I’ll take up this case. Matthew didn’t copy Mark. All ancient sources agree Matthew came before Mark basically without exception, and when the texts are read parallel it actually makes more sense to say Mark is copying Matthew and Luke. In the text, it is a very common trend that Matthew will include a detail, Luke another, and then Mark will include both details - even when they’re redundant. Compare: Mark 1:32 - “That evening, after sunset, people brought to Him all who were sick and demon-possessed.” Matthew 8:16 - “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Jesus...” Luke 4:40 - “At sunset, all who were ill with various diseases were brought to Jesus…” For Mark to be written first, then the argument would have to be made that Matthew and Luke both read Mark and coincidentally (or intentionally) chose exact opposite details from one another to retain. One would also have to argue that redundancies like, “That evening, after sunset…” were the product of the first author writing on his own, whereas Matthean priority can explain them as a part of Mark’s synthesizing process. Modern scholars often assume Markan priority (though the consensus is cracking) for two reasons. First, it’s shorter, and their assumption is that shorter means earlier because that is how Germanic fairytales developed. But that neglects the possibility of a work being intentionally shorter unto literary ends. Mark is a fast-paced book. Just go through and see how many times the word “Immediately” appears. So being shorter fits its faster pace. The other reason they state it is earlier is because it emphasizes Jesus’s humanly characteristics (“lower” Christology). They assume divinity was a later development, and that thus the more humanly the depiction the earlier the text. But this actually inverts what we know about historical debates within the First Century. The early First Century Church primarily had to deal with Rabbinic Judaism, which rejected Christ as God. Meanwhile, in the later First Century we know the rise of Docetism (the belief that Jesus only appeared to be human) challenged His humanity. It makes more sense that earlier texts would emphasize His divinity polemically against the Jews and later texts His humanity against the Docetists.

Supreme Court rules against Day-Age Theory. Alito writing the opinion.

Jesus died for m*rderers. If you’ve aborted your child that’s what you are and there is forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

In the verse he quotes, “God is love,” love is a noun. So it certainly can’t be said God is in no sense a noun. If I’m steelmanning his claim, it sounds like a very clumsy attempt to describe the notion that God is actus purus (pure act). In God, there is no distinction between His being, essence, and actuality (because He isn’t composed of parts; if he was, He’d depend on those parts). Thus, it can be said there’s no distinction between noun and verb, but Talarico makes the mistake of saying the verb is thus the only thing to exist truly, which is incoherent metaphysically and borders on heresy if he understands what he’s saying (which, Talarico isn’t known for orthodoxy).

There’s something to be said about people saying “Christ is King,” with ulterior motives in ways that violate the 3rd Commandment. But this is an overreaction that veers straight into severe heterodoxy. Christ is king. Presently. That’s the meaning of the word “Christ.” Zechariah 9:9 prophesies His triumphal entry into Jerusalem before His crucifixion by calling Him King. He is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, the son and heir of King David. Revelation describes Him as King of King in the present tense, and the Great Comission is established on the basis of the sentence, “All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to Me.” It is good to avoid ethnic hatred for the Jews. But if our endeavors to avoid antisemitism prevent us from saying Christ is king, then they are useless and we actually worship ethnic inclusivity or the Jews themselves.

Jerusalem has more in common with Athens than Paris. By this, I mean that the classical emphasis on government originating from human nature (Aristotle), providence (Polybius), or the divine (Livy) has far more in common with Romans 13 than Social Contract Theory.

There are 1,000 reasons to not watch The Boys - the sexual degeneracy, the constant bashing of Conservatives and Christians, the normalization of abortion, the fact that it was made by Hollywood adjacents in the 2020s (but I repeat myself). If somehow you could get past all the perversion (which I don’t recommend you try to do; it is bad for your soul), there is still yet another reason to not watch it: it cannot conceive of a world in which someone actually believes in something. Charles I makes no sense to Kripke because Charles I believed in something and Kripke does not.

Lesson: Restore monarchy as a form first, then iron out who will wear the crown.

If you’re struggling to get a job as a man, this is why. A less qualified woman is being chosen thanks to DEI.

never forget what the jacobins did to Louis XVII, he was just a child when they tortured him, he was only 10 when he died, and keep in mind this is just what wikipidia is willing to have up, imagine how much worse the full truth is.

Be very careful with rumors. The 9th Commandment applies to politics as well.

They seem to think you can’t interpret Scripture confidently to know the truth but you can interpret church history confidently to clearly see what the one true church is

Democracy tends towards centralizing and accumulating power, with little regard for avoiding excess. I’m not a Libertarian myself, in that I don’t think the minimal amount of government is automatically the best, but I do think there’s such thing as too much government, and democracy will always eventually lead to that. This is why Tolkein called himself an unconstitutional monarchist. Mather Byles was alluding to this point when he famously asked, “Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?”

This is what I call the “You’ll Be Back” Fallacy. Hamilton (the musical) fictitiously depicts George III as claiming after America gets a taste of ochlocracy and tyranny of the majority, it’ll come crawling back to him and realize its mistake. That, of course, never happens. Instead Americans adapted to mitigate the problem within the framework of the mistake already made. It’s a fallacy because it assumes people always learn from their mistakes in the most logical manner possible. Sometimes their solutions actually codify the mistakes. Sometimes they just accept the problem.

No, it’s alright. Go ahead and make another 10,000,000 WW2 movies this decade. The rest of history isn’t worth knowing anyways.