendering. In JOHN 12:35, this same word katalambano was used to describe the time of dusk, when the night began to overtake (as in the Lexam English Bible) the day's light. John no doubt was thinking along these lines when he wrote that darkness was not going to overtake the true light. In nearly fifty individual passages John relates incidents where the darkness tried to overtake the light (go here to see the references).
Here are a couple of examples where John reported that Yeshua, according to His own testimony, was indeed that light (see also 3:19-21; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:46).
JOHN 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
JOHN 12:35-36 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon [katalambano] you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. . . .
The light is required if we are to understand the purpose of life. This earthly journey is not just some pleasure cruise but rather it is so as to make something out of us. We are called and expected to become better disciples (disciplined ones) of our Lord. We are given HIS word to cleanse us, to purify us, to grow us up.
Any good father hopes and anticipates that his child will develop into an outstanding adult. We coach and encourage that son or daughter to that end. Should we not also expect that our Heavenly Father expects the same from HIS earthly children? HE surely didn't make us to perpetually fail as weak creatures who continually succumb to sin over the course of their entire lives. HE hasn't designed us to be miserable failures but rather GOD has given us, and continues to give us, all we need to become spiritual men and women.
As the apostle continued his prologue, the first individual he actually named was John the Baptist. All of the apostles (ACTS 1:22) and many of John's readers had been disciples of John the Baptist; thus he wanted to make sure that none mistook the Baptist as their redeemer, as their Messiah. On account of this the apostle interjects several lengthy discourses at the outset of his Gospel to set that truth before the reader (see 1:19-37; 3:22-30; 5:33-36).
JOHN 1:6–8 KJV There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
It appears that even Peter, James and John had originally had their loyalties divided between Yeshua and the Baptist, for not until after the Baptist's imprisonment did they finally devote themselves solely to the Lord (see the Study, The Source and Sequence of the Gospels, pages 6-7). Even twenty some years after Yeshua's resurrection, well into the book of ACTS, there were those who were still following John the Baptist (ACTS 19:3). The apostle needed to quench that error from the start, before he could introduce the real and true Light.
Then after examining the Baptist's actual function, that he was sent by GOD to bear witness to the true Light, the apostle was finally ready to introduce Yeshua into his prologue.
JOHN 1:9-10 NEB The real light which enlightens every man was even then coming into the world. He was in the world; but the world, though it owed its being to Him, did not recognize Him.
Many versions translate verse 10 as saying that the world was made by Yeshua, but that is not possible, and could not have been what John wrote. The world was not made or created by Yeshua, as nearly every commentator tries to imply, but rather the world owed its being to Him, as the New English Bible more rightly renders the passage.
John never, not once throughout his writings, ever suggested that Yeshua made the world. Only Church Tradition could invent such a fantasy. But Yeshua was responsible for the salvation of the world. He was the only door through which a man might pass after his death and resurrection, to reach the Father. He was sent by the Father so as to offer life to the world. But alas, the world rejected Him, at least for the most part. It chose rather to cling to its earthly pleasures and treasures. It chose rather to remain shrouded in religious darkness rather than to move into the light of the gospel.
The word spoken by Yeshua was an attempt to point the world back to GOD, back to the light, but too often they stubbornly refused to turn from their self destructive ways. John himself ably explained this further on in his writings, that Yeshua offered light but the world chose darkness.
JOHN 3:16-20 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But even prior to the apostle John's testimony, John the Baptist was the first one to announce and publicly proclaim that it was indeed Yeshua who offered eternal life (JOHN 1:19-34). It was He who was to point the wayward soul back to GOD.
JOHN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Then the apostle John gave repeated testimony where Yeshua himself declared that He alone offered life eternal, but evidently few accepted His teaching. Yeshua's ministry was one vast array of attempts to point the lost soul back to GOD, but hard hearts and stiff necks too easily prevailed and led to many a listener's own demise.
JOHN 5:38-40 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
JOHN 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
It is most interesting and enlightening that one's response to GOD's word will end up being his own judge. If we reject or neglect HIS word because perhaps we aren't convinced that Yeshua spoke GOD's word, or perhaps that the Bible doesn't represent the true words of Christ, then that is what we will have to answer for at our resurrection as we stand solemnly before the heavenly throne of judgment. There will be no excuses then. There will be no one to blame but ourselves, then.
We are seeing that these themes which John set forth at the beginning of his Gospel, he repeatedly expanded upon throughout the rest of the book. But the idea that Yeshua was GOD, or that He made or created the world, John never alluded to, anywhere, either in his Gospel or his epistles.
page 10/12^
JOHN 1:11-13 LTG To his own he came, and his own received Him not; but as many as received him, he gave to them authority children of God to be, to those that believe on His name; who not of bloods [circumcision and sacrifice] nor of will of the flesh [progeny], nor of will of man [proselytes] but of GOD were born.
This is the oft repeated theme throughout the Gospel. "You must be born again" if you are to become children of GOD. Those who heard and believed the words sent by GOD, the words of life spoken by Yeshua and later by those He had sent, unto those followers eternal life was offered.
John was here challenging some of their assumptions concerning the process about which one could be saved. The Jews had thought and taught that life was the reward for any of them who had been circumcised. Then, regularly offering some particular sacrifice upon the altar at the Temple maintained that righteousness. They therefore proclaimed and believed that life was the reward for any who happened to be born into their religion, any son or daughter of a Jew, and then that salvation endured when one offered the proper sacrifices at the appropriate times. The only other avenue offered for life was if an unbeliever, a non-Jew converted to their religion; thus they also offered salvation to foreigners, proselytizing any and all who would devote themselves to their rules of entry.
But Yeshua contradicted their cherished beliefs and proclaimed and decreed that there was another way into the kingdom of GOD. Indeed the only way. And that way was through Him, through His word, GOD's word. One must be born again, of the spirit. He must be cleansed by the word. He must learn from Him if he was going to gain entrance into this heavenly kingdom. These are again repeated themes throughout the Gospel.
JOHN 3:3 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
JOHN 5:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
JOHN 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
JOHN 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
Thus, eternal life was not going to be available to those who were circumcised or sacrificed offerings upon the altar at the temple (not of bloods), nor was it for those who were simply born into the Jewish family (the will of the flesh), nor was eternal life offered to those who were converted to the Jewish religion (the will of man), but one was promised resurrection when he faithfully adhered to the word of GOD as spoken by GOD's Son.
Returning to John's prologue.
JOHN 1:14 LTG And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we discerned his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a Father), full of grace and truth.
We should note that in the original Greek there were no upper and lower case letters distinguishing one word from another. When the translators chose to capitalize the word Word, they were trying to force their ideology into the text by intimating that this word represented Yeshua as pre-existing before His birth. Interestingly, they didn't capitalize the word his in the same passage, which did in fact represent Yeshua.
The word being made flesh is exactly what Yeshua was proclaimed as being throughout John's Gospel. In ages past GOD had HIS word spoken and written. HIS word had been written in the stars and proclaimed by all the prophets up to and including John the Baptist. Now it was to become animated in the life of GOD's only-begotten Son. Now it was going to be seen and handled. Now it was going to be lived in the life of the Messiah.
Again, the word pointed the wayward soul back towards GOD. Now as never before, GOD was going to be known through HIS Son. GOD was revealing Himself by the words and works of Yeshua. If they saw and learned of Yeshua, then they were seeing and learning of GOD. Yeshua made the invisible visible.
Howbeit, that the word was made flesh in no way intimated that Yeshua was with GOD Almighty in the beginning of creation, nor that He was GOD the Son, or some person of the mystical godhead. It simply proclaimed that GOD's word was to be channeled through this most special and unique individual. Those who followed and believed His words, were to come to know what GOD was all about. Again, Yeshua often testified to this.
JOHN 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. . . .
JOHN 12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
JOHN 14:7-9 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
We should further note that all of GOD's inspired word is either literal or figurative. When it is true to fact, then it can be taken as being literal. When it is not true to fact then it is a figure of speech and must be taken figuratively. For example, when the Baptist called Yeshua the Lamb of GOD, he was speaking figuratively (JOHN 1:36). When he called Him the Bridegroom he was speaking figuratively (JOHN 3:29). When Yeshua called Himself the Temple (JOHN 2:20), or the Bread of Life (JOHN 6:35), or the Door of the sheep (JOHN 10:7), or the true Vine (JOHN 15:1), He likewise was speaking figuratively. As such, when the apostle wrote that the word was made flesh he also was speaking figuratively.
On other occasions Yeshua intimated that He was Bread from heaven (JOHN 6:32-33, 41, 50-51), and that if they ate His flesh and drank His blood that they would then have life. It was all figurative language. He was not saying that He was literally bread which had come down from heaven, nor that He had been living up there with GOD as part of some triune godhead. He was simply proclaiming that as the receptacle of GOD's word, He was sent by GOD to speak HIS word. And further, that those words which He spake were words from GOD in heaven and would give life to whoever chose to believe them. It was the words which were from heaven, not literally Yeshua.
Besides, whenever scripture speaks of something coming down from heaven it doesn't necessarily mean that it physically and literally came down through the clouds and lighted upon earth. It often means only that it originated from GOD, that it was HIS gift to man, that GOD had sent it. The apostle James testified to this.
JAMES 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
As GOD is omnipresent, present everywhere, HE is not literally up above the clouds in some ethereal blue yonder. But figuratively HE is. Figuratively we imagine HIM being up there somewhere. So when Yeshua identified Himself with the manna, the bread from heaven which the Jews in the wilderness were nourished with, He was speaking figuratively.
Thus Yeshua instructed His followers to labor not just for physical and earthly things, but more importantly for GOD's word (JOHN 6:27), representing Himself as that word which came down from heaven (JOHN 6:38). But some failed to understand His words because they, as do many even today, took His words literally. They were blind to the figurative language which He often used (JOHN 6: 52, 60).
JOHN 6:41-42 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Yeshua had compared Himself with the manna which GOD had given to the wanderers in the wilderness, which it is said that they had received from heaven. Figuratively, Yeshua was the word of GOD which also was sent from heaven to sustain those of the first century. But some of Yeshua's listeners mistook His language as being literal when He was clearly speaking figuratively.
JOHN 6:47-51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The counterfeit Church, which arose after the gathering together into heaven of the original disciples in the first century (see the Study, Whatever Happened to Timothy?), also took these words literally when they announced and promoted the lunacy that the bread and the wine in the communal service were actually the literal body and blood of the Redeemer. It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly reasonable and intelligent people can be led so far away from reality when their leaders are dressed in religious garb.
The key which many of His listeners failed to grasp, which many even today fail to grasp, was that He often spoke figuratively. Here He was speaking about the words of GOD coming down from heaven. It was the words which He spoke which gave life.
Before closing this Study we should note that he which is sent on some errand is always inferior to the one who sent him. I count that on over forty occasions in JOHN alone it was said that Yeshua was sent by GOD. If GOD Almighty sent Yeshua to accomplish HIS purposes, then Yeshua must have been inferior to GOD, just as the apostles were sent by Yeshua and were inferior to Him. Likewise, if GOD was His Father, then again Yeshua must have been inferior to that Father. On at least two dozen occasions in the Gospel of JOHN we read where Yeshua was said to be inferior to GOD (go here to see the list).
Yeshua himself stated more than once that "the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (JOHN 13:16; 15:20). Neither are they equal. In truth, Yeshua's life and ministry was all an effort to point the lost soul back to GOD. As such, the apostle John could never have imagined Yeshua to be GOD, nor could he have envisioned Yeshua as being literally a joint creator with GOD in GENESIS 1:1. These are all inventions of a later age, by those who cleverly implanted these fallacies into John's prologue.
JOHN 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you're planning to be a street musician or busker, you need to get a permit from us and follow Council's guidelines.
While you prepare your application, you may need to speak to us about your requirements. Please get in touch.
Application form for street musician's/busker's licence (PDF 56 kb).
We'll send you your licence once the application is processed.
You must keep your licence on you at all times while you're performing. Noise must be kept at a reasonable level and you need to keep doorways clear.
Please talk to us about timeframes; depending on your situation and requirements, the time we take to issue a permit can vary.
A fee of $20 (incl GST) is payable - applicable only to persons of 18 years and over.
The licence fee may be waived in the case of charitable organisations or for an approved fund raiser.


text:
Spränghäran är en ö i Åland (Finland). Den ligger i Skärgårdshavet och i kommunen Kökar i landskapet Åland, i den sydvästra delen av landet. Ön ligger omkring 66 kilometer sydöst om Mariehamn och omkring 220 kilometer väster om Helsingfors.
Öns area är  hektar och dess största längd är 250 meter i sydöst-nordvästlig riktning. Ön höjer sig omkring 10 meter över havsytan.

Kommentarer

Källor

Öar i Kökar
Åländska öar i Skärgårdshavet

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
< Jays' Blues Old Bones >
Joe of Little Faith
by Cliff Corcoran | August 24, 2005 8:43 pm
Prior to last night, Mike Mussina's last loss came on August 3 in Cleveland when, after pitching four scoreless innings, Mussina fell apart in the fifth, giving up six runs and getting pulled from the game.
Prior to last night, the Yankees' last loss came this past Sunday in Chicago when, after cruising through the first three innings, Randy Johnson fell apart in the fourth, giving up six runs, which would be all the White Sox would score and also all they would need.
Last night, Mike Mussina combined those two outings by cruising through the first four innings before falling apart in the fifth, giving up eight runs and getting pulled from the game. A ninth run charged to Mussina would score with reliever Felix Rodriguez on the mound. Those nine runs would be all the Blue Jays would score and also all they would need.
What I had hoped would be a dispiriting loss for the slumping Blue Jays turned out to be a dispiriting loss for the Yanks. Mussina's collapse was particularly upsetting as the game had all the makings of a thrilling pitchers' duel through the first four innings, with both Mussina and Toronto starter Dave Bush seemingly at the top of their game, the latter backed up by some spectacular defense.
Adding insult to injury, after the Yankees failed to drive a run across in the fifth and sixth, Joe Torre put his subs in, taking Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield and Jorge Posada out in favor of Felix Escalona, Bubba Crosby and John Flaherty respectively. The logic, I suppose, was to give these crucial players a breather in anticipation of today's day game. But considering the success the Yankees had had against the Toronto bullpen the previous two nights (8 runs in 3 2/3 innings) and the fact that the Yankees are indeed the second best offense in baseball, I find it unforgivable for Torre not to have allowed his team a chance to come back at full strength.
As it turns out, the move immediately came back to bite the Yankee skipper as in the bottom of the seventh Robinson Cano and Tony Womack lead off with singles off Jason Frasor and were driven in by a Hideki Matsui double. Matsui was hitting in the two-hole yesterday, so had Torre left his starters in, he would have had two in and Sheffield and Rodriguez due up with a man in scoring position. Instead he had Bubba Crosby and Felix Escalona. To his credit, Crosby singled, but Escalona struck out, as did Jason Giambi, ending the inning.
In the bottom of the eighth, Tino Martinez lead off with a single but was promptly doubled up by John Flaherty.
Finally, against Vinnie Chulk in the bottom of the ninth, Jeter and Crosby singled to bring the clean-up spot to the plate with two outs. Again, it was Escalona, not Rodriguez who was due up. Torre went to the last man on his bench and pinch-hit Bernie Williams. Bernie worked the count full then crushed a ball into the upper deck in right for a three-run homer to close the gap to 9-5 only to have Giambi make the final out. Too little too late.
I'm certainly not blaming Joe Torre for last night's loss, but his overt lack of faith in his team made this an even more painful loss than it should have been.
Incidentally, watching Tony Womack's adventures in center last night (he played a warning track shot by Hinske in to a triple in the eighth) and his futility at the plate (his seventh-inning single notwithstanding), in contrast to Crosby (who went 2 for 2 and, playing right, caught a sinking fly in shallow center that should have been Womack's but clearly had Tony flumoxed) greatly intensified my belief that Womack must be released and that Crosby (with or without help from Columbus) must be given his share of the centerfield starts (idealy those against opposing righty starters with a fly ball pitcher on the mound–right now primarily Chacon and Leiter–for the Yanks).
Both Boston and Cleveland also lost last night (to the Royals and Devil Rays respectively), while the A's beat up the Tigers to pull back into a three-way tie with the Yanks and Tribe in the Wild Card race.
Today, the Yanks look to avoid a split, sending Shawn Chacon to the mound to face the Jay's best active pitcher, Mr. Gustavo Chacin. Chacon has posted a 1.69 ERA in his five starts as a Yankee and is comming off a fantastic eight shutout innings against the White Sox on Saturday. Chacin was a hard-luck loser in his last two starts and is 0-2 with a 5.73 ERA and a 1.81 WHIP in two starts against the Yankees this year, both in Toronto.
1 mikeplugh	~ Aug 25, 2005 1:39 am
1. Hey all.
I'd like to start this post off with a final thing about the Jeter...clutch....criticism...debate we were having a couple of posts ago. I wasn't able to get anything else in and I want to just put a cap on my thoughts.
There are two ways to look at Derek Jeter.
1. By comparing him to his peers, especially those paid like him.
By this way of analyzing Jeter, there are dozens of players who put up a better 162 games. No argument. There are guys who mash home runs, drive in runs, score runs, play their positions like acrobats. Jeter doesn't do anything better than many of these players, with the exception of run the bases and make the fade away throw to first.
Look at Tejada and A-Rod (before he moved to 3B) at SS. You've got Pujols and Sheffield and Matsui and Andruw Jones and Vlad Guerrero and Barry Bonds, etc, etc, etc......
Over 162 games Jeter will compete with this group in runs and hits, and probably little else.
2. You can evaluate Jeter by what he's meant to the team in big situations. All I need for the rest of my life to give Jeter a permanent benefit of the doubt was his diving head first into the stands against the Red Sox in a regular season game.
Beating the Red Sox means that much to him. As a Yankee fan, anyone who in his heart and soul wants to give himself up to beat the Red Sox is my hero. That's the stuff that legends are made of.
He has the post-season numbers to go along with everything else. I accept that the Yankees as a team won those titles and have put together a great stretch of playoff appearances, but I look at it this way. In 22 post-season series he hit below .316 eight times. Those eight times he was pretty bad. But if you take those 8 series out of the mix, over the course of 14 post-season series, Jeter hit .382 against some of the best pitching in baseball.
Again, I'm not saying that Jeter deserves all the credit for the great Yankee success, I'm just combining it with what he means to the team from a symbolic standpoint, and by the fact that a guy who makes 18 mill a year would dive headfirst into the stands in a regular season game against his arch rival.
I can't say whether or not Barry Bonds would sacrifice his body and run into an outfield wall at top speed to beat the Dodgers in May. I can't say whether Manny Ramirez would either. I believe that Varitek would dive headfirst into the dugout to catch a game saving pop up against the Yankees, and that's why he's the captain and one of the most loved players on the Red Sox. He combines heart, passion, and guts with his hitting.
That's how I see Jeter. A guy who is generally outstanding in all phases of the game, sacrifices himself for the team, plays best in the spotlight of October, and does it all the right way.
Finally, I can't fault anyone for their opinions on this subject. I think it's really okay for us to see this differently. I take the position that we will continue to see Derek Jeter excel for the Yankees through the time he gets his 3000th hit, hopefully his 5 and 6th rings, and when he tops virtually every post-season record list. The Yankees will have been the team that helped him get all those chances to shine, but when some players dim in the spotlight, Jeter will make play after play that you will look back on in 25 years and smile.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong. :)
2 Joe in Jersey	~ Aug 25, 2005 3:44 am
2. I don't get all these stat hounds. There has been only one shortstop who has been in the league for more than 2 years that has a higher career OPS than Jeter, and it ain't Tejada. AROD is the guy. Tejada has a career OPS of .819 according to ESPN stats as of this morning. Jeter's career OPS is significantly higher at .846. Now this year Tejada's is higher, and some day he may or he may not catch Jeter. So aside from everything mikeplugh had to say about his clutch hits, all-out and smart plays on the field, and let's face it nobody tracks down a pop fly like Jeter, nobody not even AROD, the facts are that Jeter has been a better hitting shortstop than anybody except AROD.
3 jdrennan	~ Aug 25, 2005 5:07 am
3. Did anyone else notice YES' problems with the blue screen ads in the background? It seemed like the blue in the bluejay logo on the batting helmets was the same color as the blue on their bluescreen so the ad was imposed right into the left handed hitters head.
Probably the influence of reading "juicing the game"... but if that is the case, do you think Bud would make them change to logo so it doesn't interfere with the ads during the telecast?
4 rbj	~ Aug 25, 2005 5:15 am
4. And why the hell didn't the fans go for Sheff's foul ball that was in the stands. Instead that's another out. C'mon, there's a reason for home field advantage.
5 jedi	~ Aug 25, 2005 5:20 am
5. jdrennan,
I saw those "blips" last night as well, but I noticed it when Matsui was up to bat in the early innings. His hands and face were all messed up with the blue screen in the back. It seems it was not necessarily a problem with the blue jay logos, but with the blue screen and cameras.
rbj,
I rather have fans not interfere at all than interfere. Main reason, sometimes at a game, with all the drinking, fun and commotion, a fan doesnt always realize who is at bat. (i.e. the cub's infamous fan, Bartman)
6 JVarghese81	~ Aug 25, 2005 5:26 am
6. Joe in Jersey,
I am a HUGE Jeter fan but I would suggest you read some really good writing by CLiff in the archives.
http://bronxbanter.baseballtoaster.com/archives/12076.html
After Jeter's GG and improved fielding (better than last year according to the rate stats) this year as well as Nomar's injury problems, it might have changed a little bit but still, really good reading.
7 domvjr	~ Aug 25, 2005 6:11 am
7. I agree with everything that Mike wrote. I think its just the age we live in. I am sure if there was a blog in the 40's and 50's, people would be bitching about Joe D, being brittle, and the Mick striking out to much. I for one am enjoying everything that Jeter brings to the Yanks, his enthusiasm for the game, that he brings every day. Players like him and Mo, don't come around very often. I have no problem the criticism that he occasionaly receives, but we will all miss him when he is gone.
8 Dan M	~ Aug 25, 2005 6:38 am
8. Womack also turned Catalanatto's flyball into a double in the 1st. Any non-Yankee centerfielder catches that ball. When it was the only baserunner through four, I said to myself, "Mussina is going to lose a perfect game because we don't have a f---g centerfielder."
So much for that fantasy.
9 Shaun P	~ Aug 25, 2005 6:58 am
9. Dan, speaking of plays by the CF, when I saw Vernon Wells's spectacular catch that took a home run away from Giambi, all I could think was, "There goes all the runs we need to win this game, the way Moose is pitching." Oops.
Now I see why there are 98 comments in the next thread. Can't wait to read people's thoughts as it all came apart.
10 Cliff Corcoran	~ Aug 25, 2005 7:13 am
10. Okay, two quick things and then let's try to move on from this Jeter thing, which borders on the creationism/evolution thing in terms of the ability of one side to convince the other:
1) Rodriguez is terrible at tracking flies, he's said so himself. That's not a useful comparison.
2) I was at that July 1 game when Jeter dove into the stands. It was the greatest game I've ever seen in person and that was a thrilling, game-saving play. But it was July 1. When you're such an important player, giving up your body mid-season, regardless of the opponent, is not brave, it's foolish. I'm not coming down on Jeter for it. I'm sure he didn't think about anything other than recording that out. But a player's willingness to risk a mid-season injury to save a game shouldn't be applauded. Had Jeter landed on the DL as a result of that dive, it could have handed the Red Sox the division, which would have been mighty ironic.
11 sam2175	~ Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
11. The CF situation is really atrocious. We need a pureply defensive guy who will just run and track down flyballs. Terrell Owens? I hear he is not in camp right now. j/k.
Joe in Jersey, love your enthusiasm about Jeter, as I share it, but factually, you overlooked Garciaparra. His career OPS is .912. Now part of that could be Fenway, but even after ballpark adjustment, I believe his overall numbers would be significantly better than Jeter.
I think JVarghese81's post covers that anyway.
Moose's fifth inning ERA must be approaching hundred or something.
12. Tony Womack's rate in CF this year: 87
Bernie Williams' rate: 94
Batters vs. Mussina innings 4-6: .318/.352/.486 (.280 GPA)
Batters vs. Mussina pitches 76-90: .353/.364/.578 (.308 GPA)
He becomes dominant again in innings 7-9 and pitches 91-120.
13 Alex Belth	~ Aug 25, 2005 8:04 am
13. The other thing about that July 1 game was that Rodriguez made a far more difficult play in terms of skill when he turned a 5-2 double play with bases juiced to help save Mo's behind. http://bronxbanter.baseballtoaster.com/archives/14289.html
As Joe Sheehan wrote about that game:
"All of the attention after the game was focused on Derek Jeter, who tore up his face diving into the third-base box seats after making a running catch to end the top of the 12th. Without taking anything away from Jeter, though, the play of the game was Alex Rodriguez's double-play turn in the 11th. On a ball that took a strange bounce just to stay fair, Rodriguez made a stab, a tag of the base, and a perfect, only-line-he-had throw to the plate to prevent the tying run from scoring.
Nothing against Jeter, whose catch--of a ball that I think was going to land fair and score two runs--required a great jump and excellent raw speed, but Rodriguez had to do about four things correctly in less than two seconds to get the optimum result, and he did. Jeter's play was simpler, although the requirements of making it--a sprint into short left field--led him to injure himself after completing the catch.
We're dealing in gradations of excellence here, which is really what last night was all about. Keith Foulke wiggles out of a jam? OK, here's Mariano Rivera escaping a tougher one. Pokey Reese makes a highlight-reel catch? Here comes Rodriguez, and then Jeter, pushing him to the cutting-room floor. Manny Ramirez comes up with another huge hit with his team up against the wall? Nice, but the Yankees get down to their last strike, more stars on the bench than in the lineup, and get back-to-back hits from the waiver-bait segment of the roster."
14. Excellent point, Alex.
15 Ravenscar	~ Aug 25, 2005 9:04 am
15. #8
That is, any other CF in the game but our backup Gerald Williams, who cost Jae Seo another shut-out last night.
16 Dan M	~ Aug 25, 2005 9:24 am
16. I forgot about Ice. Yes, he's terrible - and he also messed up Pedro's then no-hitter in LA two weeks back.
17. Someone suggested that Ice was getting Pedro back for that HBP he took to start Pedro's near-no-no against the D-Rays a few years back.
18 JL25and3	~ Aug 25, 2005 11:08 am
18. I've loved Jeter since I first saw him play ten years ago. I don't have any illusions about him - among other things, he's got no range at all, especially going to his left. But last night he gave another great example of why I love having him on my team. Bottom of the ninth, down 9-2, one out - even Joe's given up on this game. But Jeter hits a slow bouncer towards second...and he hustles, full tilt out of the box and every step down the line. He doesn't give a damn about the situation or the score or anything else; he hustles all the way, all the time, every single time.
On a different subject: does anyone understand why Joe refuses to use Aaron Small?


text:
HSBC: Greece's Bailout Exit Plausible, Clean Exit Less So
Greece may be able to exit the bailout programme established by international lenders as soon as this year, banking giant HSBC has said, adding that a clean exit is less clear. The country last year regained access to capital markets,...
Israeli-Greek Sabby Mionis Sues HSBC and Falciani Over 'Lagarde List'
Tasos Kokkinidis - October 1, 2017
Israeli-Greek bussinessman Sabby Mionis is suing whistle-blower Hervé Falciani and the HSBC bank over the disclosure of private information from his bank account, contained in the "Lagarde List". Speaking to Swiss paper Les Temps, Mionis, who currently lives in Israel,...
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Against Former Minister Papantoniou and his Wife
A. Makris - December 21, 2016
Greece's Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a conviction against former Greek minister Yiannos Papantoniou and his wife Stavroula Kourakou for submitting an inaccurate wealth statement in 2008. The court turned down the former minister's petition, which asked the court...
Europe's Refugee Crisis Could Cost Greece 4 Billion Euros This Year
C.J. Polychroniou - March 22, 2016
Is Greece capable of handling the refugee crisis without massive external support from the European Union? This is the question that has been on everyone's mind since the closure of the Balkan route, trapping thousands of refugees and migrants...
Ongoing Tax-Evasion Investigation Continues With Important Meetings
Evgenia Choros - March 19, 2016
On Friday, Greek public prosecutors said they were given additional evidence to use in an ongoing tax-evasion investigation by former HSBC employee and whistleblower Herve Falciani during a second meeting held in France. Falciani agreed to have another meeting with prosecutors...
Former Bank Employee Reveals More Names of Greek Tax Evaders
Philip Chrysopoulos - September 16, 2015
Former HSBC Bank employee Hervé Falciani gave a USB stick with eight names of alleged tax evaders to the four Greek prosecutors who took his testimony at the Greek Embassy in Paris. According to information from an anonymous source at the...
Greek Prosecutors Take Testimony from Former HSBC Employee on 'Lagarde List'
A. Makris - September 12, 2015
Four Greek prosecutors took testimony from the former HSBC employee Hervé Falciani in Paris on Friday, who in 2008 stole data from around 130,000 bank customers, as part of their investigation into Greek bank account holders. The list, which in...
Top Greek Businessman Pays €1.8 Mln After Arrest for Unpaid Taxes
Aggelos Skordas - April 22, 2015
One of Greece's top businessmen, Ellaktor Managing Director Leonidas Bobolas, appeared before a public prosecutor after his arrest by the Financial Crime Unit today, accused of major tax evasion but was subsequently released after paying the sum of 1.8 million euros,...
Former Greek FinMin Papakonstantinou in Court: I Am Not Guilty
Aggelos Skordas - March 12, 2015
Greece 's former Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou declared self "innocent" in his apology today before the Special Court, where he is being tried for the infamous Lagarde List scandal. Moreover, he expressed his displeasure for his party's (PASOK) stance...
Former Greek PM Will Take Legal Action Over 'Lagarde List' Allegations
Philip Chrysopoulos - February 11, 2015
Former Prime Minister George Papandreou threatened legal action on Tuesday against anyone reproducing excerpts from a forthcoming book by former HSBC employee Herve Falciani, who claims Papandreou was blackmailed into signing Greece's bailout. The title of the book to be...


A 12 year old girl named Gul, living with her mother in cozy Istambul high society, plays with a Ouija board and becomes possessed by Satan himself. A troubled psychiatrist and an experienced exorcist become the girl's only hope for salvation. A shameless Turkish rip-off of William Friedkin's horror hit The Exorcist that copies it scene after scene! The head spinning, vomiting, and even the scene where she comes downstairs to pee herself to the dismay of her mother and her guests! This film is simply hilarious, so grab some beer and give this amusing piece of trash a look.


Together, Mr. Berube and Mr. Durkin will be integral to National's continued expansion of its capital markets business and geographic presence.
Michael Mullen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of National stated, "We are extremely pleased to have Mark and Tom join our team. From our new Boston office, they will be integral in growing National's capital markets business. Mark and Tom will have an immediate impact by adding key buy-side relationships and enhancing our core institutional competencies.
Mark Berube joins National Securities after serving as a Vice President at Drexel Hamilton, where he worked with Thomas Durkin to establish the company's Boston regional trading desk. Before this, Mr. Berube was a Managing Director at GL Capital Partners, where he managed sales and business development for the emerging asset manager. Over the course of his career, Mr. Berube has also held senior management positions at Weeden & Co., Think Equity, Leerink Swann & Co., and Bear Sterns & Co. Mr. Berube received his B.A. from Skidmore College and holds his Series 7, 55, 63 and 65 licenses.
Prior to joining National, Thomas Durkin was a Vice President at Drexel Hamilton, where he worked with Mark Berube to open the Boston regional trading desk for the company. Mr. Durkin also held a Director position at Avondale Partners. Prior to this, Mr. Durkin spent 10 years at Wedbush/Pacgrow Life Sciences, where he recruited and opened the firm's first regional equity trading desk in Boston. He also held senior roles at BB&T Capital Markets, Weeden & Co. and State Street Bank & Trust, where he was a key member of each firm's equity trading team. Mr. Durkin received his Master of Science in Finance from Suffolk University and his B.A. in Economics from the University of Massachusetts. He holds his Series 7, 55 and 63 licenses.


Jirung Health Village, Mae Rim – Chiang Mai located just 30 minutes drive from the Chiangmai airport fronts a natural spring water reserve, complimenting a variety of water and green nature themes. Day activities include bicycle excursions through the Mae Rim mountain valley and visits to nearby temples, handicraft centers and many famous tourist attraction in Chiangmai.
Jirung Health Village is the luxury boutique suites have wide private balconies with superb mountain views in northern Thailand ideally located in a tranquil valley at Mae Rim, Chiangmai. This superb property offers the finest relaxation, healing therapeutic massage, natural health treatments and tasty, healthy, all natural tasty cuisine. The Jirung health village provide luxury accommodation and blend in with the natural surroundings.
Jirung Health Village is located in Northern Thailand's Mae Rim District, a 15-minute drive from central Chiang Mai. The resort features an outdoor pool and a variety of health treatment programs.
Perfectly situated in an idyllic and tranquil setting, Jirung's Mountain Villa Suites provide guests with a private Thai Lanna style villa located alongside a refreshing tumbling waterfall. Each villa comes with its own private Thai Pavilion/Sala which is located at the water's edge to gives guests the perfect escape to experience nature.
- Private Thai Pavilion "Sala"
With two bedrooms, a private balcony and splendid mountain views, Jirung's Sanctuary Family Suites are the perfect accommodation for those that require ample space and privacy. Equipped with a small kitchen, living room and dining room, the rejuvenating properties of the surrounding natural environment are complemented by comfort and convenience.


search didn't find them and I don't know how to find bare sources on Gentoo -- but that would still be getting it through a distro.
Other distros also have it -- including SRC RPMs. However, there is no actual release tarball from the developers. Where did they get it?
Now BLFS has posted Strigi-0.7.7 (2012-07-04) and are suggesting Debian for a download. But that is only a workaround to the problem that there is no release tarball for 0.7.6 and 0.7.7.


We are three of us looking for 2 or 3 more people to share costs for Gobi tour starting on 3rd of September to 9th of September. If you are interested send me private message or leave a note.
I deleted your duplicate post!


text:
export * from "./nativeDataStream";
export * from "./validatedNativeDataStream";

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Washington, DC trio Flasher release their debut album, 'Constant Image', via Domino. Recorded in 2017 at Rare Book Room in Brooklyn, NY, 'Constant Image' was produced by Nicolas Vernhes (Animal Collective, Deerhunter, The War On Drugs) and crackles with invention. This isn't the sound of a band finding their feet, it's the rare sound of three people - Taylor Mulitz on guitar, bassist Daniel Saperstein and drummer Emma Baker - who know exactly what they want to achieve from the start.