Wednesday, 31 March 2010

You can kiss that slander of Jesus goodbye

Da Vinci Code, The
Dan Brown claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that is 'part of the historical record'. His evidence? One passage from the gospel of Philip. Turn to page ??? in your church bibles. Oh. Ooops. This is not in the New Testament (and why would we trust those eye witnesses anyway?!). And it was most likely written after AD 250 rather than before AD 100 like the rest of the NT. Huh. Things are not looking good for Mr Brown so far.

Well, Mr Brown quotes 'Philip' like this:
And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'
But Garry Williams quotes it from a scholarly version where square brackets mark gaps in the manuscript, and each word within the brackets is the editor's attempt at reconstructing what should be there: 
And the companion of the  [.....] Mary Magdalene. [...loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [....]. The rest of [the disciples...]. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' 
Professor Teabing says: 'As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse'. But the text of the Gospel of Philip is in Coptic and the word used here is koinonos, borrowed from Greek! The word can mean spouse. It can also mean other things. In Luke 5:10 it is used to describe the relation between fishermen who worked together as business partners. In Matthew 23:30 Jesus uses it to describe how the Pharisees deny that they would have been fellow-murderers with those who killed the prophets. So not exactly an exclusively sexual term then.

But surely the kissing seals that though, right?
Well, yes, except that the gnostics were always kissing each other. And  in 1 Corinthians 16:20, Christians in Corinth are exhorted to do the same thing - in holiness.

To see more I recommend Garry's book. 62 pages. Very readable. This was taken from pages 27-30. The Da Vinci Code from Dan Brown's Fiction to Mary Magdalene's Faith

Demos or Theos?

In harmony

Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?I have been dipping into this again. It gives a very good detailed reading of the Scriptures in answering the question 'Are the Resurrection accounts in conflict?'. Well worth getting your hands on. 

Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

The signs of life

The Incomparable Christ
If John's purpose in his Gospel is so to witness to Christ that his readers will believe in him and receive life (20:31), his purpose in his letters ... is to take his readers a step further. He writes, 'to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life' (1 John 5:13). For it is one thing to receive life; it is another to know that we have received it. So having assembled the seven signs which witness to Christ, John now develops three tests which undermine the false assurance of counterfeit Christians and confirm the true assurance of genuine Christians. He does not mince his words. He identifies three liars. First, whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh is a liar (1 John 2:22). This is the doctrinal test. Secondly, whoever claims to enjoy fellowship with God while walking in darkness lies(1 John 1:6). This is the moral test. Thirdly, whoever says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar (1 John 4:20). This is the social test. Conversely, (1) we know the Spirit of God, because he acknowledges Christ (1 John 4:2; cf. 2 John 9); (2) we know that we know him, because we obey his commandments (1 John 2:3) and (3) we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love our Christian brothers and sisters (1 John 3:14). John even assembles three verbs which characterize God's people: they believe in Christ, they love one another, and they obey his commands (1 John 3:24-24). (The Incomparable Christ, Stott p 40)

Saturday, 27 March 2010

OK - this is better

I thought this from OK GO was good.
Then I stumbled on this:

The music might not be as good as the first video, but hey, this video seriously rocks. 

Every boy's dream job surely? To be in a band and get to play 'grown up' dominoes and be splatted with paint at the end of it all?
Just me then. 
HT: Glen

Friday, 26 March 2010

Identifying Babylon

Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great 
(Revelation 14:8)
Here are just three of the reasons I would identify Babylon as Jerusalem and not Rome: 

1. Jerusalem has already been in view and identified in Revelation 'figuratively' in terms of Old Testament enemies of God: 

Revelation 11:8 Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 
2. In Revelation 17:1-7 we are shown a Harlot-City called 'Babylon the Great' who resembles the original Babylon (sitting on many waters: cf. Jeremiah 50-51) and who has committed fornication with the kings of the earth.
Huh. That all sounds pretty pagan to me ... must mean Rome then? Except for the fact that Jerusalem and Israel are spoken of very often in these terms by the prophets:

Isaiah 1:21 See how the faithful city has become a harlot! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her--but now murderers! 
Jeremiah 2-3
Ezekiel 16
Ezekiel 23
Hosea 9:1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; you love the wages of a prostitute at every threshing-floor.
And as I was reminded of in preaching through John 18-19 last week, the chief priests pledge allegiance to Caesar over God's anointed King Jesus:
John 19:14-15 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" "Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.
 3. This view is corroborated via 1 Peter 5:13 
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

Peter's home & ministry were in Jerusalem

Acts 8:1 And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.
 Acts 12:1-3  It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.  2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.  3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Galatians 1:18  Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:1-9  Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.  2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.  3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.  4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.  5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.  6 As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message.  7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,  just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.  9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
AND this was also the case for Mark & Silas [cf. 1 Peter 5:12-13]

Acts 12:12    When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.
Acts 15:22-40  Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.  23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.  24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorisation and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.  25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul--  26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.  28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:  29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.  30 The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter.  31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.  32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.  33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them.  34 {Some manuscripts them, 34 but Silas decided to remain there}  35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.  36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing."  37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them,  38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work.  39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.

Let the Games Begin

CredendaAgenda,inspired by the 2010 Winter Olympics, are proposing an assortment of suggestions for new sports for the 2014 Games. These two seem kind of fun:
  • Senator / Wolf Pack Cross. In 1995 the federal government reintroduced wolves into the forests of Idaho, insisting that they would pose no threat to humans. Testing this theory, this new Olympic event would celebrate this legislation in the great winter sport of Cross, highlighting the best of both federal bureaucracy and carnivorous predation. However, having no hard feelings, we would like to give our Senators a ten second head start on the wolves.
  • Couples’ Global Warming Figure Skating. This will be very similar to previous competitions with the exception that in this event, because of the wasteful living of the first world nations, the ice is only partially frozen and is likely to split and swallow up the skaters at any moment. Skaters will be judged in all the normal categories – jumps, spins, shoulder wiggles, bun shakes, etc. But they will also be judged on their rescue efforts should one of them go in. Also, for the last thirty seconds of the long program we will release wild polar bears onto the ice.

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Speed Art

I am not sure of the significance of this, but it is my bro's latest time lapse creation!

Jesus is Lord of Maths

Two articles that I have discovered on the web and look forward to reading are by Vern Poythress:

A Biblical View of Maths

What does God have to do with numbers?

Which do you need to hear today?

Take no heavier lift of your children than your Lord alloweth.
Give them room beside your heart,
but not in the yolk of your heart, where Christ should be;

 for then they are your idols, not your bairns. 

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

Monday, 22 March 2010

Tyranny in Triplicate

already on the continent, where governmental organizations are more elaborate and coercive than here, there are chronic complaints of the tyranny of bureaucracies—the hauteur and brutality of their members. What will these become when not only the more public actions of citizens are controlled, but there is added this far more extensive control of all their respective daily duties? What will happen when the various divisions of this vast army of officials, united by interests common to officialism—the interests of the regulators versus those of the regulated—have at their command whatever force is needful to suppress insubordination and act as ‘saviours of society’?
“The fanatical adherents of a social theory are capable of taking any measures, no matter how extreme, for carrying out their views: holding, like the merciless priesthoods of past times, that the end justifies the means.”
Herbert Spencer, “From Freedom to Bondage,” in A Plea for Liberty, ed. Thomas Mackay (New York: D. Appleton and Co. 1891!!), p 22-23, 29

Sunday, 21 March 2010

Audio Now Available

That was quick. The talks from the Family Under Siege? Day are already up on the web here.

From what I did pick up, and from Jane's feedback, the day was superb with lots that is well worth chewing on. I am looking forward to catching up on what I missed (as I spent an excellent day in the hall next door helping Simeon get some steps closer to walking!).

Thanks to all who made it possible!

Fit for a King

When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it. John 18:1 
The whole countryside wept aloud as all the people passed by. The king also crossed the Kidron Valley, and all the people moved on towards the desert.    2 Samuel 15:23
But David continued up the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went; his head was covered and he was barefoot. All the people with him covered their heads too and were weeping as they went up.       2 Samuel 15:30

Saturday, 20 March 2010

Family & Friends

We are
here today! 

Context is King

I thought this was fantastically funny!
 I got it via Glen and he makes some excellent points with it!
But you can just laugh if you want.

Friday, 19 March 2010

The ditch on the other side of the road

If you want a really pitiful critique of Christian schools and home schools, says Joel Belz, try this
There Rev. Don Wilkey offers a wild bunch of accusations against Christian education. But if you really want to put down Christian schools and homeschools,  we should all come to him for ammunition: Confessing our weaknesses. Lots of food for thought.
HT: Doug Wilson

Glad to be Gay?

I was very challenged in reading this article by Martin Hallett of the True freedom Trust, and this quote in particular, in which he makes a clear distinction between sex and sexuality (celibate homosexuality, I guess, or holy homosexuality?): 
Many liberal Christians claim to find freedom and acceptance when they embrace their sexuality, which for them also involves sex. They then say, "I thank God for my sexuality." I cannot agree with their sexual moral choices, but perhaps our more conservative Christian response would be taken more seriously and even be a more positive witness, if we can say, "Yes, I can thank God for the gift of my sexuality!" 
Sexuality - a gift from God? by Martin Hallett (June 2000)

Thursday, 18 March 2010

When Jesus said 'I AM'

Commenting on John 18:1-11: 

We do not need to hesitate to see in this incident an instructive type of all our Saviour’s dealings with His people, even at this day. He will not suffer them ‘to be tempted above with that which they are unable to bear.’ He will hold the winds and storms in His hands, and not allow believers, however sifted and buffeted, to be utterly destroyed. He watches tenderly over every one of his children, and, like a wise physician, measures out the right quantity of their trials with unerring skill. ‘They shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of his hand.’ (John x. 28). For ever let us lean our souls on this precious truth. In the darkest hour the eye of the Lord Jesus is upon us, and our final safety is sure. (
Expository Thoughts on John, JC Ryle, p237)

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

The True Man is a Jew

Below are some highlights from a very helpful (and short) article sketching an answer to these important questions: 
  • Why do some churches teach that the Jews permanently lost their right to the land? 
  • What about all these Old Testament “forever” promises and prophesies made to the Jews?
  • How should we understand the passages that seem to imply that the Israelites have a secure place in God’s plan forever?

 I have chosen a few quotes as representative of the main thrust of the article, but it really is worth a look at as a whole here. At its heart lies the contention that the incarnation is central to biblical theology.
Every promise and prophecy given to Israel has a very literal, material fulfillment.
I mean that if one is worried about the recipients of these promises really being Jews, genealogical sons of Abraham, then Jesus himself literally fits the bill. Jesus is literally and physically a bloodline son of Abraham and David (Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). All the promises made to physical Israel are for him. He is the recipient of all of these promises. He lives today. He now literally owns the land of Palestine. Since Jesus rules the world, the land of Palestine is included in his kingdom. It is all his. 
That’s why there’s no need to “spiritualize” the Old Testament promises and prophecies originally made to Abraham or Israel. That’s also why the presence or absence of genealogical Jewry has no religious significance after A.D. 70.
In electing the Jews God had one purpose in mind–namely, the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah comes, descended from Abraham and David (Matt. 1 and Luke 3), then genealogical Israel’s purpose ends. Jesus is the final Israelite. He is Israel reduced to one. .... When he hangs on the cross, everyone else has apostatized. He is the last and only faithfully Jew. And in him, then, the whole world is renewed. As Paul says over and over again in his letters, the only election that matters now is that which takes place “in Christ.” God’s election of Israel was indeed vindicated in the life, death, and resurrection of Joshua Messiah.
If we take this seriously, then we must conclude that nothing else need happen concerning the modern-day Jews. Once Jesus died and rose again, the last generation of Jews that were in covenant with God by means of the old system were given an opportunity to repent and be incorporated into the Messiah’s body. This is what the ministry of Peter and Paul “to the Jew first” is all about. After that first-century offer, physical, cultural, and religious Judaism had no claim on or special place in God’s purposes for the world. The resurrected, ascended Lord Jesus, the ever-living Jew is the only Israelite that now matters.
Forever Means Forever: God’s Promises to the Jews by Jeffrey Meyers

Not of this world

On John 18:36: 
His kingdom (yes, he agrees he has a kingdom; Pilate seizes on this) doesn't come from this world. Please note, he doesn't say, as some translations have put it, ' my kingdom is not of this world'; that would imply that his 'kingdom' was altogether other-worldly, a spiritual or heavenly reality that had nothing to do with the present world at all. That is not the point. Jesus, after all, taught his disciples to pray that God's kingdom would come 'on earth as in heaven'. 
No: the point is that Jesus' kingdom does not come from 'this world'. Of course it doesn't. 'The world', as we've seen again and again, is in John the source of evil and rebellion against God. Jesus is denying that his kingdom has a this-worldy origin or quality. That's why he has come into the world himself (v37), and why he has sent, and will send, his followers into the world (17.18; 20.21). His kingdom doesn't come from this world, but it is for this world. That is the crucial distinction.  (John for Everyone, Tom Wright, p114-115)

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

Peter Denies Christopher

A Cutting Advert!

The Appetiser

This is the conclusion of Ch 1: 
Given that the weekly Sabbath embodied standards of justice that continue in the New Testament era; given that the weekly Sabbath regulated the public worship of God's people, worship that continues to be prioritized in the New Testament; and given that the weekly Sabbath is a creation ordinance that reflects God's own pattern of work and rest which we as Christians are called to imitate, we must conclude that the Sabbath was intended to be a perpetual institution. (The Taste of Sabbath: How to Delight in God's Rest, Stuart Bryan)

Monday, 15 March 2010

So much fun!

One Song To The Tune Of Another?

Does anyone know the tune to this old hymn? 
Or how the verses divide up (they seem a little wonky to me)? 
It is new to me. But clearly not to the church!

The standards of the King appear,  
  the mystery of the cross shines out in glory, 
  the cross on which life suffered death 
  and by that death gave back life to us.

 His side, wounded by the spear's cruel point, 
  poured out water and blood 
  to wash away the stains of our sins. 

 The words of David's true prophetic song were fulfilled, 
  in which he announced to the nations: 
  "God has reigned from a tree." 

 Tree of dazzling beauty, 
  adorned with the purple of the King's blood, 
  and chosen from a stock 
  worthy to bear limbs so sacred. 

How favoured the tree 
  on whose branches hung the ransom of the world; 
  it was made a balance on which his body was weighed, 
  and bore away the prey that hell had claimed. 

Hail, cross, our only hope! 
  In this season of passiontide 
  give an increase of grace to the good 
  and wipe out the sins of the guilty. 

 Let every spirit praise you, 
  fount of salvation, Holy Trinity. 
  On those to whom you have generously given the 
    victory of the cross, 
  bestow the reward also. Amen. 

  -  Passion Hymn by Venantius Fortunatus 
                                                 (6th century)  

Friday, 12 March 2010


The Bible sets forth three basic earthly reasons for marriage. They are in turn, the need for helpful companionship, the need for godly offspring, and the avoidance of sexual immorality. 
(Reforming Marriage, Wilson, p18)

Thursday, 11 March 2010

Lawyer, Soldier, Sportsman

I love this video which features interviews with Lord Mackay, Timothy Cross and Henry Olonga.
It calls itself, appropriately: Lawyer, Soldier, Sportsman 

And over, and with, and for, and before each one, the LORD Jesus Christ! 

Monday, 8 March 2010


Our mission - 24 hrs on a narrowboat. 20 locks. 6 BBers, Phil and myself. 
Bring it on. 

Labour - the Anti-Christ...ians?

Damian Thompson writes in the Spectator:
Gordon Brown’s Cabinet is the least Christian in British history. Its members sneer at the Churches’ teachings about sexuality. They bully faith schools with relish, making them talk to primary schoolchildren about sexual intercourse. They are just about to force Catholic schools to advise teenage girls on where to procure an abortion. They want to compel religious institutions to employ people whose beliefs run entirely counter to the values of those institutions. They favour ‘assisted dying’ and are surreptitiously working to enshrine it as a legal right. This is hard-edged, doctrinaire secularism of a variety that even Tony Blair couldn’t stomach. Admittedly, his government didn’t ‘do’ God, but this lot want to do Him in.
Britain’s Christians, you might expect, would be deserting Labour in droves. Not so. According to an opinion poll last month commissioned by the think tank Theos, support for the Tories among Christians had crept up by only two points since the last general election. In contrast, ‘unbelievers’ — that is, people who say they have no religious faith and who probably agree with Harriet Harman on abortion, gay marriage and the delusional nature of faith — had moved 13 points in the Tory direction
The argument here isn't that there are no Christians in the Labour Party. In fact, given the opinion poll results it may well be that there are a number. The issue is that Labour's policies and approach to key issues is anti-Christian.

BUT (granting for the moment that Damian Thompson is right in his analysis)...are the Tories a clear alternative?
Well, David Cameron describes his party as 'a modern and radical party'. Mmmm. OK, what do those words mean?!
Here is David Cameron, voice of the 'family friendly' party, with the CONSERVATIVE party's line on homosexuality:

So, on this issue of sexuality 'modern and radical' also means anti-Christian. That is the blue corner, and as the quote showed, the yellow corner are the same too.

So, as a Christian voter, on the issue of sexuality, our main parties are all anti-Christs.

Perhaps we can distinguish the speed and vigor with which they wish to throw off his bonds ... but when heading towards a cliff speed isn't the main issue is it?

HT: Pete

PS. Peter Hitchens would like to ask David Cameron these nine questions

Sunday, 7 March 2010

Good Food

Well done Andy!
Famous here & here


The Church is not a people united by common ideas, ideas which collectively go under the name 'Christianity'. When the Bible speaks of a people united by faith it does not simply mean that we have the same beliefs about reality. Though the New Testament does use 'faith' to refer to a set of teaching (e.g. 1 Cor 16:13; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 4:7), 'faith' stretches out to include one's entire 'stance' in life, a stance that encompasses beliefs about the world but also unarticulated or inarticulable attitudes, hopes, and habits of thought, action or feeling. To be of 'one mind' (Phil 1:27) means to share projects, aspirations, and ventures, not merely to hold to the same collection of doctrines. Besides, the Church is united not only by one faith but also by one baptism (Eph 4:4-6), manifests her unity in common participation in one loaf (1 Cor 10:17), and lives together in mutual deference, submission , and love.  (Against Christianity, Peter Leithart, p14)

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Utility doesn't quite fit the bill

I am guessing from this article that Simon Barnes is an atheist. He is writing about his son, Eddie, who has Down's Syndrome, and as you might expect from Simon Barnes he does so very movingly:
What is Eddie for? A question worth asking, I think. The Nazis sent people with Down’s to the ovens, because they polluted the purity of the race. And before we shudder at such barbarity, we should remember that most women pregnant with a baby with Down’s syndrome choose to abort. It’s clear that many people believe that a child with Down’s has no point: that such a being is extraneous to human needs, a mere burden on society and, in particular, on the parents. Best get rid of them. 
The reality of Eddie’s life contradicts all that. At school, he is held very dear. The headmistress has said that her school is a better place for his presence: because Eddie is there, the school’s small society has become more caring, more gentle, more at ease with itself. At the end of the last school year, Eddie won the Peace Prize, voted for annually by the entire class. The prize is given to the kindest, most generous and most helpful child.
So Simon Barnes takes on the utility argument and argues that his boy has utility, despite what others in society might say. Quite right too.
But Eddie is valuable and has purpose, not only because of his utility, but because God has made him in his image, because God sustains Eddie moment by moment and because God will hold to account anyone who takes Eddie's life.

Despite not having a grounding for why this should be, Simon Barnes is right that Eddie's purpose is to be loved and to love: 
Eddie’s function is to be loved, and to love in return. Perhaps that is everybody’s ultimate function. Eddie enriches the lives of his family and enriches the lives of those he comes into contact with outside. That seems to me to be a life right on the cutting edge of usefulness.
But there is more still. Because utility is not how God measures worth. After all, Eddie is not useful to God. Nor is Simon Barnes, nor am I, nor is anyone, in this sense: What do we bring God that God does not already have?

Ultimately Eddie, Simon and I, along with all creation, are made by the Triune God, for him, to worship and adore him for all eternity through the Lord Jesus Christ. Eddie is made for God's glory.