These are a few of the things I've recently found interesting, but don't have the time to properly blog on. I don't necessarily like or agree with the links here, I just think they're interesting. And just in case you do, too, enjoy.

(You can view past Del.icio.us links here or subscribe to my Del.icio.us feed here. )

This question was recently posed to me (and some other friends) on an email discussion-group:

« What is your take on Matthew 5:17-18 regarding the Law and Prophets? Do you believe we are still under the Law, and do you believe that we have Prophets today, and if so for what purpose in light of receiving the Holy Spirit individually? »

I waited with anticipation for an answer to these questions from the group, but nobody dared venture forth... I suspect it’s because the answers to those questions would require so much explanation that too many are daunted!

I too am daunted, but I've never let that stop me from being a foolish blow-hard (witness this weblog!). So, here goes a long answer.

First, see the a larger context of the verses cited:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have

Updated 01/09/2006: See my reference to Dan Edelen’s recent post, below.

Last Tuesday, I was asleep at the wheel when Eric Reed over at Out of Ur invited Dr. Craig L. Blomberg to post a thoughtful article on blogging and the Evangelical blogosphere. I finally saw the post today, and thought it worth sharing.

It’s easy to read Blomberg’s post as entirely critical. It’s not. But he does ask some hard questions worthy of consideration. His post, indeed, may be a sort of litmus test for motives: if you see it as overly critical, perhaps you’re the inspiration for his questions? I quote, below, a few excerpts, but the whole post is worth reading. My response, posted to the site, follows.

If Marshall McLuhan was even partly right that “the medium is the message,” then what message does the medium of blogging send?