Math and Money: Index Construction For the Saints

The stock markets of the world make up a vast "money network," accessible both by the traditional means through a stockbroker, and online by way of various kinds of trading accounts one can open for a relatively small sum.

The notion "economic value," the idea that this piece of paper is "worth" four of those cans on the grocery store shelf has its origin in the distant past. We have already seen how the need to measure the value or worth of one kind of thing in units of another kind of thing -- how many pounds of wheat is my car worth -- gave rise to a medium of exchange we simply call "money."

Money enables us to measure all kinds of things against others using the same units of value -- dollars, yen, pounds, dinarii, quarters, nickels, or what not. This comparison of relative values -- 3 cans of fish for five dollars -- takes place in quantified units ("5" dollars, not yummy dollars), for "3" cans of yummy fish. For that much money they had better be.

This means that math can go a long way in enabling our study of money ("economics"). Math provides a way of comparing the relative values of all kinds of things against other things we might we to know about. These are value comparisons.

The stock markets thus thrive on numbers, plottable charts, fundamentals (a numerical way of describing the particular features of a company -- market capitalization, price to earnings ratios, earnings per share, and the like, whose stock one might wish to purchase. Just WHO is selling this stuff? Fundamentals -- basic company characteristics -- put numbers to the answer to this question. It is a company with the following traits .... [Then the listings of numbered characteristics begins].

So as India and China gobble up gold, and the Saudis tighten OPEC production, what am I going to do about it? I am working on a project which attempts to create a system of real-time market feedback using the "index," several indices working in tandem to tell me the most covenantally relevant features of the markets in shorthand -- or "at a glance."

How the market "really" works. Large numbers of people interact to buy, sell and appraise a host of different kinds of instruments people use to make money. These include options, futures, stocks, bonds, and "warrants" among others. There are peripheral or adjunct markets which have grown up around the others, which second markets service or cater to the needs, wants and wallets of traders and investors. These offer all kinds of software programs for better market clarity, trading platforms for faster execution times and custom-trading parameters you can automate (i.e. "when any stock matches these specs, buy or sell it when I am out golfing"), information devices, trading strategies and systems, and a host of other ways to give traders and investors "the edge."

This means that the markets are "intersubjective." These rational interactions cause the markets to follow sets of determinable "trends," patterns that emerge from the chaotic mix using numbers to describe them -- sometimes very fancy numbers. Fancy or no, numbers rule the day. We count money in numbers.

At first I thought the way to defeat the markets -- make good money by trading -- would be to obtain OBJECTIVE data from the real world to better the competition which uses more often than not relative judgments rather than the sort Christians would recogize as the more absolute kind. By thinking this through, however, I have come to correct this somewhat misguided view.

Investors and traders act as they do because of what the believe. Many of their beliefs find root in real word data -- supply and demand figures, total amount of gold now in existence, number of employees at a given company, etc.

But it is their BELIEFS about these numbers, not the data themselves, which determine the "averging effect" upon the market as they interact. In other words, how investors feel, and what traders believe -- I will call this collectively "investor pyschology" -- about the market data they consume governs their behaviors ultimately.

In principle, there is an unlimited amount of information one might glean from the objective world about this or that economic possibility -- a purchase or sale of some commodity or stock. This means that we need to isolate those most important to most investors from all the many which do not actually figure into the more important equations.

Think of it this way. The tautology should help: "The markets always do what the markets are going to do." Now imagine you could do the same thing -- moving exactly as the markets do -- but only slightly ahead of them. This would make you rich very quickly. It matters little if the reasons for market movements are rational or not -- and they are primarily (but not entirely) rational.

The intersubjective decisions of the marketmovers combine highly specific -- not all -- sets of data from the real world and interpret it within a set of frameworks or value systems not shared by all other traders. Some of this simply results from the fact that different traders come from around the world, from different cultures and life situations. This means they are bound to think differently about what kind of world this is, how we know what we know, and who we should live our lives, make our money, and save, spend or invest our assets.

The intersubjective markets average conflicting worldviews, economic philosophies, and trading strategies. It's a Van Til thing. This means that in a strict sense, you do not need to have more or special "objective data" (though this certainly could help) that the others do not in order to defeat the markets.

Trend forecasting -- using numbers -- which explain in advance the "averaging effect" which falls out into particular trajectories (trends) can be enough by itself to win handsomely. Other helps come from how one manages his purchases -- trade management strategies. For instance, you can use devices which limit your risk -- trailing stops form a good example of these. But if you gain, you can let your profits RUN.

I believe the most relevant market data can be summarized using a set of biblical (objective) values to zero in on which factors most important tells the trends. Covenants rule the world according to the Bible because God is covenantal and so if all of life. God governs by way of covenants, which have both blessings and curses associated with them (sanctions).

The structure of the covenant can be applied to markets to create a highly successful trading strategy which creates a network of indexical feedback indicators -- these tell you "what the markets are REALLY doing -- and enable you to see the forest for all the trees first, and then to analyze the trees in their real-world (market) context.

To win, in other words, you do not always need "more information," you need more of the right kind of information -- covenantally relevant information -- isolated for you by a system constructed according to the dictates of covenantal demands.

In other words, we must see in the dark using special glasses [covenantally-structured indices] which others do not have, and then we can "move faster" than the competition -- efficiently placing the right buy and sell orders at roughly the right times. The indices, if properly constructed, isolate the right numbers, which tell a story (give much information in few letters and numbers).

This should enable us to transfer wealth, in the form of numbers, from their accounts to ours. Joseph did something similar on behalf of pharaoh in Egypt.

So far, I have come up with a trial version of the first index to be used in a system of many such indices working together. As I have already described elsewhere, the Bible teaches that God is the source of all value, whether you count that value in numbers, or compare it to qualities -- like courage, love, justice, mercy and the like. God is the source of ALL value, including economic value.

He produces profitable servants like the Proverbs 31 woman. All hard work brings a profit, and the skillful worker will serve before kings - those who pay the most -- not before obscure men. Work is a form of trading, the exchange of time and skill or effort for money. All businesses trade to get ahead. So do all employees.

God has appointed gold and silver -- I would argue by implication also platinum (though I am aware this may prove controversial) -- as the immanent expression of fundamental value from the transcendent world. As the Sabbath of the new creation in Genesis was "made for man," so also the gold and silver of the lands of Havilah and Ophir -- for "the gold of that land is good."

One man in particular, the Lord Jesus Christ and Second Adam, is worthy to receive all wisdom, knowledge, honor, power, RICHES, glory and strength." This means that God created the vast wealth of the earth FOR Jesus from the beginning. Psalm 24:1 says "God gave to men the earth," and the Chief of all men now holds the title deed (Psalm 2, "Ask of me and I shall give thee then nations for thine inheritance").

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive all .... riches....."

The transcendent value of God, which has as its ultimate source His goodness in particular -- thus do we call merchandise "goods" and services (work) - so that God's original good work -- the created order has real (objective) value. The earth is good because 1. God MADE it good and 2. God CALLED it good 3. God has redeemed it - all of it in principle -- in Jesus. He holds the title deed.

Now God has chosen that certain precious metals form the basis of expressing economic value, the value of God's goodness reflected in all good things -- goods and services -- which in the Bible are cleary gold and silver, as was used in the former covenanted "holy land," the home of God's people of old. Peter, refering to money said, "Silver and gold have I none ....".

Thus, the Bible compares gold to the faith of the saints, and silver to redemption and grace. The Lord was betrayed for 30 shekels of silver, the price of a common slave. This was the "blood" money, which blood of the Lord Jesus - His once for all sacrifice -- saves His people from their sins.

The Bible sees salvation -- which is by God's grace alone then -- as holy or special and special -- uniquely precious metals, He has chosen for such symbology in the Word for their INHERENT value. These are not mere commodities like all others. They have unique characteristics, which make them uniquely suitable as the foundation of all real money, or basic economic value.

Thus, my first index constructed by the demands of the covenantal structure, consists of precious metal values, those of platinum, silver and gold. Now covenants are forward-looking in the Word. Their sanctions specify who inherits and who does not, but this is future. First the covenantal vow (or oath) is taken, then later the sanctions imposed. This is why heaven or else hell await one's demise.

This means several things for the purposes of constructing this index.

1. I will be using platinum, gold and silver prices in the markets currently. These are called the precious metals "spot prices."

2. I will be using the price of platinum, gold and silver FUTURES contracts six months forward. These are the estimated "future prices" of the precious metals.

3. I will be using the stock prices of the ten largest gold and silver producing companies.

Here is how my formula will look. I will construct it step-by-step, so that math types can follow the number crunching, and see how I adjust it as I go. Are you ready?

Okay, first we must represent the price of platinum as it is now (Platinum spot price). For this I will use the symbol for Platinum found on the periodic table of elements, and likewise gold and silver. If you do not know what that is, no worries. It just makes our venture oh-so-scientific.

Platinum = Pt. Gold = Au, and Silver = Ag. Platinum is a Latin word; in Latin, if you wish to say gold, you say "Aurum," (Au) and if silver, "Argentum" (Ag). Get it?

So the spot price of Pt today, we call the variable "Pt."

The price of platinum that is scheduled to be delivered "six months from now" in futures or options contracts -- promises to buy or sell and deliver the goods -- we will call for short "June 08 platinum." Make sense? Six months from now it will be June of the year 2008. So we call the Pt which must be delivered from the seller to the buyer in June of this year "June 08 Pt."

I will represent it this way -- Pt (F6) -- which means the price of platinum six months in the future. Pt (F4) would be the price of April 08 Platinum. And so on. What then -- following our trend -- is Au (F9)? This is the price of gold scheduled for delivery in September of this year on a futures or option contract. So here we go now. Fasten your seatbelts.

(Pt x Pt (F6)/ 2) x (Au x Au (F6)/ 2) x (Ag x Ag (F6)/2)/ 3 = Z

Do NOT let this equation scare you. Do not be intimidated by symbols. These are no different than the letters you are reading right now (which are also symbol combinations). But you have been trained to read these: you know the rules instinctively, so you see the effect of their combinations almost "at a glance." You can and should learn to do the same with numbers and letters like the ones above. It takes a little time, but anyone can do it. You did not learn to read all at once either. It took work, yes? (oops, I said the "w" word again).

This will be modified by the next equation which will:

1. Multiply the prices for each component in the gold and silver indices of the final price of each stock at day's end. For instance, Each of the last ten days for the stock "NEM" (Newmont Mining) has a "last" price listed. I will multiply these ten numbers together and then divide by ten, to provide the average price for the last ten days of NEM. I will do the same for each of the other components.

2. Then I will multiply those ten-day "recent price averages" together, and divide by ten (or five in the case of the silver index since it has only five components). This will give me an overall -- representative -- "10 day moving average" for the price history of the gold-and silver mining markets. This is the average price for precious metals in the market for the last ten days. This is a number which represents "what's happening now."

3. I will then use this number as a basis to compare to the "Z" above to see if the present trend is expected to continue, rise, or fall in the near term. If it rises, I will argue for a buy signal. If it falls, this means "go short." If it remains roughly the same, this is a "hold signal."

We can represent this series by using D10 x D9 x D8 x D7 x D6 x D5 x D4 x D3 x D2 x D1/ 10. This simply means the last ten days' "last price" we will multiply together -- for any one stock (like NEM) -- and then divide by ten. This averages the price for the last ten days of Newmont Mining. D1 represents "today's last price." You can look these up on any good stock website.

Suppose that ten days ago, NEM ended up the trading day at exactly $45.00. This would mean that D10 would be $45. We would then multiply this by the last price for day 9 -- say $42. And so on down the list until we get finally to today's last price. Then we divide that total by ten ot get our average "last" for the past ten days for NEM.

Then we use this final average for each of the ten stocks in our gold index, and average them too, by multiplying THEM together, and then dividing by ten.

With the silver index, we will go ten days deep also (following the same multiplication series), but when we average these together at the end, we only divide by 5 since the silver index has only 5 component stocks (listed below).

Then we will average the gold and silver indices together, giving twice as much weight to the silver index, since it only has half the number of components that the gold index does. This will make them representatively equals in our final trifold "precious metals index."

Now according to our first equation, what does the number "Z" represent? It is not as hard as it looks. The first number Pt x Pt (F6)/2 combines the spot price of platinum (which is about $1500 today for one ounce) with its price 6 months out and then divides their compound by 2 to get an average "3-month out" price for Platinum. Then I do the same for gold and silver. Then, finally, I avergage the 3 "averages" of each metal to get a combined "3 month out precious metal index."

This is a form of forecasting by averaging spot and future price estimates. This is a short-term forecast, you will notice. I have used -- and will be using weather forecasting as a model to compare with what I am here doing, and these work best with short-term forecasts.

Here are my top gold companies and silver miners, which I intend to use in making up my price components for the proposed gold-silver indices used [as subsets] to figure into the precious metals index (which I started with the above formula just now):

[Watch for updates, as the gold company list may change a little. These are listed only by market capitalization and general viability. I intend to figure into the equation also some version of the price to earnings growth projections, since the PEG represents a forward-looking indicator, like futures prices.

1. Anglo American plc (AAUK [ADR])
2. Barrick Gold Corporation (ABX)
3. Newmont Mining Co (NEM)
4. Goldcorp Inc. (GG)
5. AngloGold Ashanti Limited
6. Gold Fields Limited (GFI)
7. Rangold Resources (GOLD)
8. Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited (AEM)
9. Kinross Gold Corporation (KGC)
10. Yamana Gold Inc. (AUY)

Silver Company Index Components

1. Compania de Minas Buenaventura SA (BVN)
2. Pan American Silver (PAAS)
3. Silver Standard Resources (SSRI)
4. Apex Silver Mines Ltd (SIL)
5. Coeur D'Alene Mining (CDE)

If any of this seems "over the top," please be patient. When I put some numbers to it, it should get easier. I have other modifications to make too, so stay tuned.

How Kids Can Learn the Geography And Climate Of Israel

For those who wish to learn a good deal about Bible backgrounds, a quick pictorial study, apparently developed for children (but useful for adults too), can be found at:

http://members.cox.net/tei3/E5_03GeographyAncientIsrael.pdf

There will, of course, be differences between the modern and ancient Israel, but the climate and land have changed the least of any two elements of Bible backgrounds one might choose. Here, you learn that about 60% of Israel's land consists of the Negev desert. Who knew.

You can become familiar with those places where David ran from Saul, where Joshua conquered the trespassing 7 nations in this or that battle, and the like. Even when you do not know the cities of the Old World, you still can learn the regions and have a fair idea of what it would have been like to live there.

Have fun looking around at all the diagrams and charts, where you might just learn a good deal more about your Bible in a very short span than you have in a long time.

How Bats Fly Without Pulling an Evel Knevel

You remember E.K., the stunt man who often crashed spectacularly after attempting surprisingly daring jumps across a sea of buses from his high-power motorcycle's saddle. Well, just as cats seem impossibly always to land on their feet, bats being as blind as Daredevil, still manage not to hit things when they fly.

They fly about as well as Evel Knevel rode on his more alcoholic days. If you ever take time to observe them (I have), you will notice they are the craziest pilots around, exhibiting flight patterns similar to - but more exaggerated than -- those of the butterfly. This is aviation mayhem at its finest.

How do the bats keep from slamming into unsuspecting telephone poles? They use a rather sophisticated system for navigating that bounces very high-pitched noises they "screech" from their mouths, using the echoes to locate their position in relation to the oncoming "whatever."

In other words, they -- after a fashion -- scream at the world and honk the horn loud as they can. It's like New York City with wings, fangs and ears. And by the noisy feedback they get, they can tell which yellow taxi, tree, or what have you to dodge next.

Here is a great page that describes the process of "echolocation" used by bats to get along in the world. God has given the wisdom of instinct and special biological equipment to these critters, which scientists do not fully understand. But they know enough to have some really cool webpages on it, and tell you how it basically works.

Here, you can see the wonder of God's wisdom invested in the lower creation -- even if in this case it comes in a shape just a little creepy to the human eye -- but hey -- whatever it is that eats bats, it has to eat too. Humans use electronic systems many ways similar to those by which bats fly to forecast weather, identify enemy aircraft or ships, and a host of other weather tracking and other meteorological activites.

They may fly like Jehu drives, but they do fly. And that itself it fairly marvelous. Here is the page on echolocation and bats for further study:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/bat2.htm

Have fun with biology and physics at the same time.

U.S. History Timeline For Developing Didactic Chronologies

Here is a U.S. history chronology, for use in making a historical overview chart or some other clever device that let's you see the major trends at a glance in U.S. history. Of course, these are highly selective in the nature of the case. This does not make them less useful since you can adapt data from other sources to render their chronological skeletons more balanced. Notice here, there is not ONE reference to William Shatner of Star Trek fame. Hollywood is underrepresented. To the picket lines already.

This one leans heavily to the economic side of history. Others prefer technological timeline events. Better any than none. You learn more that way, and begin to relate one historical notion to another, or events to trends. This leads to analytical thinking about causes and effects, and critical evaluations of the value (long-term or short) of historical actions. Intelligent concepts and thought processes could erupt. This must be stopped.

Here is a fairly good starter kit.

http://www.duke.edu/~charvey/Country_risk/chronology/us-events.htm

Enjoy.

Writing of Writing and Thinking of Thinking: Beat The System

False theories and knowledge just go together. This sentiment is bound to surprise many, especially coming from the e-pen of a Christian, since people know them to be on about "objective truth" more often than not.

A simple distinction or two can help a great deal here. There is a very important difference between the way you go about learning something (let us call it some truth "X") and how one might go about justifying the alleged truth of X.

I have suggested (and maintain incorrigibly) that one might learn the truth of X from several different possible methods. A few scientists even came up with some of their more interesting theories from dreams they had, some quite frightening. James Clerk Maxwell did this. Ernst Mach pulled some fairly interesting stunts to come up with theories too. He was a scientific anti-realist and didn't care. But Christians acknowledge only one way in which a person may ultimately justify the truth of any claim, including our pet view called "X."

So the claim "I learned the truth of X by doing Y" is not at all interchangeable with the claim that " I justify X on the basis of Y." This has great importance for questions of how we learn what our Bible teach, and how we justify what we learn by whatever means we so learn.

For example, one might learn the Bible truth that "There is but one God, and one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus" by being taught this in a catechism class by ones parents, or he might simply stumble across 1 Timothy's passage cited above, or he might hear a minister quote it during a sermon, and proceed to expound upon its meaning.

These ways of learning differ greatly. But once learned, the means for proving the truth of this claim (ultimately) will look identical. And a person almost always learns any truth X, before he learns the proper justification pattern for proving the claim. I knew that "2 + 2 = 4" long before I could PROVE it in terms of base ten math. Thus, learning and justifying represent (in most cases) different kinds of actions.

Second, people today often think of knowledge in terms of "true theories" or "proven theories." This overlooks the basic Christian claim that not all knowledge is theoretical in nature. Divine revelation for instance cannot be erroneous or mistaken. Theoretical claims can. And even when they turn out to be true theories, they could have been mistaken (but weren't). Theories never have an infallible source because God does not theorize. And he alone is infallible. Scientists will be the first to tell you they make mistakes. Trial and error is part of the job description, in fact.

God is not like this. He does not learn. He simply knows all things -- possible and actual eternally (not just at this particular moment). Thus, when He speaks and transmits information, He cannot err. It is not the case simply that he DOES NOT, but cannot err. "He cannot deny Himself," meaning that His perfect attributes set borders around his abilities, since He cannot degrade his own perfect character. God, for instance, cannot violate his own law (sin), nor can He alter his character in any fundamental way. Since one (by definition) cannot improve upon perfect, any substantial change in any one attribute would require a demotion of sorts (so to speak).

Thus, the Word of God ascribes to itself the incommunicable attributes of deity. It is eternal, incorrigible, invincible, sovereign (frames human history), irrefragable (cannot be divided or degraded), and the like. No theory of man is like this, whether true, false or indeterminate.

Men do not reveal (original information), nor can they (save the God-Man Himself), for they are not deity. Thus, the word of God is not like true theories, even though both are true. They possess mutually exclusive basic attributes, and belong (logicians say) to complementery classes. True theories are contingently (not necessarily) true. The converse is true of divine revelation since it forms the foundations (the meta-transcendental) for knowledge.

So what is the point here? The point is this. Since one can (and may) learn revealed truths by many different methods or secondary sources, false theories (and theories of unknown truth value) can be skillfully used to determine the true meaning of some passage of the revelation of God. The Bible teaches that "to him who is clean are all things clean."

False theories are in the right hands, an extra set of tools one might use as lenses for looking at some data set from fresh perspectives not available without such "lenses." In other words, false theories can be (and I have used them successfully to this end many times) excellent ways of learning some truth of the Word or of the world - which is justified (I find out later) from this or that passage combination from the Word of God.

But I -- presumably -- would never have learned this from the Word (unless I had by Gods grace stumbled upon it by some other means) had I not borrowed the false-theory "glasses" and used them to look at the Bible this way just "for the sake of argument."

There is nothing so far as I know which, either in the Word or in the teachings of men like Cornelius Van Til, which suggests that this is improper. But much the contrary. This is precisely the perspective a Christian apologist IS to take of a worldview he does not share for the sake of conducting an analysis where he snoops about for dialectical tensions.

I have simply adapted the VanTillian "hypothetical snooping" method to views outside apologetics and pressed them into the service of research. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Its the postmillenial thing to do.

So let me make my recommendation for the good of all research animals everywhere. First, I believe in doing research only biblically. Not every philosophy of research is acceptable to God, but only the theonomic one. This is the one I am recommending. Those who have read my book on theoretical instrumentalism as the biblical philosophy of science will recognize at once that what I have done there by exegesis to show instrumentalism sound in the faith of Jesus, I have here extended into the philosophy of research.

What is THE biblical philosophy of research? Answer: theoretical construction used as heuristic devices to look at data from unique perspectives to gain insights, which if true, can then later be justified by the Word. And if not, we simply discard them as "nothing more than tools for learning" what the Bible alone would have justifed if true.

But the usefulness of theories -- false or true (or indeterminant) for gaining real insights into the word of God -- or into sources warranted by the word of God (as with extrabibical historical sources confirmed by the consistent testimonies of two or three eyewitnesses) -- enables us to learn things about the Word in a highly efficient manner which do not necessarily come FROM the Word. Yet to justify them ultimately, we must needs lean to the Word of God alone.

Therefore, given these very important qualifications, I am maintaining here (for the first time) that the biblical philosophy of research necessarily includes -- but is not limited to -- the use of theoretical constructions known to be false, or at least NOT KNOWN to be true (in many cases), which I may therefore properly call "research theory-instrumentalism." Surely, I will be able to come up with a better name for this approach later.

Here, the bottom line is this: do not fear to construct theories freely -- even ones a bit absurd if they serve the purpose of aiding information management (analysis, sorting, classifying, etc) -- in the research process. Use them, even more than one at once if you like, to compare and contrast competing notions of cause, source analysis, and the like.

Have confidence that bad theories will be ganged up on by harsh and unruly facts soon enough, and will take the beating they have coming to them. This will require new formulations of the old one, or else a new idea altogether, perhaps equally bad. Well done. At least now you have a REAL false theory, one which manly explains things, and perhaps even makes predictions about future likely findings -- to be confirmed or else used to revile the false prophet in your notes.

You can stone them with many hard facts later. But they may well serve many excellent didactic services by the time their usefulness has expired.

So, given the biblical doctrine of theory construction (instrumentalism) applied to research -- more efficient research, I will also proceed to misquote Friedrich Nietzsche, but just barely, to shock the Christian intellectuals just a bit more --

The falsity of a theory is no objection to it.

[It's a theory. Men made it up. We already knew it was false, or at least rightly suspected it]. Hang that man-made tradition, and then give it a fair trial. (Are we not Presbyterians?) But first, let's see what we might learn from it.

Besides, the history of the sciences are filled with false theories that were very fruitful in the development of technology, and some of them are so helpful, they continue teaching them in the public schools even though they have long known about their "veridically-questionable" status (i.e. they might be dead wrong). Newtonian mechanics provides just such an example. Newton postulated that time was invariant, and space absolute. Einstein said space is curved, and time dilates when you approach C (the speed of light).

Most scientists opt for Einstein, implying (but never saying) that Newton was out to lunch. They can't have it both ways. One of those intellectual behemoths was wrong wrong -- say it with me -- WRONG. And yet both theory sets provide a fair basis for judging the physical behaviors of a wide variety of objects at different speeds and magnitudes. They are even mathematically, well nigh interchangeable.

But they specify contradictory characteristics for the world -- mutually exclusive metaphysical views (about the nature of space, time, speed, matter and energy to name a few
such elements).

Okay then, once more. "The falsity of a theory is no objection to it."
And Christian researchers will do well to remember this principle in evaluating historical sources, so long as they also recall that the Bible contains revelation -- which is not theoretical. It never says anywhere, "In the beginning was the hypothetical formula."

And sometimes, it's okay to say, "Amen" in the library. And now for 7 final words: "Outside the box," and "sake of argument."

How The Dominical and Apostolic Form of Sound Words Came About and Why They Are Important

This brief post explains just why I have taken such a great interest in the apostolic catechism, and what it means, and does not mean, for defending the faith of Jesus once for all delivered to the saints. Below, we have an example of just how it is that ideas and sayings from Jesus' earthly ministry came to be seen by the apostles as worthy of special attention for teaching purposes. This is step one to inclusion in the apostolic catechism. We must remember that the apostles were very intelligent, extremely gifted, and directly taught by God. But they had very practical concerns right in front of them, problems that needed solving.

One of these was, "What do we do with all the Gentiles that repent and believe the Gospel? what is their status compared to a saved Jew who believes? Can they eat together at the same table, or is one clean and the other unclean somehow? In other words, how do we [the Jews were "we" to the apostles] live differently now under the New Covenant? Answers to these questions were already anticipated by Jesus in his earthly ministry. He had told them all the answers. But they had not yet learned them experientially until they had to DEAL with it.

And the Lord was with them to help them. He reminded them of his earlier teachings, which, when seen in light of their new problems and the divine solutions to them, made them think, "Oh, so THAT's what he meant by saying "Such and so." Now I remember that. At other points, they understood fully right from the first after 1. Jesus taught them for forty days, likely repeating himself often (for he did so in his earthly ministry for their benefit) 2. After the Spirit fell upon them in Acts 2, as Christ first ascended to the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110) and then from there poured out his Spirit (just as Joel 2 says it must come to pass) from heaven upon men.

Here, we have a close up look at how Peter learned about one such important issue confronting the Church, how Peter shared it with the other apostles, and thus how the form of sound words was influenced by the post-resurrection teaching (and doing) ministry of Christ to the apostles. Here is our text.

Acts 11: 16

"Then remembered I [Peter, that is, Cephas] the word of the Lord [Jesus], how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

Comments: Here, we see that the phrase "the word of the Lord" refers not to the whole Bible, as is often the case, but to a particular saying of the Lord Jesus. This is how the term "word" is used to describe the apostolic catechism of the early Church, the form of sound words.

We see in the outworking of the didactic experiences of the apostles (here, Peter), how the Lord Jesus -- continued "to do AND TO TEACH" (as from the beginning of the Gospel of Luke). Jesus teaches Peter by a vision, and then shows him in the salvation of the Gentiles, its meaning. Peter thereby recalls the saying, or dominical word, which Jesus had earlier spoken, but at which time they did not understand.

But Peter remembered the dominical saying, and proceeds to quote it to the others, explaining its importance in light of his recent learning experience. The glorified Lord Jesus not only continues his teaching (and doing) ministry, but his teaching now comes with such force, power and insight, that even Peter cannot fail to get the point. Peter was intelligent; but he was just very suspicious of the Gentiles, until the Lord fixed his opinion by orienting it toward ethics and the covenant of grace (not defunct ceremonial law). Sin, not food, makes a man unclean. Got it. Anyone forgiven by Jesus is now clean. Bring on the sweet and sour pork.

The Lord continues pouring out his Holy Spirit from heaven at God's right hand as we first saw in Acts 2 -- first to the Jew, and now to the Gentiles. Thus, we have in Acts 11, set immediately before our eyes an example of how the sayings of the Lord -- the form of sound words -- developed.

Where did they come from? Jesus. When? From his earthly ministry. How did they become crystalized into a poetic form? They became seen as terribly important in light of this or that experience, and in light of the continued teaching of the ministry of Jesus (from heaven) in the book of Acts. Thus, the apostles put them in an easily memorizable format, which mimics for their format the poetic literature of the Older Testament, specifically, the Psalms. They recognized that the Psalms had the form they did because it made these sayings of the wise more easily memorized. Psalm 1 tells us this. "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked .... but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night."

The only way an Old Testament saint could do this -- since he could not carry around a scroll with him everywhere -- would be to memorize it first, so that he could later meditate on it. This is why Psalm 119 comes in an acrostic form. The Psalms were to be memorized by singing them. The Psalms are a Christological (Messianic) catechism. Thus, when the apostles created the form of sound words, they developed its christology from the Psalms -- you can see this in their sermons in Acts 1-12, and from comparing their quotations of the Psalms in those sermons, to the form of sound words itself.

Why do the sound words convert easily back into Aramaic? They were formed very early to help solve very early ecclesiastical problems -- like what do we teach new Christians that are pouring in by the thousands, and how do we train out ministers to give them sufficient knowledge to deal with the theological and practical problems they will encounter?

These problems were what the form of sound words aimed at resolving, but in each case, the reason for its answers stem from who Jesus is, and what He did and said. If its a unity problem, that unity must be restored since Christ is the head of the Church, his one body (Col. and Eph.).

We know what these problems were because Acts and the epistles tell us: circumcision, Gentiles, dietary laws, Jewish feast days ("Sabbaths" in Colossians), Helping saved Jew and Gentile "all just get along" (diaconal office created to help solve this problem), understanding just why Jesus was crucified (in light of the OT prophesies), what his resurrection means, where he went after that, and what he is doing now, the nature of the apostolic office and Paul's late inclusion in it, and various ecclesiastical problems (including ministers who won't minister, or just run off; Gnostics and false teachers, other gospels, other people not-ordained by the Church preaching the right gospel, sometimes with right motives (Apollos) or else not (Paul rejoices anyway and disregards the motive to get him in trouble).

A few more questions are in order. When did this "new phase" of the teaching ministry of Jesus to the apostles begin? During the forty day, post-resurrection teaching marathon recording in Luke's Gospel. This was part one. Part two of this "second dominical teaching" ministry phase had to wait until the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles in Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit would do three things:

1. He would confirm the Gospel they preached with signs and wonders, including wonders which protected the apostles -- earthquakes, jail breaks and the like. There is nothing like a divinely-inspired jailbreak to comfort an imprisoned apostle.

2. He would remind them of the dominical sayings of Christ during his earthly ministry and post-resurrection, forty-day didactic sermon series, which were needed for the occasion at hand.

3. He would do apologetics for them, put the very words to speak in their mouths when called before rulers to give an account for why they behaved and taught as they did. Jesus Himself would defend the Gospel. And man can He preach. We see this with Stephen, also, though he was a deacon only, but a man "full of wisdom and of the Holy Spirit." His face lit up like an angel's face when He preached with power. The Spirit of Jesus did the preaching and defending, and it says, "they could not stand up to the Spirit by which he spoke."

This is a polite way of saying that Stephen, or rather the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, bowled them down like so many pins lined up -- one for each commandment. It was a clean strike. They were cut to the quick. And you know the rest about their subsequent protest.

When they first learned from the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit was with them to help them, but He had not yet been "poured out" by Christ, for Christ had not yet ascended to the right hand of the Father, from which place -- according to the Holy Scriptures of the OT -- he was scheduled so to do.

He could not pour out His Spirit needful for the mighty ministry of the apostles (to which they were appointed) until He had first ascended. But he COULD teach them all things concerning Himself and the Kingdom. Then as the Spirit worked out their salvation in them (and their apostolic office), they learned the meanings of what Jesus had much earlier said to them.

The dominical sayings -- together with many prophecies about Jesus -- were all "in their hearts," but many remained, we might say "unmined" -- until the Spirit unpacked their importance in light of the new things God was teaching them. Then they taught each other, by recounting what God had done among them, and what He had told them to do.

This happened at the Jerusalem Councils also. As iron sharpeneth iron, so one apostle sharpens another. So too the evangelists and prophets, like Philip, Luke, Agabus and others. We KNOW Luke went around telling everyone what God was doing because we have it in writing. And that is the JOB-description of evangelists, for the most part. Each apostle explained to the others what God was doing -- what Christ continued to do and to teach them -- so that each enabled the understanding of the others. Those were, to put it very mildly, exciting times.

Then they "crystallized" some of the more important (obviously not all) of the dominical sayings by creating a list of them to teach new Christians and ministers in training. Some of these dominical sayings were sayings of Jesus AFTER the resurrection, or even from above (as with the conversations that Peter and Paul had with Him).

Finally, the apostles were powerfully and unusally "spirit-filled." This should be terribly obvious from the fact that Peter walks about described by Luke in terms of the ark of the covenant, and anyone on whom his shadow falls is healed instantly. The Holy Spirit was totally in control of Peter, under such conditions, and the things he did and said were directly from God the Spirit. Especially in regard to their teaching ministries did the Spirit powerfully constrain them, so that His words and their own were one and the same.

To lie to the apostles under such conditions was the same as lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-5).

The sound words were thus formed under highly unusual and apostolically-interactive conditions where God taught men rather directly. So also the rest of Scripture was immediately inspired by God, but that does not form the focus of our present study, since we can't study everything at once. And Paul's letters were not formed the way (historically) that the apostolic catechism came about.

The point of the sound-word study is not their superiority to the rest of the Bible, but their primary importance in the development of a uniquely "Christian" (biblical) historiography of the New Testament, to provide the biblically-sanctioned alternative to Bultmania. It functions by itself to provide a greater understanding on the part of Christians as to how -- the mechanics - the New Testament canon actually came about, and came to appear as it does at present.

This biblical historiography is not intended as a justification for its several parts divorced from the rest of the canon. Biblical historiography is not an evidentialist enterprise, since we justify that historiography as only one (though important) part or aspect of the whole system of theology taught in the Holy Scripture.

The whole biblical worldview -- the canon -- presents its own best defense from the logical impossibility of the contrary. But Christian apologists must be prepared to specify just what that historiography is, and to set it over against its would-be competitors to show the strength of the biblical worldview at just those places attacked, while undermining the necessary preconditions for logic, historical investigation, and analysis using (for the sake of argument) the three layers of presuppositions in the worldviews which so set them up against the knowledge of Christ.

Those three layers of their oh-so-tangled web are (listen up apologetes):

1. Philosophical presuppositions native to individual writers [i.e. Crossan is something of a deconstructionist, while Marcus Borg is either a Pantheist (or Panentheist)]

2. Methodological presuppositions -- these consist in the propositions native to the pre-understanding of the canon which allegedly influenced its development (i.e. the doctrines of legendary growth, apostlic inter-relations, conditions of the early church [i.e. literacy v. illiteracy] and the like.

3. Criterological presuppositions - these detail just why this or that literary unit may or may not count as reliable, authentic or historical. I have, er, "demythologized" these at length in previous posts.

Why three layers? I don't know, that's just how they come packaged. I noticed this in my undergraduate years at CSU Hayward. If you want a total critique -- and you Vantillians know that you do -- you have to treat all three layers.

By laying out these presuppositions in three classes, and then comparing them intra-class first (how does the criterion of "this" compare to the others; how does it self-refer?) and then by noting the logical consequences of their inter-class relations (Does the criterion of X undermine methodological skepticism as a principle? Does it get along with the doctrines of Borg's metaphysics? Does it tolerate the doctrine of the legendary growth of the pre-canonical "pericopes, " which Bultmaniacs propose?), we can isolate many dialectical tensions -- I know I can (like buttuh), so surely you could too -- sufficient to show the impossibility of the contrary to the biblical historiography in each case.

But we must first know what the biblical trajectory of the development of the New Testament was, and the Bible tell us this. The Bible has the answers.

The dominical and apostolic "form of sound words" (I argue) played a central role in the development of the New Testament canon. Thus, it merits special attention for its unique role in canonical development, not for any special "authority" it has apart from the rest of the canon of the Holy Scripture. ALL Scripture is God-breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. But not all of it functions the same way to teach us about this or that part of the canon, or its proper application to this or that field of study.

Thus far, we have a basic core of teachings justified from the Word.

1. The apostles had an early catechism, put together in discreet oral and literary units, and these are identified in the Word itself as a single body, a form of sound dominical and apostolic sayings.

2. Old Testament Christology, primarily, but not exclusively, from the Psalms and the Book of Daniel informs the central orientation of the perspective of the sound words. Jesus is the Son of Man, the lofty, powerful and glorious person who ascends the hill of the Lord to sit down at the right hand of power, after His vindicating resurrection from the dead, and miraculous ministry. In Jesus, God was manifest in the flesh, as the royal seed of King David (or Solomon the Greater). He died, was buried and rose three days later. The Apostles saw this first hand. Note that in Acts' early chapters, the apostles preach this Jesus from Solomon's porch.

The greatness of Jesus is the reason for the specific teaching in each particular sound word. Even in the case of Paul's apostleship, the Lord converted Paul and the Spirit of Jesus set him apart for the ministry to the Gentiles.

3. This catechism has Aramaic-based roots which are in many cases traceable by the linguistic features common to early Aramaic speaking and writing, like Daniel chapters 2 - 7, and like the special linguistic features of our Lord Jesus in prayer and dialogue, as recorded by the Gospels, whose writers saw Him as the Danielic Son of Man, the Psalmic Son (or else Lord) of David (But if David calls Him "Lord," how then can He be David's Son?), the deuteronomic prophet like unto Moses, and priest after the order of that Melchizedek who put into effect God's covenant with Abraham by a blessing, and by bread and wine.

4. This catechism and its early apostolic use -- as it comes to expression in the Gospels, selcted parts of the epistles, and Semitic thought-forms behind the sermons of Acts 1-12 -- the form of sound words almost certainly provided the framework for the canonical Gospels since Luke calls them "set forth in order" according to the eyewitness testimony "pattern" of the apostles. Set in order means "they follow the authorized [divine] pattern." This is a liturgical Semitism (Hebrew idiom) found in the Older and Newer Testaments. It is always used the same way.

In other words, this apostolic written testimony may be the closest thing we will ever get to "Q," the hypothetical document or oral tradition standing behind the body of sayings Matthew and Luke have in common, which is not found in Mark. Instead of "Q," however, I prefer to call it "A" for "apodosis." What student wants to get a "Q" on his biblical homework project?

5. The Christology of A most likely provides the key to understanding the Christology of the book of Revelation, which is certainly its hermeneutical centerpiece -- but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

6. "A" was used to teach new Christians the fundamentals of the faith once (for all saints) delivered; it was used to train ministers -- deacons and elders too -- that they may be "thoroughly equipped for every good work," according to their respective offices.

7. "A" contains the central teachings of the Christian faith, which is called "the Gospel of Jesus Christ," which Gospel the canonical "Gospels" themselves elaborate upon. Even their nomenclature (Apostolically-authorized titles) suggests this. This catechetical pattern set the form (liturgy and preaching) of the earliest churches, which no Christian or teacher was expected to deviate from by any "acknowledged exceptions," unless one wished to be an acknowledged heretic.

If anyone preached any other Gospel than this, he was to be damned by apostolic pronouncement. The apostles were not religious pluralists, but strident and zealous Christological monotheists with a postmillenial attitude. They did not invite compromise; they invited conversion to faith in Jesus. Paul described other religions in the least glowing terms possible, even calling his own former Judaism -- by the Holy Spirit -- "skubala" compared to knowing Jesus Christ. I cannot translate that word directly for the potential readership of children. So Paul was as popular among the Jews as Stephen.

8. This means that the form of sound words was enforced by apostolic sanctions. It was canonical, once put in writing, which was almost from the very first, alongside the oral tradition of the apostles. We know this because Luke and others would have needed copies of it to compare with the works they sought to compose. This is HOW they "set forth in order" their accounts to ensure their compliance with apostolic limits.

Luke traveled and interviewed others to fill in the details, not to come up with a brand new set of ideas about Jesus. People like Theophilus could then have their curiosity satisfied, be edified in the Christian faith, grow in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus, and "know the certainty of "the things surely believed" [sound words] among us."

And now for the obligatory summation.

By way of terribly unscientific postscript, I should wish to note that I have included this post to fill out some of the detailsof just what I am arguing (and not arguing for), and to clarify some of the possible misgivings that the Vantillians might have about my doing what would seem to be "evidential" apologetics. As you can see well now, I have not a Montgomerian bone in my body. I am of Cornelius, and from the tribes of the North, the Bahnsen and the Rushmeister.

Death before individuated facticity. My favorite teachers put it directly in terms of biblical attributes: "The consent of all the parts." I like to add the word "mutual" to that description - the mutual consent of all the parts -- because it feels -- SO -- Johannine. And Paul spoke this way of the Church and its many members -- the gifts are for the mutual edification of the one body.

In any case, this mutual consent assures me that further study in this vein can only serve to strengthen the faith of other believers in Jesus, utterly overthrow the alleged competition (whose car and smoking radiator I passed up on the side of the road some 40 miles back), highlight the full, final sufficiency of the whole Word of God, and do all kinds of assorted damage to Satan's kingdom.

A few from the "other side" of the Christological and historiographic fence might even catch on and decide to mutiny. People sometimes do not realize that, since we are born into the world under the dominion of the wrong side, Christianity is primarily about repentance unto godly defection, and sanctified treachery. Mutiny well mates. There is great treasure to be had (Proverbs 3:3-12). Now bring me that horizon.

Alexandrite: Gemstones From the Bible

Alexandrite comes out of the Bible under a different name, but is ranked in value today with the "top four" in the highest quality of these stones. The big four: diamond (diamonds are a jeweler's best friend); ruby; sapphire; and emerald -- also have this expensive comrade, most of which better ones today come from Russia.

The Bible knows it as "chrysoberyl," and it is found in Revelation 21 [KJV has "chrysoprase"], for use in describing the glorified New Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven to earth. This is the resurrection of all the saints, describing collectively their unveiled (the meaning of the Book's title) glory in the resurrection. This stone is perfect for describing the resurrection glory of the saints since like them, it changes color in refractive "flickers" as one changes the angle from which it is viewed -- like a mobile rainbow.

This is the meaning of Joseph's "coat of many colors," and the rainbow of mercy in Noah's day. These are the "priestly [and, er, "kingly"] robes" of righteousness in the Book of Revelation at the beginning.

Here is a brief post from the Mineral Zone on this "chameleon stone," a portable rainbow in your hand:

"This is a variety of chrysoberyl, like cat's eye, distinguished by a play. of colours which has earned it the name of "chameleon stone". Its natural colour ranges from dark to pale green, but in the light may appear anything from red to yellow, to orange, to mauve even, depending on how the rays strike it. It is a very attractive stone, but rare and therefore very costly, and only the top quality is worth buying.

It is, however, an excellent investment because it is much prized by jewelers and collectors. Pure alexandrite is always faceted, or cut en cabochon if flaws are present (in this case be careful not to confuse it with other "chameleon" chrysoberyls or labradorite).

Its value is on a par with the four precious stones and when well set is a match for even the finest diamond. The best specimens come from Russia, but it is also found in Ceylon, Burma, Brazil, Madagascar and the USA."

Read more on gems and see cool pics? http://www.mineralszone.com/