This post isn't going to be too theological or anything.  So if that is why you read this, feel free to get going now.

I just discovered that I have lost someone I considered to be my best friend for about a year now.  I'm not talking like "oh, i'm emo and we're fighting but we'll get over it and make up later."  no no.  I mean... this person and I are no longer friends.  period.  Which kinda sucks, but is not totally unexpected I suppose.

This goes back quite a ways to March 3-4.  I had posted on my status that I "did not ask Jesus into my heart."  Well, Jo's mom took exception with this, and began to piece together many unrelated verses from the Bible and taking them out of context... including the "Facebook Jesus" verse: Revelation 3:20.  Sickened and frustrated, I went back in response in full force.  I am sick and tired of Revelation 3:20 being raped and turned into a passage that makes "Jesus knock on the door of your heart, begging for you to let him in."

Anway.  I responded that Jesus doesn't beg and plead with us to accept him... and people can't be coherced or bribed into Christianity.  The reason men don't repent is because men HATE God in the first place... if they did not hate him, they would repent and trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation, period.  You can't convince someone or water down the gospel with seeker-driven services at church... or via some silly clowning ministry.  These things do no good on their own at bringing people to repentance, because they just seek to be entertaining, not convicting and informing people of their sin and their need for a savior.

Well, Jo's family IS involved with "clowning ministries"... and I was fully aware of this from the getgo.  My statements about clowning were not a personal attack ... it was to make a pointed statement to contextualize the seriousness of what I was speaking about.  However Jo and her family were VERY offended by my statement. 

Time went by, and I thought I had made piece about the situation.  However, I could tell things between Jo and I were not the same after that.  I never got any IMs from her... no emails or facebook pokes.  Nothing.  It was extremely obvious... especially when the day after STAR TREK came out, I called her to ask if she got to see it... and she didn't know who was calling.  This doesn't seem a big deal, until you take the fact that she had my cell # programed into her cell.  So... when I call, it says my name.  But no... she did not know, because she had deleted my number. 

I sent her an email basically telling her I had been noticing a drifting away... and asked her what the deal was with that.  I got a reply last night... that while she had forgiven me about the thing w/ her mom... things that I would do would irritate her like never before, and then remind her why she was angry at me and then she would GET angry ... and the cycle would continue.  So while I had been a friend who "had helped her when she was new in the city and been there when she needed," she had deemed that it is best to look back on our friendship with fondness and that the friendship itself "has run its course."

Yeah.  ok. 

There were many factors contributing to my frustration now though.  For instance, she claimed she was interested in figuring out where she stood in the Calvinist debate... but when I had stated to her last fall that I did not want to pursue anything romantic at that time, she flat out stopped caring about those theological issues.  To me that says she was only really interested in it because of me... I know med school is busy, but when someone takes time to read 2 or 3 books that are fantacy in nature so quickly as a couple of days... and then NEVER has time to finish the Boice/Ryken book THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE... that says something.  That says she was not that interested in the debate and decided to just stick with her Arminian tradition.

Furthermore... she got so upset with my being critical of something I see as theologically incorrect as I was with clowning.  Had I been going after an Emergent or cesationist possition, I doubt she'd be so upset.  In fact, she'd pretty much be thinking "go get 'em!"  But because I stepped on HER toes... and her family's toes... she just got offended. 

Nolan's advice when I came to him about my frustration about the drifting was "maybe it's for the best" and implied I should just leave it alone and move on anyway.  However I guess this way has more closure.  It is just frustrating.  I viewed her as a best friend, along with Kacey, Nolan, and Colleen pretty much.  But now I'm without that friendship, having it ripped from me.  She denied that the drifting had happened since November or so, but I still think it had started then, LONG before we scuffled over clowning.  When I came home around then, and then even in December for Christmas break there was no effort in her part to find out when I'd be home or any indication she wanted to spend any minute with me.

oh well.

Nostalgia and I have a funny relationship.  I'm a bit of a fan looking back on the times ... probably because I can't imagine there are any good times ahead of a 23 yr old young man. 

But in looking back, I also look to now... where I am.  and I cannot help but feel somewhat down.  I have a "best friend" who made no contact with me on my birthday.  It would have made sense if he were... in Africa doing missions... or well, that's about the only VALID excuse for someone to forget his best friend's birthday I think.  Then again, I said "his" best friend's... maybe that's where I went wrong with my understanding. 

It is just really lame, you know?  can a person not take 20 seconds away from talking with his girlfriend he sees constantly to write a brief birthday message on Facebook?  or take the 40 - 50 seconds to leave a QUICK voice mail wishing me a happy 23rd birthday?  is that really too much?  I mean, my brother's best friend and he actually do a gift exchange for birthdays.  no, I don't want stuff from my best friend... but Dave and his bud see each other what? once a year?  there seems to be more substance there than with a friend i've had since high school.

sorry if i seem to be in a emo-funk.  But from where I sit... i've had at least two great friends of mine walk away in the past few months.  maybe even how I wrote that was wrong.  it's not necesarily their fault... i'm no perfect guy, by FAR.  was it me?  maybe if it were I could fix it.  but when someone doesn't want to be your friend... whatever the friendship used to be... you can't just MAKE him or her be a friend.

Mark 14:22-25
And as they were eating, [Jesus] took the bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.  And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.  truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you.  Do this in remembrance of me."  In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


As the title of this post indicates, I am trying to figure out my views on the Eucharist / the Lord's Supper / Communion.  Obviously, not my views as to what we are to do in participating in it.  We have WHAT we are to do listed clearly in the gospel accounts and in Paul's letter to Corinth Christians.  No, I am rather curious as to WHAT is HAPPENING in the Eucharist. 

I do call it Eucharist, as it is a beautiful term for the Lord's Supper.  I know when most people hear "Eucharist" that term carries a LOT of Roman Catholic baggage and the terribly unbiblical view of "transubstantiation" -- the bread and wine is miraculously/magically transformed into Christ's body and blood, though they still look like just bread and wine.  This is not the time or place for me to go into the various problems with this Romanistic reading of the Holy Scriptures.  That may come about later... but not now.  However i wanted to make clear that while I use the term "Eucharist," I neither mean the doctrine of transubstantiation NOR am I considering this as a valid option for Christians to believe.

However, I have basically just said "not Rome's view of the Eucharist."  However, there are various other views that Protestants have held that do not involve the mostly Baptist understanding now days.  By this, I mean that the Lord's Supper is to be seen as a commemoration of Christ's death.  This is the view that Zwingli, the Protestant Reformer, had of Communion.  That there is nothing special about the act -- it is just symbolic only. 

However, in the tradition of the Reformation, there are OTHER valid views of the Lord's Supper.  You have Luther's view of "consubstantiation" as it was to be called -- the elements are still bread and wine, yet Christ's body and blood are present "in, with, and under," the elements.  Still other groups believe in a "real presence" of Christ in the sacrament... though HOW this is worked out differs from denomination to denomination.  The Methodists see it as a kind of MYSTERY.  For the Anglican, this "real presence" has a very wide range of options.  John Calvin taught that while the elements of bread and wine remain as bread and wine, and Christ's physical nature CANNOT be present on earth while he is in heaven... Christ's nature of divinity is somehow really THERE in the partaking of the Lord's Supper... somehow. 

As I become more and more on-the-verge-of-Presbyterian every day... I am starting to "toy with" the ideas of baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant... the idea of sacraments as "means of grace" God uses... and also of the Lord's Supper as being MORE than what Zwingli said - just a symbolic representation.  I am starting to think there CAN be an argument made for a KIND of real presence of Christ's divine nature in Communion. 

...

again... something I am just toying with the idea.  your thoughts??

Navigation:

Introduction 

Bill Gates: Antichrist!

Biblical Usage of "Antichrist"

Conclusion: Comparing Antichrist Bill with the Bible

Sources

 

Introduction:

The notion of "Antichrist" has been a very popular one for a great number of years.  Various kings, emperors, and even popes have been accused of being the Antichrist for centuries.  In the late 20^th century, the look toward Y2K mixed with Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series Perpetuated this fear mongering toward who would be THE Antichrist, as a kind of leader who would take over the world while being an instrument of Satan.  It is with such an understanding that former Microsoft C.E.O. Bill Gates has been accused of being the dreaded “antichrist.”

(Picture courtesy of Bill Chancellor)

 

Bill Gates: Antichrist! 

Why is he feared to be the antichrist?  One aspect pointed to his Bill Gate’s influence.  The one-time C.E.O of Microsoft, arguably the most powerful software company in the world, is said to have the ability to take control of the computers (or cell phones) running his software all over the world.  This would render the world helpless, allowing for him to rise as a world power.  (This does not take into account the vast number of computers running Mac or Linux operating systems with not one piece of software from Microsoft).  Furthermore, Bill Gate’s field is in that of computers, which is used to buy and sell goods, which one will need the “mark of the beast” in order to do.  This theory also links internet navigation tool “WWW” with the “Mark of the Best,” 666. 

According to http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapterd/index.htm, most “damning” evidence comes from Mr. Gate’s own name and the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII).  To discover Bill Gates III’s identity as the Antichrist, one must take the letters of his name and convert them to the ASCII code, then add them up.  However in doing so, the three Roman numerals for “III” cannot be corresponded to the letter I on the code, nor the number 1.  The numerals must remain a value of 1, as opposed to the ASCII values of 73 or 49, respectively.  The end result is the following:

(Picture courtesy of  ParaScope, Inc.)

 

The end result does add up to 666, but only after the addition of a random number 1.  As written on one site supporting the Bill Gates-Antichrist claim, "Windows 95 was released in August 1995.  There must be a hidden reason for this, that would make up for the "1".   The only thing I can think of is the "95", 9 + 5 = 14 - 1 = 13 which is a Masonic number."

 

 

Biblical Usage of "antichrist" 

Many link this notion of Antichrist with the book and prophesies of Revelation.  However it may surprise some that the very term “Antichrist” is not found within the pages of Revelation itself

The term ἀντίχριστος (literally "antichrist") appears only four times in the New Testament.  Twice it shows up in 1 John 2:18-23, once in 1 John 4:1-3, and finally in 2 John 1:7.  In these passages, there is no grandiose concept of antichrist as being some world leader or placing numbers or a barcode on the foreheads of his minions.  We may be aware of some aspects of antichrist:

• At the time of the composition of 1 John, antichrist was to come, and many antichrists already had come (1 John 2:18, 4:3).·         The audience may know “that it is the last hour” due to the presence of antichrist (1 John 2:18).
• After introducing the concept of antichrist, the author writes, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” (1 John 2:19).  It is possible this “they” does indeed refer to the aforementioned “antichrists” of v. 18, meaning the antichrists are those who are apostates.
• The antichrists deny Jesus' position as being "the Christ."  In doing so, they deny some aspect or aspects of God, namely the Son, and by extension the Father (1 John 2:22).
• The antichrists do not confess that Jesus had come “in the flesh” (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7), denying the aspect of Jesus’ humanity. 

   

Conclusion: Comparing Antichrist Bill with the Bible

The popular reasons as to why Bill Gates is one candidate for the position of Antichrist do not hold up when compared to the biblical texts dealing with "antichrist."  The majority of the accusations are centered on an erroneous numerology system that neither existed in the First Century CE, nor is even followed strictly in the proponents' own rules of usage.  Furthermore, the idea of "666" as being the identity of the Antichrist is a popular one, but is never explicitly mentioned in conjunction with "antichrist," but is instead identified with the "Beast of the Earth" (Revelation 13). 

Who then is the Antichrist?  According to the biblical usage of the term, the antichrist is anyone who denies who Jesus is, and in doing so denies the Father.  Whether or not the former C.E.O. of Microsoft is, indeed, an antichrist in the biblical sense is irrelevant.  Those who cling to the idea of Bill Gates being Antichrist do so by grasping for verses that have nothing to do with the position of "antichrist."

 Even so, some people may choose to use a Mac or run Linux... just to be on the safe side.

---

Sources:

• http://lotgk.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/is-bill-gates-the-anti-christ/
• http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapterd/index.htm
• http://www.esv.org/

Pictures:

• http://www.artbybillchancellor.com/gallery.html?gallery=Unpublished%20Stuff&skipno=0&currentIndex=3
• http://www.mega.nu/ampp/gates.html