Podcast appearances and mentions of Don Francisco

las puertas de su recinto ferial. Saludos de César Lumbreras. César Lumbreras. Agropopular. Cope. Estar informado. Comienza Agropopular, emisión correspondiente al 17 de mayo de 2025. Me encuentro debajo de un olivo que está a las puertas de este recinto ferial donde se está celebrando Expoliva y saludo al presidente de la Diputación de Jaén, don Francisco Reyes. Don Francisco, muy buenos días. Hola, muy buenos días, César, bienvenido. Veo que en este olivo está en floración, ¿cómo ha ido o está yendo la floración en los olivares de Jaén? Bueno, yo creo que este olivo, César, le tendremos que ...

Celebrate the resurrection of Jesus with this special Easter edition of 20 The Countdown Magazine! William Ryan III counts down the top 20 songs in Christian music. You'll also hear the latest from Brandon Lake, Katy Nichole, TobyMac, and Megan Woods — plus brand-new music from Phil Wickham, Blanca, Taylor Hill, and Hope Darst. This week's show also features powerful Easter throwbacks from 2nd Chapter of Acts, Ray Boltz, Don Francisco, and NewSong, as well as a special worship moment with Kari Jobe's Forever. Along the way, William shares personal Easter reflections, a sweet message from a young listener, and stories behind the songs from Bart Millard, Elevation Rhythm, and Crowder. Don't miss the Artist News “Three Things You Need to Know,” our Future Fan Favorite winner, and a shoutout to our Station of the Week — The Light DFW! For more, visit 20thecountdown.com — and Happy Easter!20 The Countdown Magazine is listener-supported. Visit 20thecountdown.com to help us with our mission of spreading the Gospel around the world through music, one countdown at a time!

(Antevíspera del Día Internacional para la Eliminación de la Discriminación Racial)   «Tenía catorce años. Cursaba el cuarto de secundaria, y una [tarde]... salí del Liceo de Ñuñoa... [e] iba a cruzar la calle... cuando varios muchachos más grandes, de último curso, hicieron un círculo a mi alrededor y empezaron a hostilizarme —cuenta Mario Kreutzberger, el popular conductor de Sábado Gigante en su autobiografía titulada Don Francisco entre la espada y la TV—. Primero me hacían burlas. “A ver, poco hombre, defiéndete”, y me daban un bofetón en la boca.... A golpes y empujones me fui al suelo. Sentí un azote de patadas en todo el cuerpo.... »—¿Así que eres judío? Ya vas a ver —me gritó [uno], mientras sentí que me arrancaban el cabello. »... Entendí de qué podría tratarse el asunto. La Segunda Guerra Mundial había terminado, pero quedaban dispersos algunos grupos juveniles pronazis.... »... Un rato después, los rufianes se alejaron entre burlas y carcajadas... [y] quedé solo.... De la nariz me brotaba la sangre a borbotones.... ¿Qué mundo era este? ... Me pegaron entre varios, no pude defenderme y nadie salió en mi defensa. »... Nada dije a mis padres.... Toda la semana [siguiente] salí en las mañanas [hacia el colegio, pero no asistí a clases].... Hasta que un día... me encontré cara a cara con el rector del colegio.... »—Ven —me dijo—. Conversemos. Sé que tuviste un problema con algunos alumnos mayores. ¿Sabes por qué no he venido a hablar con tus padres? Porque... eres tú quien tiene que tomar la decisión de sobreponerse a una dificultad de este calibre.... Sé que es injusto lo que te hicieron esos muchachos. Pero quiero que sepas que yo te apoyo. Si quieres salir adelante, lo vas a lograr y yo te puedo ayudar.... »... A la mañana siguiente... me levanté con bríos y... fui a clases.... Decidí sobreponerme, y mi personalidad dejó de ser opaca. Empecé a responder cuanta broma me hacían. Contaba chistes que a todos les parecían divertidos, y reían.... »... Al poco tiempo [era] un líder del curso.... Me había convertido... en el cómico que a todos hacía reír con mil chistes y bromas.... Me eligieron presidente del curso y, al año siguiente, presidente de todos los alumnos del colegio.... Comencé a actuar en parodias humorísticas sobre el escenario, con muy buen resultado. [Y] al final del año... fui designado Mejor Compañero. »De ahí en adelante todo cambió para mí.... En todos estos años de carrera en la televisión he entrevistado o al menos intercambiado frases con unas cien mil personas... confirmando que... debajo de la piel somos todos iguales.... »... En nuestro espacio del “Clan Infantil”, [un niño de ocho años,] motivado por una carta de otro chico en la cual afirmaba que los negros no son iguales a los blancos, [dijo]: “Déjalo sin piel, sácale todo, y vas a ver que por dentro es igual a ti, que la sangre es del mismo color.”»1 Gracias a Dios, las palabras de ese niño ingenioso, además de reconfirmar las de Don Francisco, reafirman las siguientes palabras de San Pablo: «Así que no importa si [ustedes] son judíos o no lo son, si son esclavos o libres, o si son hombres o mujeres. Si están unidos a Jesucristo, todos son iguales.»2 Carlos ReyUn Mensaje a la Concienciawww.conciencia.net 1 Mario Kreutzberger Blumenfeld, Don Francisco entre la espada y la TV (México, D.F.: Editorial Grijalbo, 2001), pp. 95-98,207-08. 2 Gá 3:28 (TLA)

Aan de slag! Waarin lijk jij op Eva? Luister het lied 'Adam, Where Are You?' van Don Francisco. (of deze versie met Nederlandse vertaling) Vul voor Adams naam gerust die van Eva in of die van jou. Want 'Adam' betekent ten diepste gewoon 'mens'.Dank God voor Zijn genade. Dat Hij ons opzoekt, telkens weer. Deze overdenking is geschreven door schrijfster Corline Hoefnagel.

Beat the January Blues with Cesar and Greg's ultimate countdown to the funniest films ever made. From 70s classics and 2000s hits to so-bad-they're-hilarious melodramas, this episode is packed with movies guaranteed to do more than crack a smile on your gloomiest day."It's just a flesh wound." - Black KnightHere are some of the scenes we talk about:Smoking Causes Coughing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLTz2bjSBYLove and Death - No, You're Don Francisco's sisterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS9yoIxTyAUHF - Wheel of Fishhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KezvwARhBIcThis is Spinal Tap - Stone Hengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAXzzHM8zLwMonty Python and the Holy Grail - Sir Lancelot Surprise Attackhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHdDxKy2QW0The Room - Flower Shophttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkoXhgtI58Young Frankenstein - Charadeshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiHCZHGbF8Superbad - McLovinhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HTHPtoNJLkTop Secret Swedish Bookstorehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYTVl0iOkkTop Secret Underwater Fighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRi-a8hPh0Top Secret - Cow Scenehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQyZ9ulbXqw&t=83sBig Lebowski - He peed on my rughttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGK4x4tqPIYFollow the show:Instagram @moviemambopodcastTikTok - @moviemamboLetterboxd - MovieMamboBlueSky - @moviemambo.bsky.social Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the next episode of Evie Unbounded

Varias generaciones de hispanos crecimos con él: Don Francisco, el personaje más icónico de los fines de semana y toda una institución de la televisión en español. Hoy hablamos con él para recordar su historia delante de las cámaras, su filantropía y su amor por su trabajo.

—Tía Roma, ¿crees tú que se salva [mi hijo Valentín]? —[Don Francisco], será lo que Dios quiera, y nada más. Yo se lo he pedido anoche y esta mañana a la Virgen del Carmen con tanta devoción, que más no puede ser, llorando a moco y baba. ¿No me ve cómo tengo los ojos? —¿Y crees tú...? —Yo tengo esperanza, señor. Mientras no sea cadáver, esperanzas ha de haber, aunque digan los médicos lo que dijeren.... —¿Qué te parece esta perla, tía Roma? —Bonita de veras.... Valdrá miles de millones.... —Pues esta perla —dijo [don Francisco] Torquemada en tono triunfal— es para la señora Virgen del Carmen. Para ella es si pone bueno a mi hijo. Te la enseño, y pongo en tu conocimiento la intención para que se lo digas. Si se lo digo yo, de seguro no me lo cree. —Don Francisco —[contestó ella,] mirándolo con profunda lástima—, usted está malo de la jícara. Dígame, por su vida, ¿para qué quiere ese requilorio la Virgen del Carmen? —Toma, para que se lo pongan el día de su santo, el dieciséis de julio. ¡Pues no estará poco [bonita] con esto! Fue regalo de boda de la excelentísima señora marquesa de Tellería. Créelo, como [esta perla] hay pocas. —Pero, don Francisco, ¡usted piensa que la Virgen le va a conceder...!... ¡Valiente caso hace la Virgen de perlas y pindonguerías!... Créame a mí: véndala y deles a los pobres el dinero. —Mira, tú, no es mala idea —dijo el tacaño [Torquemada], guardando la joya—. Tú sabes mucho. Seguiré tu consejo, aunque, si he de ser franco, eso de dar a los pobres viene a ser una tontería, porque cuanto les das se lo gastan en aguardiente. Pero ya lo arreglaremos de modo que el dinero de la perla no vaya a parar a las tabernas...1   Pensándolo bien, don Francisco tiene razón... en parte. Es buena la idea de la tía Roma en este pasaje de Torquemada en la hoguera, obra del escritor Benito Pérez Galdós, que ha sido considerado como el creador de la novela moderna en España y el más destacado novelista español desde Cervantes.2 Y es bueno hacer lo posible para que el dinero que damos a los pobres no lo malgasten en aguardiente en lugar de la comida que necesitan. Pero Torquemada no tiene razón al decir que es una tontería ser caritativo con los pobres ni al pensar que es sensato tratar de comprar con regalos a quien se le ha pedido que haga un milagro, al igual que sería insensato tratar de sobornar a Dios mismo. Es que el sólo hecho de ser Dios imposibilita que sea víctima de algún soborno. Moisés, el autor de los primeros cinco libros de la Biblia, lo califica más bien como el «Dios de dioses y Señor de señores... el gran Dios... que no actúa con parcialidad ni acepta sobornos».3 «Su poder hace temblar a todo el mundo. Cuando Él toma una decisión, lo hace con justicia y nadie lo puede sobornar.»4 Por eso nos advierte San Pablo: «No crean ustedes que pueden engañar a Dios. Cada uno cosechará lo que haya sembrado.»5 Más vale entonces que sembremos buenas obras para cosechar fruto de ellas. Pues, como dice otro refrán: El bien se siembra en el suelo y se recoge en el cielo. Carlos ReyUn Mensaje a la Concienciawww.conciencia.net 1 Benito Pérez Galdós, Torquemada en la hoguera, publicado en Colección Alianza Cien (Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 1996), pp. 80‑82; y Diego Marín, Literatura española, Tomo 2: Época moderna, «Torquemada en la hoguera» (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), pp. 121-22. 2 Marín, «Benito Pérez Galdós (1843-1920)», p. 93. 3 Dt 10:17 (NVI) 4 Dt 10:17 (TLA) 5 Gá 6:7

Por segundo año consecutivo, el show de cierre de la Teletón se realizará en la Quinta Vergara. En este capítulo, Don Francisco entrega detalles de la edición 2024 de la campaña solidaria. Conduce Cecilia Rovaretti y Sebastián Esnaola.

Hoy parecia programa de los 90s hablamos de Don Francisco, Amanda Miguel y Pimpinela 

Te comento la entrevista entre Don Francisco y Cristina Saralegui donde ella da muy buenos consejos y destapa varias verdades. Para ver la entrevista completa visita https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oer5nEAENYU --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/a3misterio/message

Te comento la entrevista entre Don Francisco y Cristina Saralegui donde ella da muy buenos consejos y destapa varias verdades. Para ver la entrevista completa visita https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oer5nEAENYU --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/creativos/message

El pequeño Fernando nació en Medellín el 19 de abril de 1932. Su madre era costurera y tuvo 3 niños, como el 29 de febrero, 1 cada cada 4 años. Su padre era ditero, pero a caballo, porque allí eran tó casitas bajas. Su padre se murió de un infarto cuando nació er chico, no se sabe si de emoción o del susto porque no se lo esperaba. A partir de entonces su madre dio más puntá que el cirujano de Belén Esteban. Fernando se sacó el graduado, pero quiso su tío en 1944, con 12 años, meterlo en una escuela de tauromaquia en vez de en el instituto. Cuando Fernando vio el primer día ese bicho tan grande, le dio susto de tener que darle un agüita a los calzoncillos antes de meterlos en la lavadora y le dijo al tío que toreara Manolete. Pa no desaprovechar la experiencia, Botero hizo su primera obra, acuarela de un torero. La familia se dio cuenta del talento del niño, como los tailandeses con los elefantes, y dejaron que siguiera su vocación. Lo que hacía al principio era vender sus acuarelas por 2 pesos colombianos. Sí, hay gente que tiene un Botero en su casa por menos de 35€ actuales, con su subida del IPC y tó esas cositas, que la he calculao yo con mi calculadora sentífica. En 1948, con 16 años y las hormonas como un puchero antes de espumarlo, hizo su primera publicación artística con ilustraciones de desnudos para el suplemento dominical de un periódico local de tendencia fachoide. Las ilustraciones era una mezclita entre el arte abstracto, Picasso y una teta por ahí perdida, que eso ni parecía un desnudo ni se iba a quedá pegá con la página de al lado, pero se ve que en aquella época los colombianos tenían la mente más sucia que los servicios portátiles de una obra. Fernando se financiaba con estas ilustraciones sus estudios en el Colegio Bolivariano, una institución religiosa que va desde preescolar hasta el doctorado universitario, pero luego redactó un artículo sobre Picasso y ya eso fue para el colegio como tocá a un niño chiAHNO. Bueno que fue mu grave y lo expulsaron, pero lo contrataron en el periódico, así que se fue a otra universidad y fitetú qué disgusto. Cuando terminó de estudiar, con el dinero del periódico y de los concursos que ganaba, se dedicaba a visitar los talleres de pintores y escultores de todo el mundo pa cotilleá. Aunque por el volumen de sus obras se ve que Asia no lo pisó. En los años 60 se instaló en Nueva York, que por lo que se ve antes Nueva York era como Sevilla Este. Ahí empezó a coger fama entre el mercado artístico estadounidenese con obras como “La Mona Lisa a los 12 años” que es como “La Mona Lisa” pero jartá de montaditos de pringá. También pintaba situaciones normales del día a día, con sus paisajes, sus animales, que los caballos y los toros de sus cuadros llevaban encima más esteroides que un culturista de barrio chungo. Había nacido el “Boterismo”, cuidado al escribirlo que la t está al lado de la y. En la década de los 80, Fernando Botero se había convertido en uno de los artistas vivos más cotizados del mundo. Su obra era rápidamente identificable y siempre aprovechaba para enviar un guiño a su tierra, por ejemplo, en la obra de la Mona Lisa hay un volcán activo al fondo, en otro una bandera colombiana a modo de guirnalda y en otro unas rayitas blancas, que sería por Adidas o algo. Ya en esta época tenía tó la cara de Arévalo, las gafitas negras de Don Francisco de Quevedo siempre un poquito torcías y la perilla pa taparse la papada. Botero se casó 3 veces y tuvo 4 hijos, aunque uno de ellos está al lado de Mufasa después de un accidente de tráfico. Su obra perdurará siempre, una obra que representa situaciones realistas, encajada en el figurativismo y fuertemente influenciada por la obra de Diego Rivera, el marido de Frida Kahlo. Sus cuadros y sus esculturas con formas muy voluminosas son claramente reconocida por cualquiera que entienda o no entienda de arte, excepto su autorretrato, que se pintó quitándose la papadita. Desgraciadamente, Botero falleció el 15 de septiembre de 2023 en su casa en Montecarlo aunque ustedes siempre podrán recordarlo cada vez que vean a un adolescente con las hormonas como un puchero antes de espumarlo o alguien se deje la perilla para taparse la papadadilla

Únete a nosotros para dar la bienvenida a nuestro próximo invitado en #historiasquecontar, Alberto Sardiñas Glottmann, nacido en Caracas, Venezuela, el 15 de junio de 1978. Es hijo de Eloy Sardiñas, cubano de origen, y de Gloria Glottmann Gutt ZL', colombiana, nacida en Chicago, USA. Alberto se graduó en Comunicación Social en la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello y obtuvo un MBA con especialización en Marketing de la Universidad de Miami (2002). Presentador de televisión y radio, creador de contenido digital con más de 2.6 millones de seguidores y autor destacado. Conduce "El News Café", nominado a un Suncoast Emmy en 2022 y transmitido diariamente por Univisión Miami. También es locutor en Amor 107.5 F.M. y presenta 'Íntimo', escuchado en más de 35 ciudades de Estados Unidos. Sardiñas ha fundado varias empresas exitosas y reside en Florida, Estados Unidos, junto a su esposa Feigue Rosenfeld y su hija Sofía. Autor de "El poder de mi historia", publicado en 2011, y de su obra más reciente, "Él sí detrás de un no: Cómo sobreponerse al rechazo para lograr tus sueños", sobre la cual conversaremos en el programa. El prólogo de su libro lo escribió Mario Kreutzberger, mejor conocido como Don Francisco, resaltando su "infinita necesidad de preguntar y la humildad suficiente para dejarse aconsejar". Don Francisco elogia también su equilibrio, a pesar de su juventud, para mantener una armonía entre su vida privada y profesional. Acompáñame este domingo para sumergirnos en esta fascinante historia de vida repleta de valiosas lecciones. #historiasdevida #superacion  #bullying --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tamara-kassab/support

¡Nuevo episodio de “Café en Mano” ya disponible! Hoy, nos acompaña la carismática Patricia Corcino, @patriciacorcinotv , sumergiéndonos en un viaje de autenticidad y revelaciones.

Santa Rob has a conversation with Christian music legend, Don Francisco! In this rare interview Don talks about his music career, and the possibilities of writing a book.

Continúan las réplicas del matri de María José Quintanilla: Karol salió al Dance, Calzoncillos by Arturo Vidal: un misterio hétero, fin de la relación tóxica llamada #GranHermanoCHV, Chino Ríos hace un reading a Camilo Huerta, Momento Cute: 30 años de Amor Amarillo con Cecilia Amenábar y Benito Cerati, Pampita no quiere que la sigan asociando a su ex, Don Francisco conoce el insomnio, SIGNOS: personajes con energía Sagitario y mucho más! Más contenido en patreon.com/elgosip

El doctor Moisés Issa habló de las pastillas para dormir y la experiencia de Don Francisco al no poder dormir por más de 24 horas.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lunes de Nacadas, Las 10 de Erazno, el Chokolatazo, Charla Caliente Sports, una platica con Don Francisco por ser el dia del presentador de Television y mucho mas

Scripture Reading: Acts 1:1-2 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.End of Genesis DiscussionLast week I attempted to wrap up our brief discussion of Genesis. Because I ran out of time, I would like to use the first few minutes of our current session to tie up loose ends. I think it is important that as we study Acts, we have a general understanding of the Christian worldview—the key reason behind my Genesis detour.I attempted to take a “minimum facts” approach to the first three chapters of Genesis. By that I mean that I focused on the core or basic lessons taught by the text. These are by no means all the lessons we could learn from it but, instead, those central tenets with which nearly every Christian would agree. Here's a brief summary of the points we discussed:(1) One God. The text of Genesis contains no theogony (i.e., genealogy of gods), theomachy (i.e., conflict between gods), or deicide (i.e., death of a god). None of that. Genesis has God—the one and only. This monotheism was radically different than any other belief in the region. (A question was asked last time regarding whether Genesis was the first religious story to introduce monotheism. I still cannot confirm an answer, but I can say that all the major monotheistic religions trace back to the Genesis account.)(2) God Is Not Like Nature. Whereas in other ancient Near Eastern myths, the line between nature and gods is blurred, that line is an unbreachable chasm in Genesis. Other stories have the gods turning into nature, such as the earth being made out of Tiamat's corpse, or being one with a natural phenomenon, like the night being a god of the night. In Genesis, God simply speaks creation into being. Nature is not divine in any sense. And God is not “natural” in any sense. If we are willing to go beyond the Genesis story and take into account the whole counsel of scripture along with a bit of theology, I think we can confidently say that God is an uncreated, necessary being, in whose unchanging character goodness itself is rooted.(3) Nature Is Not Spiritual. Is there a spirit of the water, and a spirit of the wind, and spirit of the day, and a spirit of the night? According to many, if not all, ancients myths: yes. According to Genesis: no. This is the very foundation of science. The natural world is not personal, so it behaves according to impersonal principles that can be relied upon to act consistently. Moreover, this natural world has been made by a mind not completely unlike ours, so we can expect the natural world to be intelligible. This is another foundational principle of science. In our modern world, we are so used to assuming these concepts, we forget how original and revolutionary they truly are.(4) Man in the Image of God. Other ancient Near Eastern myths tell us that man was created to do the drudging work of which the gods had grown weary. Genesis tells an entirely different story. Man was created in the image of God, to be fruitful and multiply, and rule the earth. Regarding the image of God, often called the imago Dei, I went into a little bit of philosophy to explain what that could possibly mean. I suggested that the mainstream Christian view is that of ontological personalism—although many people get it wrong and think that it is empirical functionalism. This latter view says that personhood is being able to perform certain functions—such as rational thinking. Well, that means fetuses, people in a state of coma, and even people who are asleep are not persons! Ontological personalism says that we are a rational soul. So, the imago Dei is part of our substance, so we can't lose it.There is a fifth point I wanted to make but that I did not have time to discuss, and it is a crucial point to the Christian story.THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS GOOD BUT THEN…THE FALLAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God's original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rested. On the seventh day creation is as it should be, so God could stop to rule over all of it. God and creation were in peace. With that in mind, Richter concludes:In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God's first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God's design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh's sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God's great gift under God's ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.Then Richter makes the connection between Genesis 1 and the repeating theme of the book of Genesis: covenant.You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord's authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)This was Adam and Eve's perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God's perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God's perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God's perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.God's perfect plan (and humanity's perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco's old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.”16 God's original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Introduction to ActsWe are finally done with our brief exploration of Genesis, and we are ready to start discussing Acts. We should introduce the book first and consider its genre, date, author, and historical context. Next week we will finally fall into our trusted pattern of reading scripture and discussing its main points. Believe me, I am as ready as you are to start doing that.GenreAs we begin the study of Acts, just like with Genesis, we need to ask the question of genre. Except in this case, there is hardly a question. Virtually everyone agrees that Acts is narrating history. The only (rather nuanced) debate is whether Acts is historiography or biography. (I am using the term historiography to refer to a genre of literature. Using the term “history” can be confusing because one is not certain whether the claim is that the text intends to convey historical facts or whether those historical facts are true.)Historiography vs BiographyWhat's the difference between historiography and biography? Roughly speaking, biography focuses on one person, his life, his accomplishments, and his character. Historiography focuses on something other than a person (although it may discuss notable individuals at length), such as an event, a nation, or a movement. Is Acts about the life of Paul? Or, is Acts about the early church?I bet your question is a different one: why does it matter? The truth is it does not matter much, but it could change our interpretation of certain passages. When we ask question like, “Why would the author include this material?” or “Why would he omit that information?”, our choice of genre matters.Anyways, I will keep the discussion of this topic brief.Biography ProposalBiography is the most common genre proposal after historiography. This proposal retains for Acts the same genre usually assigned to the Gospel of Luke. To many scholars, extending the Gospel's genre to the second volume seems a logical step. Acts, as a continuation of Luke's Gospel, provides parallels of Peter and Paul with Jesus, as one might expect in the ancient genre of parallel lives or in ancient double biographies. Moreover, Acts falls in the correct length range for ancient biographies.Despite many biographic elements, however, Acts self-evidently does not constitute a biography of a single figure. In fact, it seems less interested in sketching vivid portraits of past heroes than in tracing the spectacular development of “the way.” Certainly Acts focuses on major characters, but Acts does not focus on a single character. Even Paul, its dominant and climactic example, functions as an agent of the work's driving theme, the gospel's expansion. Acts closes not with his death but with his proclamation in Rome. Despite its biographic emphases, Acts thus functions as historiography carried out partly in a biographic manner.Historiography ProposalThe genre proposal most supported by scholars is that of historiography—to be more precise, that of a historical monograph (i.e., a one-volume historiographical text). As a historical monograph, it is a work covering a specific historical topic. In contrast to listing events by year in annalistic fashion (a common type of text in the ancient world), some ancient historians would write monographs that arranged their accounts around a main theme. Various factors support the thesis that Luke conceives of his project as primarily a history of some sort. Unlike in a novel, Luke uses sources abundantly in his first volume (i.e., the Gospel of Luke) and presumably in his second volume as well, although we cannot distinguish them clearly in Acts. Luke's claim to investigate or have close acquaintance with his information (Luke 1: 3) fits historical works, and his occasional use of the first-person plural emphasizes the involvement considered ideal for a good Hellenistic historian. Speeches, the preface, the employment of world history as a context, and other features support this understanding of the work's genre. Luke's extensive use of public monologues in Acts plainly fits the conventions of ancient histories but not of biographies or novels. Luke-Acts also includes what appear very much like the prefaces found in histories. When possible, Luke sets his events in the context of world history, just as historians (and almost exclusively historians) did in their histories (Luke 2: 1– 2; 3: 1– 2; Acts 18: 12).Although it should go without saying, we must be careful to distinguish ancient historiography from modern historiography. We should not demand ancient historians to conform precisely to modern historiography. Ancient historians sometimes fleshed out scenes and speeches to produce a coherent narrative in a way that their contemporaries expected but that modern academic historians would not consider acceptable when writing for their own peers. This contrast reflects the different interests of ancient and modern historiography: ancients emphasized a cohesive narrative more than simple recitation of facts; moderns value exactness in details much more than the rhetorical flow of the narrative for their audience.DateViews on the date of Acts range widely. No particular proposed date between 64 A.D. and 90 A.D. is absolutely compelling. The centrist position (70s– 80s), has by far the most adherents; probably the early date (60s) is second in number of adherents; a date in the 90s ranks third; and the second century boasts the fewest adherents. I will only discuss the two most widely held views.Pre-70Usually, scholars arguing for a pre-70 date contend that Acts ends where it does because the events had unfolded only this far at the time of Luke's writing, that is, about 62 A.D. I will discuss the reasons for this view and their potential responses by scholars who hold to the “centrist view.”Both ancient and modern interpreters have asked and argued: Why else would Luke devote a quarter of Acts to Paul's trial and appeal yet not record the outcome? Scholars respond that these abrupt endings were not entirely uncommon. Examples would include the Gospel of Mark and Thucydides text on the Peloponnesian War. Granted, they might add, if Luke recorded Paul's Roman hearings in Jerusalem and Caesarea for use at a trial before Caesar, this material was clearly compiled before Paul's death. One can, however, still affirm a later publication of the material. Moreover, Luke could have suppressed explicit mention of Paul's death because it did not suit his larger narrative purpose (e.g., martyrdom). Luke is under no obligation to narrate Paul's execution, the centrist would claim, because his climax is the gospel reaching the heart of the empire. Finally, the number of Greek words in Acts is nearly the same as for the Gospel of Luke, which may have been the fullest length for Luke's normal scrolls. In other words, Luke may have run out of room when writing Acts.Scholars supporting a pre-70 date have also advanced other arguments favoring this position, drawn especially from the setting the book seems to address. One argument is based on Luke's failure to describe the temple's destruction as past. Other arguments to date Acts before 70 AD include:- Acts portrays Jews as being both a spiritual and political power who had influence with Roman courts, an unlikely situation after 70.- Expectation of Roman justice would be unlikely after the Neronian persecution of 64–65.- Acts betrays almost no knowledge of Paul's letters.Post-70The argument for a date after Paul's death follows from the usual premise that Mark wrote before Luke. Papias reports that Mark wrote what he had heard from Peter; if this language suggests that their relation is past, it probably points to a date after Peter's death. If Luke wrote after using Mark, he presumably would be writing after Peter's death as well and presumably after Mark's Gospel had begun circulating among churches in urban centers.Most scholars believe that Luke 21 (e.g., Luke 21: 20; cf. 23: 29– 31) reflects the accomplished fall of Jerusalem and argue that Luke wrote Acts after completing his Gospel. However, one could counter that most of the discrete elements in Luke 21 could date from before the war of 66–70; various Jewish figures predicted judgment on Jerusalem and its temple before its demise, and the language recycles Septuagintal descriptions of Jerusalem's earlier sufferings. Certainly, Jerusalem's judgment was in view before 70 A.D. (Luke 11: 50– 51; Matt 23: 35– 36).Most scholars today suggest dates between 70 and 85, with some as late as 90. This range of dates is before Josephus's publications. (Scholars who suggest a later date for Acts often also suggest that it is based or influenced by the works of Josephus.)Author of Luke-ActsToday almost all scholars acknowledge that Luke and Acts share the same author. Beyond this general agreement, a majority of scholars agree that Luke was a Gentile, writing for a largely Gentile (or, perhaps more accurately, mixed Gentile and Jewish) Diaspora audience. A much smaller number, though probably still the majority, argue that the author was at least a short-term companion of Paul. Of possible candidates in Pauline literature who fit this description, Luke the physician (Col 4:14) is the likeliest candidate historically and also the one supported (despite his relative obscurity) by subsequent Christian writers who claimed access to earlier sources no longer available to us. Let's explore that last claim a little further.Luke the PhysicianIf we treat Acts the way we treat analogous historical works from its era we should accept the work's eyewitness claims as authentic indications of the author's presence. Internal evidence points strongly to a Christian who accompanied Paul on a small number of his travels and should have become well acquainted with him especially on the journey to Jerusalem and Rome. Although the external evidence is less important, it strongly points to Luke “the physician” (Col 4: 14) as the author, a claim that tradition is not likely to have invented (given Luke's relative obscurity). The external and the internal evidence are compatible, making Luke the likeliest author.The primary reason for many scholars treating “we” in Acts differently than they would in most other ancient historical works is the argument that a genuine traveling companion of Paul cannot have so misunderstood him. (As we study Acts we can examine this assertion further. Is Acts really at odds with the letters of Paul?)What is some of the external evidence that supports Luke the physician as the author of Acts? Irenaeus (ca. 180 A.D.) attributes Acts to Luke. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Moreover, a very early manuscript (175–225 A.D.) calls the gospel the “Gospel according to Luke.” Simply put, our earliest external evidence unanimously supports Luke's authorship. Given his relative obscurity, this is probably not coincidence.Finally, and admittedly of less importance, the language is consistent with that of a physician.Gentile or JewWhether we believe the author of Luke and Acts to be Luke, can we determine whether the author is Gentile or Jew? From his geographical competence and his interpretation of Judaism, it is certain that he was not a Palestinian Jew. He may have been a Diaspora Jew with interests in the Gentile mission, but given his relationship to Judaism and perspectives, many scholars prefer the idea that he was a Gentile. Scholars who, on other grounds, identify the author with the Luke mentioned in Col 4: 14 will likely also conclude that he was a Gentile. If Luke was a Gentile, he was nevertheless one with considerable experience of Judaism. Although he could have acquired much of this knowledge as a Christian, it is reasonable to suggest, as some scholars have, that he may have been a God-fearer with a long-standing knowledge of the Diaspora synagogue. His immersion in the Septuagint, however, is considerable; if he did not grow up with it, he must have acquired it long before and thoroughly, for he knows how to write Greek with a “biblical” or “Jewish accent,” so to speak.AudienceScholars often suggest that Luke's audience was wealthier and more highly educated, on average, than that of the other Gospels. Luke dedicates his work to a “most excellent” Theophilus (Luke 1: 3), a title suggesting that Theophilus was probably a person of prestige and rank in society. Although Theophilus is an explicit “narratee,” no ancient audience would assume that the dedicatee was necessarily socially representative of Luke's ideal audience. One might dedicate a work to a patron who would be of higher rank than the clients who heard the work read, for example, at one of the banquets sponsored by the patron. Nevertheless, by addressing Theophilus as at least a part of his audience, Luke appeals to a person with some status in the larger society. Luke further emphasizes many people of status following the Way (e.g., Luke 8:3; 23:50–51; Acts 13:12; 17:4; 28:7); likewise, he portrays Paul's status as relatively high, a point of interest to any ancient hearer but perhaps especially to another person of status. Although his Gospel contains the most sweeping condemnations of the accumulation of wealth (e.g., Luke 3:11; 12:13–21, 33; 14:33), his very emphasis on this issue might suggest an audience that can afford to be challenged in the area of generosity. Finally, an educated audience would best appreciate the elements of classical rhetoric alongside the appropriate stylistic variations for different settings.What we can possibly conclude from this is that Luke's target audience is relatively stable (and hence not hostile to the culture). Luke is positive toward the culture without needing to sound polemical about the need to separate from it.Luke's ideal audience appears to be urban, Greek, and perhaps in officially Romanized cities such as Corinth and Philippi and would be familiar with some measure of education and with public orations, Jewish religion, and some philosophic ideas.The question as to whether Luke's audience is largely Jewish or Gentile may be, in one sense, a forced dilemma. By this period the Greek churches included a sizable number of Gentiles; Philippi had never had a large Jewish population to begin with. At the same time, most of these churches grew from synagogues or at least Jewish prayer groups and would include a sizable number of Jewish people. Finally, we are ready to start reading Acts!

Scripture Reading: Genesis 1:1-3:24 (we won't read it again, but we will discuss it) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27 God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.'” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”14 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all the cattleand all the living creatures of the field!On your belly you will crawland dust you will eat all the days of your life.15 And I will put hostility between you and the womanand between your offspring and her offspring;he will strike your head,and you will strike his heel.”16 To the woman he said,“I will greatly increase your labor pains;with pain you will give birth to children.You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you.”17 But to Adam he said,“Because you obeyed your wifeand ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,'the ground is cursed because of you;in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,but you will eat the grain of the field.19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat fooduntil you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.Main ThemesInitial RemarksLet's Come Together (Finally!)If the last two weeks of the Bible study have been divisive, I hope that this week brings us all back together. During those two sessions, I suggested the possibility that the early chapters of Genesis are figurative. Nevertheless, I asserted repeatedly that they are true. Today, I want to focus on those truths embedded in the narrative. What is Genesis teaching us? And here's the surprising part: even if you adamantly disagree with me and believe the text is meant to be taken completely literally, or if you land somewhere in between, I think we will agree on the main lessons taught by the text. They stand mostly independently of the figurative versus literal debate.A Minimum Facts PresentationBefore we jump into the substantive portion of our discussion, I want to make one important clarification. The purpose of my dive into Genesis is to establish a Christian worldview. We are not engaging in an exhaustive exploration of every textual and theological issue. So, the discussion today will be a sort of “minimum facts” presentation. That is, I want to highlight the most basic lessons in the text with which virtually every Christian agrees. I will not delve into every possible conclusion that can be drawn from the text, although that would be very interesting. And, as always, participants are free to discuss anything I did not include in my presentation. So, again, the list below is not an exhaustive list of the points made by the first three chapters of Genesis, much less by the entire book. It is more of a “top four.”Genesis v/s Enuma ElishI think that a good way to explore the worldview presented by Genesis is to compare the biblical text to the Enuma Elish, the ancient Babylonian creation myth. (You can find it here.) The Enuma Elish is fairly representative of many Ancient Near East myths, so it provides a great backdrop against which Genesis shows its distinctive outline. (I am not necessarily embracing or rejecting the view that Genesis is a polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern myths. I simply find the comparison to be helpful.)One God—No Theomachy, No Theogony, No Deicide Listen the words of the Enuma Elish:1 When the heavens above did not exist,2 And earth beneath had not come into being —3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,4 And demiurge Tia-mat, who gave birth to them all;5 They had mingled their waters together6 Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to be found —7 When not one of the gods had been formed8 Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,9 The gods were created within them:10 Lah(mu and Lah(amu were formed and came into being.11 While they grew and increased in stature12 Anšar and Kišar, who excelled them, were created.13 They prolonged their days, they multiplied their years.14 Anu, their son, could rival his fathers.15 Anu, the son, equalled Anšar,16 And Anu begat Nudimmud, his own equal.17 Nudimmud was the champion among his fathers:18 Profoundly discerning, wise, of robust strength;19 Very much stronger than his father's begetter, Anšar20 He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.21 The divine brothers came together,22 Their clamour got loud, throwing Tia-mat into a turmoil.23 They jarred the nerves of Tia-mat,24 And by their dancing they spread alarm in Anduruna.25 Apsû did not diminish their clamour,26 And Tia-mat was silent when confronted with them.27 Their conduct was displeasing to her,28 Yet though their behaviour was not good, she wished to spare them.29 Thereupon Apsû, the begetter of the great gods,30 Called Mummu, his vizier, and addressed him,31 "Vizier Mummu, who gratifies my pleasure,32 Come, let us go to Tia-mat!"33 They went and sat, facing Tia-mat,34 As they conferred about the gods, their sons.35 Apsû opened his mouth36 And addressed Tia-mat37 "Their behaviour has become displeasing to me38 And I cannot rest in the day-time or sleep at night.39 I will destroy and break up their way of life40 That silence may reign and we may sleep."41 When Tia-mat heard this42 She raged and cried out to her spouse,43 She cried in distress, fuming within herself,44 She grieved over the (plotted) evil,45 "How can we destroy what we have given birth to?46 Though their behaviour causes distress, let us tighten discipline graciously."47 Mummu spoke up with counsel for Apsû—48 (As from) a rebellious vizier was the counsel of his Mummu—49 "Destroy, my father, that lawless way of life,50 That you may rest in the day-time and sleep by night!"51 Apsû was pleased with him, his face beamed52 Because he had plotted evil against the gods, his sons.53 Mummu put his arms around Apsû's neck,54 He sat on his knees kissing him.55 What they plotted in their gathering56 Was reported to the gods, their sons.57 The gods heard it and were frantic.58 They were overcome with silence and sat quietly.59 Ea, who excels in knowledge, the skilled and learned,60 Ea, who knows everything, perceived their tricks.61 He fashioned it and made it to be all-embracing,62 He executed it skilfully as supreme—his pure incantation.63 He recited it and set it on the waters,64 He poured sleep upon him as he was slumbering deeply.65 He put Apsû to slumber as he poured out sleep,66 And Mummu, the counsellor, was breathless with agitation.67 He split (Apsû's) sinews, ripped off his crown,68 Carried away his aura and put it on himself.69 He bound Apsû and killed him;Notice how this ancient myth sounds nothing like Genesis. It immediately greets us with multiple gods (Apsû, the first in order, and the demiurge Tia-mat). Other gods are subsequently created. A genealogy of gods is called a theogony, and it was common to ancient myths. Genesis, however, has no genealogy. At most, in Genesis, when God speaks he uses a plural form—like maybe he is addressing a crowd. This has led some scholars to posit a heavenly council. But there is no god other than God—Yahweh.The Enuma Elish tells the story not only of multiple gods but of their animosity. A conflict between the gods arises. A war between the gods is called theomachy. This is also common to ancient myths. Finally, the gods' quarrel ends in the death of a god—deicide. If we continue reading, we would learn that creation itself is the result of this rivalry between the gods and their death.What do we find in Genesis? None of that!In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1In the beginning there is no two anything. There are no two gods opposing one another. There is not even an impersonal dualism like a ying and yang. There is no good and evil. There is only good. And this good is not some mystical goodness, like a force or energy or “waters,” but a good God—a personal being.This is one of the most shocking and powerful lessons from Genesis—monotheism! And, if we are willing to take more of scripture into account, we could go as far as to say that it is “perfect being monotheism.” This means that there's not only one God, but that God is perfect. He is all powerful and morally perfect. I think that this “perfect being theology” is key to a robust conception of “good.” A theology that includes multiple gods will generally fail the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it's good?” A theology with no gods (atheism or some form of dualism) makes goodness accidental—it is a robust fact that could be different—and cannot account for moral duties. It is only when goodness is grounded in a necessary being that what is good could never be otherwise and goodness becomes personal such that it can give moral duties to others.God is Not Like NatureAgain, hear the words of the Enuma Elish:49 [Marduk] gathered [Tia-mat's foam] together and made it into clouds.50 The raging of the winds, violent rainstorms,51 The billowing of mist—the accumulation of her spittle—52 He appointed for himself and took them in his hand.53 He put her head in position and poured out . . [ . . ] .54 He opened the abyss and it was sated with water.55 From her two eyes he let the Euphrates and Tigris flow,57 He heaped up the distant [mountains] on her breasts,58 He bored wells to channel the springs.59 He twisted her tail and wove it into the Durmah,61 [He set up] her crotch—it wedged up the heavens—62 [(Thus) the half of her] he stretched out and made it firm as the earth.In the Babylonian story, the clouds, the wind, the rainstorms, the rivers, the mountains, and much of creation is a part of or physically connected with Tiamat's body. Notice the connection between the gods and creation—they might not be entirely the same but they are not entirely distinct either.What do we find in Genesis?God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” Genesis 1:6God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” Genesis 1:9God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:11God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years . . . .” Genesis 1:14I could quote more verses, but I think the point is clear. God is not like creation. Creation is not made of God. It is made by God. God simply speaks creation into being. God transcends it. The creator who makes things good exists even if nothing else exists and would exists if all stopped existing. He is the beginning and the end.Nature is Not SpiritualAlthough the Enuma Elish story does not contain as many spirits of nature as other Ancient Near Eastern myths, we still have a clear example. Listen to this:11 He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,12 He created Nannar, entrusting to him the night.13 He appointed him as the jewel of the night to fix the days,14 And month by month without ceasing he elevated him with a crown,15 (Saying,) "Shine over the land at the beginning of the month,16 Resplendent with horns to fix six days.17 On the seventh day the crown will be half size,18 On the fifteenth day, halfway through each month, stand in opposition.19 When Šamaš [sees] you on the horizon,20 Diminish in the proper stages and shine backwards.In the Enuma Elish, night is a personal god. Night does not behave according to some natural principle. Night only comes and stays for as long as it does because the god of night is following orders. Presumably, the god of night could be enticed to disobey. Is all of nature like this? (For purposes of this discussion I am not including animals or humans in the definition of nature.) Is there a spirit of the waters? Is there a spirit of the sky? Are the flowers sprites and the trees dryads? Does everything around us behave as it does because a personal being—a spirit—is choosing to behave a certain way? The implications of these questions are staggering.Perhaps we scoff at the idea that nature is personal and spiritual, but we shouldn't. Not because I think that it is true but because it is the worldview that was held by nearly everyone in the ancient world and many (perhaps most) people still hold it today. If anything, the idea that nature is “non-spiritual” is not the rule but the exception. If to the belief in a non-spiritual natural world you you add the belief that nature was created by a mind—a mind not entirely unlike ours—then you have an entirely peculiar worldview. That is the worldview of Genesis.The Christian, non-spiritual, intelligible understanding of creation is distinctive and has shaped the modern world. For example, it is foundational and necessary for science. This is the reason that many historians (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree that science is an outgrowth of Christian theology. Here's how an article explains the connection between Genesis and science, which, if overly simplistic, gets the point across:1. Laws Up AboveThe ancient Chinese had incredible technology, but not science as we know it. Why? Because while they were intelligent, they did not believe in a Higher Intelligence—not in the Bible's sense. They didn't think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology, but they didn't seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.That's because they didn't have Genesis 1. They didn't believe that “In the beginning, God.” They didn't believe that through his Word an ordered cosmos was created that shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities—seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the sky, all going round and round, evening and morning, evening and morning. . . .2. World Out ThereThe ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is a footnote to Plato, as they say. Philosophy, mathematics, art, and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much, because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that's open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold, hard facts. But Greeks didn't believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. For them, study entailed a journey within the mind, not a venture out into the field. So, no science.3. Minds In HereIf human minds are the product of mindless operations that only honored survival, not intelligence (the two aren't at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there? If we're the product of the cosmos and part of the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes, why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?If you really want confidence in the scientific endeavor, turn to Genesis 1, where humanity is specially created in relationship with the Orderer above and the world out there. . . .Another website summarizes the same principles as follows:Nearly all scientists today, regardless of their religious beliefs, believe a certain set of foundational principles which make it possible for them to do science. Some of these common basic beliefs include:(1) Human beings can understand the natural world at least in part.(2) Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect so things that we learn in the lab here today will also hold true half way around the world a week from now. (3) It's not enough to sit and theorize how the world ought to work, we actually have to test our theories; science is a worthwhile pursuit.These beliefs seem obvious today, but for most of human history, many people did not hold all those beliefs. For example, animists who believe that gods or spirits inhabit many aspect of the physical world might doubt that nature operates on regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect; instead they would believe that nature is controlled by gods and spirits who need to be appeased or manipulated by ritual. Or for a very different example, some of the most brilliant philosophers of the ancient world did not see the need to do experiments because they thought it was possible to derive from logic and first principles how the world ought to behave.Allow me to explain the last statement in the quotation above. The Greeks, for example, believed that the universe had to be modeled by elegant abstract principles, such as geometry, which were discoverable only through thought. So, they assumed that the orbits of planets had to be circular. The Christian worldview recognizes that the universe was made by a mind—a mind that could have created the world this way or that way. Because the creator had options, much like an artist does, we can not simply assume that the world is a certain way. We must discover what that mind decided.Man in the Image of GodThe Enuma Elish is one of the least outrageous Ancient Near Eastern myths when it comes to the creation of mankind, but it repeats a common theme:1 When Marduk heard the gods' speech2 He conceived a desire to accomplish clever things.3 He opened his mouth addressing Ea,4 He counsels that which he had pondered in his heart,5 "I will bring together blood to form bone,6 I will bring into being Lullû, whose name shall be 'man'.7 I will create Lullû—man8 On whom the toil of the gods will be laid that they may rest.In the Babylonian creation myth, why is man created? So that the “toil of the gods will be laid” on him. You might remember that last week I mentioned an Egyptian myth that answers the question similarly. Here is how scholar John Walton discusses that Egyptian myth within the broader context of Mesopotamian myths:[I]n Mesopotamian traditions people are created to serve the gods by doing the work that the gods are tired of doing. Turning again to KAR 4, "the corvée of the gods will be their corvée: They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all, and take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods." The labor that had been required for the gods to meet their own needs was drudgery, so people were expected to fill that gap and work to meet those needs.In Genesis, why is man created?Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! (Genesis 1:26-28a)This is shocking and remarkable! Man is created to be like God (at least in some sense), to rule the earth, and to be fruitful and multiply. I will discuss each of these points in reverse order.Be Fruitful and MultiplyAccording to Genesis, to marry and have children is integral to being human. Marriage is the very reason that God has made us male and female.So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)To be clear, there are several New Testament verses that make clear that marriage is not a moral duty—one has not sinned for remaining single. However, sadly, this caveat has started acting like the exception that swallows the rule. The Apostle Paul, the one who spoke of marriage and singleness this way, did not suggest singleness as a mere alternative to marriage. Listen to the following verses from 1 Corinthians:I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire. (1 Corinthians 7:6-9) And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)He who is single can focus exclusively on ministry. This is a gift. This does not override the fact, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18)! I know that much more can be said about this topic and forgive me if I am painting with too broad a stroke, but the fact that marriage and childbearing is part of God's plan for us is unmistakable in the Genesis narrative.Rule the EarthOur modern, egalitarian, environmentalist sensibilities are sure to be offended by the idea that we are to rule and subdue the earth. However, this idea is not as ominous as it sounds. As a website explains:God's command to subdue the earth and the animal life in it is a command to have the mastery over all of it. A true mastery (of anything) cannot be accomplished without an understanding of the thing mastered. In order for a musician to master the violin, he or she must truly understand the instrument. In order for mankind to attain mastery over the animal kingdom, we must understand the animals.With the authority to rule comes the responsibility to rule well. There is an inherent accountability in the command to subdue the earth. Man has a duty to exercise his dominion under the authority of the One who delegated it. All authority is of God (Romans 13:1-5), and He delegates it to whomever He will (Daniel 4:17). The word subdue doesn't have to imply violence or mistreatment. It can mean “to bring under cultivation.”Man is to be the steward of the earth; he is to bring the material world and all of its varied elements into the service of God and the good of mankind. The command to subdue the earth is actually part of God's blessing on mankind. Created in the image of God, Adam and Eve were to use the earth's vast resources in the service of both God and themselves. It would only make sense for God to decree this, since only humans were created in God's image.The Imago DeiWe are made in the “image of God”—which in theology is often referred to by the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does that mean? I could spend an entire session of our study answering this question. Different theologians give different answers. But, because this is a primer in Genesis, I think that presenting the mainstream position is sufficient. Besides, and rather ironically, it is the mainstream position that is often most misunderstood. Fair warning though, I will go a little beyond the text in Genesis to discuss this topic.What makes a person a person? Even Christians will answer with something like the ability to reason. That is not entirely wrong, but I am sure you can immediately think of examples that work as counterarguments. What about a human being that is in a comma? What about a fetus? What about someone who is asleep? Neither of these three humans can reason, so they are not persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, killing a human in their sleep is not murder. No person was killed.So, what gives? Can we give a better explanation of the imago Dei? I think so. To be a person is to be a rational soul. To explain this further, I will quote extensively from a 2003 paper by Dennis Sullivan (emphases are my own):Empirical functionalism is the view that human personhood may be defined by a set of functions or abilities. Such abilities must be present in actual, not potential form. The classical expression of this view is that of Joseph Fletcher who in 1972 outlined twenty criteria for human personhood. These included such hallmarks as minimum intelligence, self-awareness, a sense of time, and the capacity to relate to others (Fletcher, 1972). In response, Michael Tooley weighed in with the idea of self-awareness (1972), and McCormick with the concept of “relational potential,” based on the ability to interact socially with others (1974). Fletcher then decided, based on feedback from these and other writers, that the sine qua non for human personhood was neocortical functioning (Fletcher, 1974). Neocortical functions are those “higher brain” processes of the cerebral cortex necessary for active consciousness and volition. This should be contrasted with whole-brain functioning, which includes activities of the brainstem as well as the cortex.…Functionalists would extend the above argument to deny personhood to the unborn child, since she lacks rationality or self-awareness. However, by this criterion, one could argue that adults also lack self-awareness when asleep or under anesthesia, yet no one questions their personhood during such moments. One way to circumvent this objection is to use Tooley's idea that only “continuing selves” have personhood, which includes both self-awareness and a sense of the future (Tooley, 1983). This would nonetheless deny personhood to the unborn and justify abortion on that basis.Michael Tooley, and more recently, the Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, have both advocated the next logical step: infanticide (Veith, 1998). If the fetus has no right to personhood because it is not yet self-aware, then neither does the newborn: “Infanticide before the onset of self-awareness . . . cannot threaten anyone who is in a position to worry about it” (Singer, 1985, p. 138).…Ontological personalism states that all human beings are human persons. On this view, the intrinsic quality of personhood begins at conception and is present throughout life (O'Mathuna, 1996). Such individuals are not potential persons or “becoming” persons; they are persons by their very nature. There is no such thing as a potential person or a human non-person.In order to understand this it will be helpful to reflect on the worldview assumptions that underlie both personhood views. Since the Enlightenment, society in general has been dominated by a high regard for science and the secular tradition of naturalism. Naturalism is the concept that only observable data has reality. A scientist who adheres to this view is free to have any metaphysical or philosophical opinion he would like, as long as it does not influence his practice. In other words, he need not hold to naturalism as a philosophy, but he must adhere to it in his methodology (Plantinga, 1997). However, the Christian scientific community should not be bound by the constraints of methodological naturalism. Herein lies the tension between the two ideas of personhood. The influence of naturalism has led secular science away from a reverence for life, replacing it with a reductionism that claims the human organism is no more than the sum of its chemical parts. The empirical functionalism idea of personhood is compatible with this view, which makes man simply a collection of parts and functions, or a property-thing. Put together enough chemical molecules in the right way, and you have a human being; put another set of parts together, and you have a 1957 Chrysler. Philosophically, it makes no difference.Ontological personalism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that a human being is a substance. A substance is a distinct unity of essence that exists ontologically prior to any of its parts. This traditional concept dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. This view has been well summarized by the Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland (1995), and is discussed in great detail in the book Body and Soul (Moreland & Rae, 2000). For this review, I will focus on two implications of the idea of substance: the parts v. whole distinction, and continuity.To expand on my earlier illustration of a classic automobile, consider a nicely restored 1957 Chrysler. Many of the original parts have rusted away and have been replaced, so that this vintage car is a collection of old and new. Although many will refer to it as the same car as when it was new, intuition tells us that this is not the case. In fact, as stated earlier, remove the wheels, the motor, the seats, and the body, and the result is no longer a 1957 Chrysler; it is not even a car. To go still further, imagine adding other parts to the original chassis, such that the result(God forbid) is a1972Volkswagen Beetle! There was no continuity of essence between the two vehicles; each is nothing more than a collection of parts (my apologies to VW lovers).Try to do the same kind of thought experiment on a human being. Remove an arm or a leg from John Doe, and he remains a person, in fact, the same person. You can amputate all of John's extremities and even remove many internal organs; as long as he remains alive, his substance will never change. You can even “add new parts,” by transplanting organs from other persons, yet John Doe will never become James Smith; his substance is not defined by his component parts. He will always remain the same person.…Naturalism has its greatest difficulty here. To hold to a property-thing view of persons is to deny the commonsense understanding of personal continuity, with a host of attendant problems for law and morality.…I might add that this view is also compatible with biblical teaching on the image of God. It allows us to explore the way human beings resemble the Divine (rationality, volition, social nature, etc.), while helping us to avoid the dangers of a strictly functional definition. On this view, the image of God is intrinsic to the nature of persons. Thus, Scripture teaches the value of man from the womb, whereas intuition and philosophy help us to affirm that such valuation begins at conception.The philosophical idea of a human being as substance arises out of a broader philosophical principle, that of substance dualism. Substance dualism holds that there is an entity called a soul, and that the mind is a faculty of the soul. Body and soul (mind) are functionally holistic, which means that the two entities are deeply integrated and functionally interdependent. Yet they are ontologically separate, which means that the soul can exist independently of the body. This allows for a personal existence after death (Moreland & Rae, 2000). Another implication of this idea is that if personhood begins at conception, then that is when the soul originates as well.The Original Plan Was Good but then…the FallAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God's original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rests. Creation is as intended so God may stop to rule overall. With that in mind, Richter concludes:In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God's first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God's design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh's sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God's great gift under God's ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.Then Richter makes the connection to the repeating theme of the entire book of Genesis: covenant.You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord's authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)This was Adam and Eve's perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God's perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God's perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God's perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.God's perfect plan (and humanity's perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco's old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.”16 God's original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Conclusion—A Personal NoteWhen I read Genesis, I am astounded. I am not attempting to be overly dramatic or sentimental, but Genesis is so true I can hardly believe it. It paints a picture I cannot deny: Nature is just that. Yet it is curiously intelligible. But it is not divine. The divine things, like goodness, seem to transcend nature but not be less real than it. If nothing else, goodness seems more real. Whereas nature could not exist, goodness seems necessary. Man seems to be like nature but also somewhat divine. Something about man is not like the animals or anything else. Man and nature seem beautiful, yet both seem broken. Is this not truly our experience?

Hoy en Jessie Cervantes en Exa, el hombre espectáculo de México nos cuenta de Perdida pero famosa y la entrevista que Don Francisco se hizo asimismo mediante Inteligencia Artificial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mentioned in this episode:SBCC Life Fitness Center - https://www.sbcc.edu/physicaleducation/lifefitnesscenter.phpLa Playa Stadium - https://www.sbcc.edu/communityservices/laplayastadium.phpBridge Athletics - https://www.bridgeathletic.com/personal-trainerFITT Principle - https://www.physio-pedia.com/FITT_PrincipleDOMS - https://www.physio-pedia.com/Delayed_onset_muscle_soreness_(DOMS)California College Promise Grant (formerly BOG waiver) -“Matador” by Los Fabulosos Cadillacs - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjPA7CXutDwDACA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_ArrivalsEllen O'Connor - https://sbcc-vaquero-voices.simplecast.com/episodes/episode-17-ellen-oconnorCanvas - https://www.instructure.com/canvasSandrine Rocher-Krul - https://sbcc-vaquero-voices.simplecast.com/episodes/episode-26-sandrine-rocher-krulCSCS Certification - https://www.nsca.com/certification/cscs/Cal Baptist Kinesiology M.S. Program - https://calbaptist.edu/online/programs/master-of-science-in-kinesiology/Devin Engebretsen - https://sbcc-vaquero-voices.simplecast.com/episodes/episode-29-devin-engebretsenMexican Independence Day - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_War_of_IndependenceHispanic Heritage Month - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hispanic_Heritage_Month_(United_States)Pambazos Recipe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9TKnMEsFbQEnsenada Style FIsh Tacos - https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/marcela-valladolid/ensenada-style-fish-tacos-3253750Fish Taco Cazo - https://www.amazon.com/Mexican-Griddle-Chicharron-Stainless-Carnitas/dp/B076R3S6D4Gorditas - https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1024129-gorditas-de-maizTlacoyos - https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-make-tlacoyos-masa-articleTortas Ahogadas - https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1022554-torta-ahogadaMole Verde - https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1023263-mole-verdeMole Verde in LA - https://www.ilovemole.com/It's All in the Frijoles by Yolanda Nava - https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Its-All-In-The-Frijoles/Yolanda-Nava/9780684849003Nuestra América: 30 Inspiring Latinas/Latinos Who Have Shaped the United States by Sabrina Vourvoulias - https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/sabrina-vourvoulias/nuestra-am%C3%A9rica/9780762497485/Jaime Escalante - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_EscalanteStand and Deliver - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_and_DeliverBlood In Blood Out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_In_Blood_OutMi Familia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Family_(film)A Million Miles Away - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Miles_Away_(film)Cristina - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_SaraleguiDon Francisco - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Francisco_(television_host)El Chavo Del Ocho - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Chavo_del_OchoEl Chapulín Colorado - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Chapul%C3%ADn_ColoradoJorge Campos - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_CamposEl Pino - https://maps.app.goo.gl/NzsKavKhnSHXzCgL9

¿Quieres aprender las estrategias que ha utilizado una de las estrellas más reconocidas en la televisión mundial para alcanzar sus objetivos en la vida? En este episodio especial de Yo Pude, ¡Tú Puedes!, te sumergirás en una conversación exclusiva con el icónico y legendario presentador que ostenta el programa más longevo en la historia de la televisión. Don Francisco compartirá sus secretos más profundos, aquellos que debes descubrir si deseas adquirir hábitos de éxito. Acompaña a Margarita Pasos mientras Don Francisco, a sus 82 años, sigue inspirando a todos al revelar las claves que le llevaron a conquistar sus metas y cómo sigue proyectándose para alcanzar aún más logros. No te pierdas esta oportunidad única de descubrir las poderosas estrategias que han guiado a Don Francisco hacia el éxito y la realización de sus proyectos más ambiciosos a lo largo de su vida. ¡Únete a nosotros en este episodio especial y prepárate para inspirarte con Yo Pude, ¡Tú Puedes!!

In this episode, Kevin and Nole are joined by Don Francisco. Don retired from the U.S. Army after a 30-year career with the rank of Sergeant First Class. He spent that time in the service doing a very unique job, he was a fifer with The Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps. If you don't know what that means, don't worry, we get into it in the episode. Because of this experience, he now works as a  Historical Interpreter at George Washington's Mt. Vernon. We get into a lot of great stuff in this podcast, Mr. Francisco has a wonderful perspective on life that you are sure to enjoy. Make sure to follow the links in the show notes to see more. Big thank you to My Epic and Facedown Records for the use of their song "Hail" in our podcast!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2RZThURTU&ab_channel=FacedownRecordsDon Francisco on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/don.p.francisco/Don Francisco on Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/flute4jesus/?hl=enDon Francisco running and fifing!https://www.mountvernon.org/blog/2018/08/running-and-fifingDon Francisco jamming with The Mountain Fifes and Drums.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9UbivKyCN4Amazing Grace at George Washington's Tomb with Don Francisco. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nEh3rN3DrYTaps at George Washinton's Tomb with Don Francisco. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijfcs9PRJwThe Fire Up Progam video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I__ErPW46Ec&t=12s&ab_channel=FireUpProgramThe Fire You Carry Instagram.https://www.instagram.com/thefireyoucarry/Sign up for a class at The Fire Up Program!https://www.fireupprogram.com/programsDonate to The Fire Up Program.https://www.fireupprogram.com/donateThe Fire Up Program Instagram.https://www.instagram.com/fireup_program/Kevin's Instagram.https://www.instagram.com/kevinpwelsh/?hl=enNole's Instagram.https://www.instagram.com/nolelilley/?hl=enJoin us on Discord.https://discord.gg/rkDa9Ae27qBuy us a coffee to support the podcast.https://discord.gg/rkDa9Ae27qBuy podcast apparel.https://thefireyoucarry.threadless.com  

BANG! @southernvangard #radio Ep370! Wooooooh lil' buddies and buddettes, is this week a TREAT - we have WORLD EXCLUSIVE instrumentals from Detroit's own FOUL MOUTH, who's full length RHINESTONE LIMOUSINE drops at the end of the month. The homie PAT sent thru the latest MIDDLE FINGER MUSIC heat and we're very thankful. We also have another WORLD EXCLU from our good friends GRIFF and ZILLA ROCCA - they have a new album dropping very soon that is worth your hard earned duckets. If that's not enough - THIS WEDNESDAY, AUG 9, we're having another SOUNDCHECK X SOUTHERN VANGARD crossover show with DJ RHETTMATIC & D-STYLES of the WORLD FAMOUS BEAT JUNKIES. Tune in from 10p-12a ET on TWITCH.TV/BEATJUNKIES for the goods! What's that you say - THANK YAAA? Well tell ya what - YOU WAAAAALCOME!!!!! #SmithsonianGrade #WeAreTheGard // southernvangard.com // @southernvangard on all platforms #undergroundhiphop #boombap #DJ #mixshow #interview #podcast #ATL #WORLDWIDE #RIPCOMBATJACK Recorded live Aug 6, 2023 @ Dirty Blanket Studios, Marietta, GA southernvangard.com @southernvangard on all platforms #SmithsonianGrade #WeAreTheGard twitter/IG: @southernvangard @jondoeatl @cappuccinomeeks Talk Break Inst. - "Rude Awakening" - Foul Mouth ** WORLD EXCLUSIVE ** "Frisbees" - Zilla Rocca & Jason Griff ft. Milc ** WORLD EXCLUSIVE ** "Wage War" - Pawz One & Preed One ft. Copywrite & Ruste Juxx "Wage War (Remix)" - Pawz One & Preed One ft. Copywrite & Ruste Juxx "Weight Watchers" - Rick Hyde "Therapy" - Homeboy Sandman ft. Nejma Nefertiti "Bucktown" - 1773 & Joe Tyse "Equality" - The Difference Machine "Still Rules" - Mic Bles x Brenx ft. DJ Romes "Keep Me" - TruWerdz x K Banger Talk Break Inst. - "Wheres Grandpa" - Foul Mouth ** WORLD EXCLUSIVE ** "Pistols On Your Album Cover" - Nas "Unpredictable" - Supreme Cerebral ft. Jamil Honesty (prod. Nu Vintage, cuts DJ Grazzhoppa "Official Intelligence" - Dookie Bros "Cooked Coke" - William Bostick ft. XP The Marxman "Stripes De Wish" - Doza The Drum Dealer ft. D. Goynz "The Bayou" - Ja'king The Divine & Javi Darko Talk Break Inst. - "Stop EET" - Foul Mouth ** WORLD EXCLUSIVE ** "The Getaway" - Sayzee "K" - The Opioid Era x Nottz Raw "Sun Splashed Pt. 2" - Rahiem Supreme x Wino Willy ft. Ankhlejohn "Act III" - Enkay & New Villain "Online" - Chase Fetti ft. Conway The Machine (prod. Ascetic "Deacon Jones" - Amxxr (prod. Tone Beatz) "Don Francisco" - Eff Yoo X Deep of 2 Hungry Bros "Ovalform" - Snotty Talk Break Inst. - "Benny's Blade" - Foul Mouth ** WORLD EXCLUSIVE **

Bailamos un merenguito, Chatty GPT hace preguntas a lo Don Francisco y le "damos bola" ("pon") al comediante dominicano Carlos Sánchez. Invitado: Carlos Sánchez ("El Cavernicola" se presenta el 17 de junio en Centro de Bellas Artes de Sancturce) Carlos aconseja en qué gastar su primer pago de comediante y nos hecha en cara su "Premio Soberano". Por supuesto no puede faltar el imponente, mayestático y solemne, Open Mic de Comedy Peeps! Chequéate este episodio del podcast que te sopla el bizcocho. Comedy Peeps, tus panas de la comedia! Redes www.instagram.com/comedypeepspodcast Erick Bonilla IG www.instagram.com/erickbonbonilla Titito Sanchez IG www.instagram.com/tititopuelcorico Lonnie Contreras IG www.instagram.com/lonnie_toons Carlos Sanchez IG www.instagram.com/carloscomic --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/comedypeeps/support

It's THE iconic Easter jam of the 20th Century, and we're gonna talk ALL over it. We're getting in the weeds with CCM legend Don Francisco about his signature hit, the royalties and fame it didn't bring, and the famed Dolly Parton cover thereof. It's a special Easter early release--enjoy "He's Alive!" Plus: - Eat your heart out, Hotel California! - “If you don't give a crap about Easter, this song is still an absolute masterclass in production.” - Skipping Sunday School for a blackjack game, and how it led to Don's hall-of-fame career --- Join us on PATREON for early access, extended interviews, weekly reaction mini-sodes, full bonus shows, and more ways to be part of the show! patreon.com/greatsongpod Check out Rob's new movie+food show, Cinema Snack Bar! Visit greatsongpodcast.com for archives, merch, and more! Connect with us on Facebook and Instagram @greatsongpod, and join the Facebook group at Facebook.com/groups/greatsongpod. Patreon Producers: Andrea Konarzewski, Brad Callahan, Ari Marucci, Michael Conley, Peter Mark Campbell, David Steinberg, Randy Hodge, Chaz Bacus, Juan Lopez, Jason Arrowood, Howard Passey, Micah Murphy, Tim Jahr, Christopher Cudnoski, and Pete Kim --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/greatsongpod/message

La maja vestida y la maja desnuda, pintadas a principios del siglo XIX, son dos de las obras más conocidas de Don Francisco de Goya. uno de nuestros grandes maestros de la Historia del Arte universal. Las dos obras están llenas de incógnitas. Siendo cuadros gemelos, surgen muchas dudas: ¿son retratos reales? ¿son la misma mujer? ¿quién los encargó?

Para el episodio doscientos veintiocho del Watcha Trucha hablamos de la película Glass Onion, a Knives out mystery. Esta película que está en Netflix es la secuela de Knives out de Rian Johnson. Bin, Ray y Don Francisco nos dan sus opiniones y recomendaciones.

Wendy is a musician, artist and wife of Don Francisco.  They live in  Mancos, Colorado, where they enjoy the San Juan mountains.  Wendy talks about problems she has with Christianity as it is commonly practiced today. Wendy Francisco

The guys are back at it again to discuss topics such as the Dr. Umar Johnson's remarks towards University of Colorado Boulder football head coach Deion Sanders, James Prince Junior arrest on DWI and smuggling a loaded gun and Sabado Gigante's television host Don Francisco harassment allegations and much more on this highly episode that you do not want to miss and make sure to tune in!

Familiaaaa, Hora Lunes anduvimos como Don Francisco.....muy INTERNACIONALES!!! Platicamos con la internacional Tokisha quien nos platico sobre su cancion con Natanael Cano. Arranco el Mundial el dia de ayer Dommingo y pos hoy platicamos de los marcadores y la controvercia que no se ha hecho esperar taen. Y, por ultimo, pos tamos a solo dias del Thanksgiving y pos hicimos una Encuesta Piratona, "Con que platillo trunfia usted en la cena de Thanksgivin?". Escuchenos hasta el final pa' ke oiga nomas con que platillo tan "internacional" nos salio este bombo de Said. DE NO CREERSE OME!!! Que pase guenas noches y los esperamos taen mañana Martes.

The legend himself, Elvis Crespo, sat down with hosts Christian Acosta and Jessica Flores to celebrate the 25th anniversary of his iconic anthem “Suavemente” and how he was inspired by artists like Bad Bunny and Rosalía for his new version of the song, created exclusively for Amazon Music as an Amazon Original. He breaks down his “Mixtape de mi Vida” revealing the musical moments that shaped his life and shares his thoughts on where tropical music is headed next. Christian and Jessica also talk about how Marvel is honoring the Mexican culture in the new ‘Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' movie, why Don Francisco is feeling some type of way about Bad Bunny, and get into the age debate about Cher and her new beau, who's 40 years her junior. New episodes come out every Wednesday for free on Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Porque esta enojado Don Francisco con Bad Bunny? Escucha mas con Omar Y Argelia 6am en Mega 96.3 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Escucha lo que Don Francisco le manda decir a Bad Bunny y qué está pasando con el caso de la muerte de Kevin Fret, que tiene a Ozuna en boca de todos.

Trifulca Media Presenta: La Pandemia Urbana con Alex Torres, Gerardo Rodriguez y Omar Vazquez quienes hablan del tema más reciente de Don Omar y su entrevista con Don Francisco. Sigan a Trifulca Media en: Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TrifulcaWrestling/ Instagram https://instagram.com/latrifulcawrestlingmedia?igshid=dhkuulk3mb5x Twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/TrifulcaMedia YouTube https://youtube.com/channel/UCVZ0uJt-0skE-PkVGnmyTeA Youtube alterno el de Trifulca Wrestling Media Clips https://youtube.com/channel/UCrwZWAucrx21pL85jOwl3oQ Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2Nki4huLPMwYftru08gFYV?si=BhUveS5kRvyTJU0ePNO2Ew Apple Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trifulca-wrestling-media/id1459553025 Anchor https://anchor.fm/trifulcawrestling #letsgetcraizy #donomar #karolg #lapandemiaurbana #trifulcawrestlingpodcast #trifulcamedia #nosomosregionales #lacrudaverdad #trifulcamedia --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

En una entrevista sincera con Don Francisco, Don Omar confesó que las drogas arruinaron su vida y su matrimonio con Jackie Guerrido.

En esta entrevista Don Francisco nos cuenta por qué su padre fue encerrado por tener una religión diferente, cómo estuvo a punto de morir al nacer, cuál fue el secreto del éxito de su programa, cómo lo corrieron de la TV y el público lo regresó, cómo la competencia le ofreció muchísimo más dinero, cuál fue el regalo que le hizo su hijo que le rompió el corazón, cómo fue el día que su madre falleció y cómo fue el día que su padre no lo reconoció por culpa del Alzheimer. 

Los mitos más comunes en temas de inmigración.Una maestra vivió una tremenda pesadilla. ¿Qué paso con el presentador hispano "Don Francisco"?

Yordi Rosado es un exitoso productor, locutor, conferencista y escritor. Fue productor y conductor de Otro Rollo, el programa más importante de entretenimiento desde 1995 hasta el fin de su transmisión en 2007. Otro Rollo tuvo invitados de talla internacional como: Sylvester Stallone, Britney Spears, Will Smith, Backstreet Boys, Bruce Willis, Christina Aguilera, Bon Jovi y por supuesto los cantantes más famosos de Latinoamérica: Luis Miguel, Shakira, Ricky Martin entre muchos otros. Yordi es también conferencista, autor de 5 libros bestsellers. Es locutor de EXA FM y por si fuera poco, tiene el programa de entrevistas más visto en YouTube con millones de visualizaciones: La entrevista con Yordi Rosado. Ha entrevistado personalidades como: Eugenio Derbez, Emmanuel, Mijares, Joaquín Cosío, Andrés García, Don Francisco y muchos más. En este episodio Yordi y yo hablamos de sus comienzos como DJ, del gran éxito de Otro Rollo, del verdadero arte de entrevistar y cómo darle la vuelta a cualquier dificultad. ¡Acompañame en un episodio más de TOP LIST! A Yordi lo puedes encontrar en Instragram: @yordirosadooficial . Twitter: @YordiRosado YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/YordiRosadoOficial Página oficial: https://yordirosado.com.mx/ ¡Tu opinión nos importa! Por favor califica TOP LIST con Juan Carlos Lazo con 5 estrellas en SPOTIFY.

(26 de junio: Día Internacional de la Lucha contra el Uso Indebido y el Tráfico Ilícito de Drogas) «—Eh, Don Francisco, óyeme, ven acá, chico... ¡bájate un momento! Les hice señas, saludándolos. Me contestaron con gestos amistosos para que me acercara, y así lo hice, enrumbando el bote hacia un pequeño atracadero.... »Los dos hombres eran, para mí, desconocidos. Al verlos más de cerca, uno de ellos me pareció un joyero ambulante. Del cuello y las muñecas le colgaban joyas de oro, cadenas, brazaletes, pulseras, una costumbre poco común para alguien que venía de Chile, pero que en Miami se observaba con frecuencia.... »—Don Francisco, qué bueno conocerte, chico. ¿Por qué no almuerzas con nosotros? —me dijo el “joyero”, en tono muy cubano. »—Encantado —respondí. »—Chico, te vas a comer un plato típico nuestro. »Nos acomodamos en una mesa ya dispuesta.... Me sirvieron un plato de carne frita, como una delgada hoja de papel, que llaman “bistec de palomilla”.... La carne fue servida con arroz y plátano frito, acompañada con una taza de frijoles negros.... »... Aprovechando el momento... les lancé la pregunta de siempre: »—Ustedes ¿a qué se dedican? »—Bueno... la verdad es que somos marimberos, tú sabes. »—¡Aaahh, son marimberos!... ¡Qué bueno! »Los hombres me miraron.... »—Sí, vamos a Cuba y regresamos al día siguiente. »Me pareció raro que viajaran a Cuba a tocar marimba y regresaran a Miami al otro día.... pero... que sería simpático mostrar en mi programa a estos músicos que vivían junto al río tocando marimba, un instrumento tan divulgado en Centroamérica y el Caribe.... Al despedirme, les dije, pues, que no dejaran de ir a Sábado Gigante.... »Alrededor de una semana después, durante una reunión con Joaquín Blaya y otros ejecutivos... conté... que a veces arrendaba una lancha para distraerme y que me había encontrado con dos marimberos, a quienes había invitado al programa.... »... Iba a contar más detalles... cuando veo que Joaquín me mira... sorprendido. »—Mario, ¿dónde te metiste? ¿Quién te dijo que los marimberos son los que tocan marimba? Los marimberos son otra cosa —dijo—; son traficantes de drogas.... Si [la policía te hubiera] visto con esa gente, te detienen y se acabó tu carrera.... »Los “marimberos” se habían confesado conmigo sin problema.... No supe cómo se llamaban, ni quiénes eran. Nunca más los vi. Tampoco sé si fueran alguna vez al canal.»1 ¡Cuántos de los que sintonizaron Sábado Gigante durante sus cincuenta y tres años de existencia no se identificarán plenamente con Don Francisco en este relato de su autobiografía titulada Don Francisco entre la espada y la TV!  Es que a casi todos los que hemos vivido unos cuantos años nos ha pasado algo así de chistoso en que hemos hecho las veces de ingenuos. Pero una cosa es dejarnos engañar por una mentira que sólo tiene consecuencias temporales, y otra, por una mentira que tiene consecuencias eternas. Por eso es tan importante que tomemos muy en serio la advertencia de San Juan acerca de los líderes religiosos que procuran engañarnos: si no reconocen que Jesucristo, el Hijo de Dios, es el enviado de Dios Padre que vino al mundo en cuerpo humano, entonces no son de Dios. «Así distinguimos entre los hijos de Dios y los hijos del diablo —concluye el amado apóstol—: el que no practica la justicia no es hijo de Dios; ni tampoco lo es el que no ama a su hermano.»2 Carlos ReyUn Mensaje a la Concienciawww.conciencia.net 1 Mario Kreutzberger Blumenfeld, Don Francisco entre la espada y la TV (México, D.F.: Editorial Grijalbo, 2001), p. 109-11. 2 1Jn 2:22,26; 4:2

Te compartimos un fragmento de la entrevista con Don Francisco, no dejes de escucharla sólo aquí con Yordi en exa.

Hoy platicamos con Vero Flores sobre como hacer más atractivas nuestras parte, además te compartimos un fragmento de la entrevista con Don Francisco y cantamos en el unilingüe, sólo aquí con Yordi en exa.

El famoso presentador y productor Yordi Rosado habló sin filtro con Ana Patricia. Esta vez él se convirtió en el entrevistado y  reveló su fórmula para lograr que muchos famosos le digan a él lo que no le han confesado a nadie en "La Entrevista con Yordi Rosado".

Featuring a Song by Singer-Songwriter Don Francisco Children ask on average 125 questions a day. Adults ask 3. Big difference. According to the Gospels, Jesus asked 307 questions. He was asked 183. He only answered 3. Big difference. According to the Bible, Jesus and children are close to God. They get their question-asking naturally. They get it from God. And all through Scripture, God asks a lot of questions. But God is omniscient. He knows everything. So why does He ask so much and so often. He does it so that we can make discoveries about ourselves and our relationship with Him. Today's episode examines God's first question recorded in Genesis 3:9. And, as an added bonus, we will feature a song by singer-songwriter Don Francisco to introduce the question. A special thanks to Don for granting us permission to use his song and for his contribution to this week's episode.

«Un día, Temy sufrió un accidente. Se cayó en el interior de un almacén provocándose un traumatismo craneoencefálico, lo que obligó a mantenerla bajo estricta observación varios días en una clínica, en una sala a oscuras. Fue una situación dolorosa pero necesaria para que yo comprendiera lo importante que era mi esposa para mí, cómo la amaba, cuánto dependía de ella el equilibrio de mi vida, y todo lo que me habían servido siempre sus consejos, su comprensión y su amor.»1 Así nos explica Mario Kreutzberger, el famoso conductor de Sábado Gigante, en su autobiografía titulada Don Francisco entre la espada y la TV, el papel indispensable que desempeñaba su esposa en su vida, lejos de las cámaras. «En esa época era yo un empedernido fumador nocturno —continúa Don Francisco—; al acostarme, o despertando a medianoche, fumaba seis, siete y hasta ocho cigarrillos. Más de una vez me quemé el pecho. En una ocasión, de viaje, me levanté a comprar cigarrillos y al salir del hotel vi que nevaba. La necesidad era tan poderosa que, desafiando la nieve y el frío, fui a comprarlos. Necesitaba fumar antes de dormirme. Al regresar Temy de esos días en la clínica, me pidió que no fumara, pues el olor de tabaco le provocaba náuseas. Así lo hice, complaciéndola. Cuando llevaba varias noches sin cigarrillos, me dije: Si he podido estar sin fumar estos días, ¿para qué seguir haciéndolo? No fumé nunca más. »Situaciones personales como ésta me llevaron a descubrir que [mi esposa] hacía las veces de mi “cable a tierra”. No podía ser de otra manera, si era ella quien siempre me sujetaba para que no me desbandara....»2 ¡Qué bien que Don Francisco reconozca ese rol vital de su esposa, tal como Dios mismo lo diseñó, en beneficio de todo matrimonio! Es que a todo esposo le conviene, mucho más de lo que es capaz de imaginarse, dejar que su esposa lo proteja de ciertas malas influencias en su vida, sobre todo las que ejerzan tanto poder sobre él, o tengan tal atracción, que le es muy difícil resistirlas por sí solo. Ella es la persona que mejor lo conoce y, por lo tanto, la mejor preparada para ayudarlo a vencer ataques dirigidos a sus talones de Aquiles, es decir, sus puntos débiles. Y por si eso fuera poco, su esposa es también la persona más motivada, porque por lo general es ella quien más tiene que ganar o perder. De modo que, además de servir como el «cable a tierra» para su esposo, sujetándolo para que no se desvíe sino que conquiste vicios tales como el cigarrillo, como en el caso de Don Francisco, la esposa puede servir como su sistema de alarma más eficaz para protegerlo de otras mujeres que pudieran arruinar su matrimonio y por consiguiente su vida misma. Pidámosle entonces a Dios, los que somos esposos, que nos ayude a reconocer el tremendo valor que tiene ese sistema de alarma que nos ha dado, a tal grado que en vez de reprocharle el esmero con que nos protege, lo aprovechemos al máximo y le demos gracias cada vez que surta el efecto que tanto nos conviene. Carlos ReyUn Mensaje a la Concienciawww.conciencia.net 1 Mario Kreutzberger Blumenfeld, Don Francisco entre la espada y la TV (México, D.F.: Editorial Grijalbo, 2001), p. 35. 2 Ibíd.

With another eventful week in the books, Letty, Doknow and Vic discuss a bevy of topics including Vic's sister going into labor because of a bean and cheese burrito, a post office in Pacoima being named after Ritchie Valens, The Marathon Cultivation's documentary screening, and the first Mexican-born woman getting sent to outer space. We also discover that our entire childhood's were a lie when we find out Sabado Gigante host Don Francisco's real name. We also talk about Selena Gomez's interesting SNL skit about Pico Rivera, and Marc Anthony's new 23 year old wife, plus more. Merch: https://brownbagpod.com/ Support us: https://anchor.fm/brown-bag8 Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brownbagpod/ https://www.instagram.com/letty.set.go/ https://www.instagram.com/doknowsworld_/ https://www.instagram.com/rosecransvic/ Follow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@brownbagpod?lang=en https://www.tiktok.com/@doknowsworld_?lang=en https://www.tiktok.com/@letty.set.go?lang=en https://www.tiktok.com/@rosecransvictor?lang=en Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrownBagPodcast https://twitter.com/Letty https://twitter.com/doknowsworld https://twitter.com/RosecransVic --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brown-bag8/support

Mario Luis Kreutzberger Blumenfeld, más conocido como Don Francisco nos honró con su visita a nuestros estudios, para hablar de su nueva docuserie, inspirada en el famoso show Sábado Gigante. Infierno en california: Incendio que se propaga con rapidez y calcina al menos 20 viviendas, hablamos de familias que en solo segundos pierden el trabajo de toda la vida.Estados Unidos supera el millón de muertes por COVID-19 según informe de la Casa Blanca.Presidente Biden, pronunciaría hoy un discurso en la cumbre mundial de Covid-19.Peligrosas corrientes del Rio Bravo, cobran la vida de inmigrantes que intentan cruzar.

Por primera vez el presentador Raúl González habla sin rodeo con Jomari sobre cosas muy personales, entre ellas porqué no fue el heredero de "Sábado Gigante" como se lo propuso el mismo Don Francisco. Además, entre lagrimas confiesa cómo fue que superó los miedos y las inseguridades que siempre lo atormentaron.