ASC and Bone Damage

Previously we saw adult stem cells used in human trials to treat complex bone damage.

Now, at Science Daily, we see further research in rats to treat large scale damage.

Note that later references "fetal stem cells" are short for "amniotic fluid fetal stem cells" which are "adult" cells (as opposed to embryonic).

The Key to Heaven

Returning to our evaluation of the claims of the Bishop of Rome:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19

What keys are being referred to here? The word key is not a common one in the New Testament:

1. Here (Matt 16:19) - "kingdom of heaven"
   
2. Luke 11:52 "knowledge"
   
3. Rev 1:18 "Hell and death" (Hades)
   
4. Rev 3:7 "David"
   
5. Rev 9:1 "bottomless pit" (abyss)
   
6. Rev 20:1 "bottomless pit" (abyss)
   

The references in Revelation 9 and 20 are "the key of the bottomless pit" (abyss), possibly part of Hell (the main areas being Hades and Gehenna). Satan and demons are bound in this pit, and later transferred to the lake of sulfur.

Revelation 3:7 is interesting "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth"

My main focus is Luke 11:52:
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

It would seem this passage is different, but I believe it is exactly on target.

The question is, is this key one of power - deciding who is in and who is out (shutting what Christ has opened, and opening what Christ has closed - see Rev 3:7)?

Or is it one of knowledge? How it is that we are saved - the Gospel (soteriology).

Peter was given "the key" to salvation ("the kingdom of heaven") - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A key which had been given to the Jews, and which had been bent out of shape by the Pharisees.

Now, historically, has the Bishop of Rome made good use of this key? Or has he (multiple individuals in this one seat) bent this key with a gospel of works? And hidden this key in Latin - hindering the translation of the Bible (and thus, understanding and evaluation of the gospel) into local languages? Reading the Bible in only Latin from 1570 to 1962?

Marriage Age

An interesting post at Internet Monk:
"the increase in marriage age over the last sixty years has serious implications for the church"

There is some nice data attached, the most important being the upward trend in age at first marriage.

This is a trend which is grounded in culture (the world).

In the past, few people would attend college - and those were mostly men. Older men (possibly just out of college) would marry younger women (possibly just out of high school).

Today, it is expected that everyone will attend college, and marriage tends to be between those of similar age. That alone will push the average up 4-8 years (coupled with the assumption that marriage is for those ready to start a family, and a family interferes with school).

Combine this with trends in a casual attitude towards sex, and increased exposure to sexual images - it is easy to see why young people in the church have problems abstaining from sex before marriage.

What to do?

There is no easy solution.

I don't think it is prudent to just ask young Christians to "Christian up" and refrain from sex for 30 years before getting married. Yes, this is right, and it is possible, but it is a huge burden.

Similarly, we cannot do what is wrong, and condone premarital sex.

This creates a huge conflict with culture - the best solution is to encourage early marriage.

I'm running long, so I'll just list the conflicts:

1. This means marriage before college, possibly in early high school
2. Marriage relations means children. Again, we should not ask our young people to bear this alone. That means greater (grand) parental involvement. Which is highly unusual in our "kick em out at 18" culture (not to mention young people desiring to "get out on their own".
3. Our young women might be unable to attend college. This is high cost which cannot be ignored. Again, parental involvement is needed to make more options viable.
4. Parents have their own problems (they are possibly dual income themselves). It will not be easy.

Planetary Models

Part of following both Science News and Science Daily is the huge overlap between them. Sometimes it produces odd differences:
From Science Daily: "How Earth Survived Its Birth"
From Science News: "Saving the Earth with dynamical simulations"

Both articles mention a "small problem"* with current planetary models.

*aka huge problem

"For the last 20 years, the best models of planet formation -- or how planets grow from dust in a gas disk -- have contradicted the very existence of Earth" (Science Daily)

"When astronomers simulate the formation of the solar system, disaster strikes: no planets survive. Under most models’ assumptions, protoplanets would have collided with the parent star before they had a chance to fully form. 'This contradicts basic observational evidence: the fact that we are here,' said Mordecai-Mark Mac Low" (aka Captain Obvious) (Science News)

I find the Science Daily articles have much better detail and less emotional writing. I forget why I added the Science News feed...

In this case, Science News leaves out a vital fact:
"'We used a one-dimensional model for this project,' says co-author Wladimir Lyra, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Astrophysics at the Museum. 'Three dimensional models are so computationally expensive that we could only follow the evolution of disks for about 100 orbits -- about 1,000 years. We want to see what happens over the entire multimillion year lifetime of a disk.'"

A one-dimensional model is a very low detail model. It is likely there are still huge problems with such a model. Also, it does nothing to address the problem that a model does not (necessary) have any connection to reality. I can give you very complicated, detailed, and self-consistent models for magic users (using a system like GURPS).

Rocky and Apostle Creed

(apologies to Carl Weathers)

Peter (Petros, a chunk of rock) was originally named Simon (or Simeon, meaning "hearing"), a common Hebrew name. At some point Jesus changed his name.

In Matthew, Simon is referred to as Peter fairly early (starting from 4:18), although nowhere does Jesus specifically address him as Peter until 16:18 (right after Peter's proclamation). Five verses later, Jesus refers to Simon as "Satan" (v23).

Mark 3:16 is "And Simon he surnamed Peter", although this may be a comment (rather than an event in the timeline). Peter's proclamation is in 8:29. Interestingly, Jesus only refers to Peter as "Satan" (Mark 8:33) and "Simon" (Mark 14:37) (at least, when searching for Peter).

In Luke, Jesus does not address him as Peter until 22:34 (where Jesus predicts he will deny Him). The proclamation is in 9:20.

In John, Jesus addresses him as Simon (John 21:15).


That Jesus refers to building upon the proclamation, rather than the person, should be clear:
Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"Peter" is petros (chunk of rock, as above). "This rock" is petra, meaning "mass of rock" (there is a city built into a mountain referred to as Petra near Israel).

This interpretation is hinted at in Catechism 442: "From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation."

Oort Cloud, Again

Interesting article from Science News. I've previously commented about "faith" and the Oort cloud.

Now things get really interesting:

1. There should be no comets, but there are
2. Make up the Oort cloud
3. Calculate the mass of the Oort cloud
4. It's too big
5. Make up some new models
6. Declare success
   

Maybe there is an Oort cloud, I'm agnostic. But it would be really great if there isn't, I'd love to hear the new story.

The Papacy

An excellent analysis (as always) from the He Lives blog.

It starts with a look at the importance of dealing with this issue:

"If anyone, therefore, shall say that the Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema." - First Vatican Council

The Catholic Church upped the ante. This cannot be a minor issue of disagreement.

This is followed by good analysis of the Matthew 16:13-20 passage.

I particularly like the reference to Luke 22:24 ("A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.")

"Instead of acknowledging Peter's privileged position, they are debating who, in fact, is the greatest among them. If Jesus had indeed elevated Peter, it seems that the other apostle's missed the point, Peter didn't invoke it, and Christ didn’t reiterate it--even though this was surely a teaching moment."

And, of course, 1 Peter 5:1-2.

The next section is excellent analysis from Paul's writings.

A nice point on the belief that Peter was Bishop of Rome from an early date:

"if he were, then he abandoned Paul in prison, because Paul wrote that at his first trial everyone abandoned him."

The final section (and the clincher for me), is an analysis of the first council (in Jerusalem).

"It was not Peter who lead the Jerusalem council, it was James, as is seen by the imperative mode of his speech. The letter that is written does not carry the imprimatur of Peter, but of all the apostles."