ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

[STONE]

Hilston,
"Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."(Gal 4:8-11)

Wouldn't you say in all honesty here that in context Paul is saying that just as in times past they served gods through bondage in observances and ordinances, now they seem to be going down the same path of serving God through bondage to observances and ordinances? And further that he is concerned they are thereby heading back into legalism?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Sozo

You & your family are welcome to come have Christmas with my family.

Can I come, too?

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Hilston

It exists. I've proven it several times. No one has disproven it, including yourself. But that comes as no surprise, LightSon, because you avoided biblical arguments in the other thread as well. What is it with you? You enjoy doing your cute little drive-bys, but you refuse to actually engage the discussion in any meaningful way. Why?

You're a legalist, LightSon. I told you before, and I proved it in the other thread where you have yet to respond. Even Yorzhik pointed this out to you. So if you wish to be regarded as an intelligent and honorable person, you will get involved in the discussion in an intelligent, informed and rational manner, examining the scriptures with the rest of us. If you want to be regarded as an evader, a coward and an abject fool, continue with your inane stone-throwing so my friends and I can have yet another belly-laugh at your ineptitude. :freak:

Fine Jim. Call me names. I can take it.

When you repent of listening to sex-rock, I will engage with you. Otherise your heart and hands are dirty and I can not trust your judgment. It is that simple.

I regard you as one of THE brightest minds here at TOL, but heralding AC/DC as worthy of the Christian under the pretext of "it's okay to listen to clever lyrics" is not only weak, but dishonest and devisive. How many weak brothers will you suck into this wake of smut?

When you purge yourself of this idol, I will listen to you, but until then you are an unwise judge, whose counsel is to be avoided. I'll just have to keep looking for someone whose lifestyle choices truly line up with scripture, and whose character is a reflection of Jesus Christ. Such men are hard to find.

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen."

 

[Hilston]

LightSon writes:
Fine Jim. Call me names. I can take it.

That's what people who CAN'T take it always say.

LightSon writes:
When you repent of listening to sex-rock, I will engage with you. Otherise your heart and hands are dirty and I can not trust your judgment. It is that simple.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I addressed a post directly to you, having spent time typing out sound counsel regarding biblical aesthetics and, in particular, your unbiblical legalistic, bondage and guilt-driven church, a post which you have thus far refused to answer. Until you do, I will assume that you are a coward, so afraid of having your legalism train derailed that you will continue to follow your "trusted" legalistic high priests to tell you what to do and when to do it, and what not to do, regardless of what the scriptures teach.

Here's the thing: I believe I have a well-developed, logically sound, and exegetically coherent view of Biblical aesthetics. But since you've shut your mind to everything and anything your high priests say is "bad" or "evil," you may never open your mind enough to consider the biblical arguments that have been put to you. But you know what? It's not. My. Problem.

LightSon writes:
I regard you as one of THE brightest minds here at TOL, but heralding AC/DC as worthy of the Christian under the pretext of "it's okay to listen to clever lyrics" is not only weak, but dishonest and devisive. How many weak brothers will you suck into this wake of smut?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. My clever lyrics remark was about the B-52s. I don't think AC/DC has clever lyrics at all. Most of them are disgusting. That's not why I enjoy listening to them. But I don't expect you to understand the biblical argument or ramifications thereof, because you're a legalist.

LightSon writes:
When you purge yourself of this idol, I will listen to you, ...

I don't want you to listen to me, LightSon. I want you to listen to the scriptures, hammer on your own anvil and find out for yourself how you should live; not listen to the high priests of legalism.

LightSon writes:
... but until then you are an unwise judge, whose counsel is to be avoided. ...

How does someone who patterns his life after the counsel of legalists make that assessment? You're not qualified, LightSon.

LightSon writes:
... I'll just have to keep looking for someone whose lifestyle choices truly line up with scripture, and whose character is a reflection of Jesus Christ. Such men are hard to find.

Have a nice journey. I've found my example right there in the scriptures.

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by SOTK

LightSon,

Did you check out Hilston's reply to you in the "Argh...Calvinism makes me sick!" thread regarding your assertion that secular music is satanic or harmful or unbiblical? I thought he made some very valid and well thought out points. I don't completely agree with Hilston on his views about Christmas, but I do side with him on music. I realize that it kind of got personal between you two, but I think you should consider his points.

I appreciate your opinions, LightSon, about music and the spirit in which you communicate them, but I think you are confusing man made religious do's and don't's as opposed to scriptural truths.

In Christ,

SOTK

Hi SOTK,
I appreciate your words and your spirit.

If I am "confusing man made religious do's and don't's [with]scriptural truths," then I sincerely pray to be given that understanding.

Check me out.

I am not prepaired to assert that ALL "secular music is satanic or harmful or unbiblical." I do believe that God has given us all good things to enjoy. Hilston argues that God has given us all things to enjoy, and I realize he has the text of scripture on his side. I would counter with, has God given us "all things" (as in adultery ) to enjoy or crack cocaine to enjoy? I started down this road with Jim, and he took off around the barn the long way. Well, if "all" means "all" and in all situations, then the answer must be yes. "pass me the pipe and let's get some porn."

I think it is our honor to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. " 1 Thess 5:21

"But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing..." Gal 4:18

"That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus." Philemon 1:6

So there is much in the securlar world which is good, in my judgment. I gave Jim the opportunity to draw such a distinction, but he chose to argue, "nothing is benign," which I inferred as saying, "it's all tainted, so let's party up." I've given Jim plenty of chances to correct my thinking, and all he's done little more than label me a legalist.

Nothing, save God and His Word is perfect, I'll agree, but there is a big difference in my letting my kids enjoy The Carpenters versus AC/DC's "Mistress for Christmas" or HIGHWAY TO HELL. I'm sorry, but AC/DC does not pass muster at my house. I think Christians ought to draw bright lines, for our own sakes and for the sake of the lost. Jim charges me with legalism, because I am introducing extra-biblical rules. I don't think I am doing that. Scripture speaks in specifics, but also speaks in principles. I do have a brain, contrary to what Jim thinks, and I think I am using my spirit-led mind to draw some conclusions based on sound biblical principles. Jim might argue for example that PLAYBOY magazine is okay and clever BECAUSE there is no verse which decrys PLAYBOY. This is stupid thinking, (and I know this is a strawman), but it is just as silly to say that I'm being legalist to assert that smutty lyrics and sexually corrupt philosophies should not be part of our CHRISTian diet. Pornography will corrupt us. Just because the porn is housed in "clever" lyrics doesn't mitigate its pernicious influence. We are to abhor that which is evil, and it is not legalist to do so.

If it is good, let's use it. If it is profane, lets call it evil and not try to pass it off as just a bunch of aussie rockers havin' a good time.

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
Wouldn't you say in all honesty here that in context Paul is saying that just as in times past they served gods through bondage in observances and ordinances, now they seem to be going down the same path of serving God through bondage to observances and ordinances? And further that he is concerned they are thereby heading back into legalism?

It seems you've missed the poignancy of Paul's warning against members of the Body of Christ observing Jewish rituals in his comparison. The Galatians had come out of pagan ceremonialism and understood salvation by grace and the blood of Christ. But they were now being enticed by Jewish ceremonialism; not for salvation, but to progress in their maturity (Gal 3:3), as a further and more complete expression of their faith. So Paul's point cannot be missed: If you decide to express your faith in Christ through Jewish ceremonies, you are, in essence, going right back to where you've come from; not back to salvation by works, but back to angel worship. He is saying that all religious ceremony, whether pagan or Jewish, amount to angel worship for members of the Body of Christ. Don't do it. It is a violation of the Mystery gospel; it is a repudiation of Christ as Head of the Body, with Whom He sits above the created order and the angelic realm.

 

[STONE]

Hilston,
The next passage..."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." (Col 2: 8-23)

And wouldn't you say the gist of this passage as it relates to our topic is that we are not subject to ordinances?

 

[Hilston]

LightSon, if you really cared about the basis for what I believe and what I judge as biblically acceptable versus unacceptable, you would ask. You charge me with "taking the long way" around the barn. I spent time giving you a thorough and biblical response. It sounds to me that you just didn't like it because it doesn't fit your legalism.

Your brand of Christendumb is what I call "mindless zero tolerance policy wonk christianity". You set up the legalistic fences and hedges so you don't have to get down to the tough job of using your mind and evaluating the world according to biblical guidelines. It's much easier to follow your high priests of extra-biblical moralism than it is to make right judgments according to scriptural principles.

You seem to want to do the very same thing with me. Using you the principles of "mindless zero tolerance policy wonk christianity" you can easily and conveniently dismiss me, which means you don't have to use your mind.
If you were a rationally guided, respectful and honorable person, you would earnestly seek to understand the biblical position on aesthetics (which I attempted to convey to you) and then be able to drawn your own conclusion about how regard pornography and recreational drugs. You would be able to go back to your high priests of legalism and tell them a thing or two. But, instead you try to pigeon-hole me into one of your neat 'n' tidy little categories so you don't have to use your mind to make biblical judgments or evaluations.

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
And wouldn't you say the gist of this passage as it relates to our topic is that we are not subject to ordinances?

That's the consequence of the gist of the passage. The gist of the passage is this: 'For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power" The point is, the members of the Body of Christ are made complete in Him who is above the angelic realm. We do not attain perfection (completeness) by the flesh (as he warned the Galatians in Gal 3:3). Being complete in Him, and seated with Him above the angelic realm, we need not to submit to earthly religious symbolisms and holidays (which are administratively beneath us) and to the angelic ministry that attended them. To submit to religious holidays and ceremonies is to deny our position as jointly seated with Christ above the angelic realm (Eph 1:20 2:6 3:10 1Co 6:3). This is why Paul calls it angel worship. He says don't. Do. It.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

It seems you've missed the poignancy of Paul's warning against members of the Body of Christ observing Jewish rituals in his comparison. The Galatians had come out of pagan ceremonialism and understood salvation by grace and the blood of Christ. But they were now being enticed by Jewish ceremonialism; not for salvation, but to progress in their maturity (Gal 3:3), as a further and more complete expression of their faith. So Paul's point cannot be missed: If you decide to express your faith in Christ through Jewish ceremonies, you are, in essence, going right back to where you've come from; not back to salvation by works, but back to angel worship. He is saying that all religious ceremony, whether pagan or Jewish, amount to angel worship for members of the Body of Christ. Don't do it. It is a violation of the Mystery gospel; it is a repudiation of Christ as Head of the Body, with Whom He sits above the created order and the angelic realm.

Well...I somewhat concur. I see Paul saying in gal 3:3 that they being taught salvation by faith are now thinking they need the Law to be perfect and complete in righteousness.
As to the remainder of what you are saying, including how partaking in a holiday is the same as angel worship, you might need to clarify further.

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
As to the remainder of what you are saying, including how partaking in a holiday is the same as angel worship, you might need to clarify further.

For more information, perhaps you would consider the following link:

The Seven Ones

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

That's the consequence of the gist of the passage. The gist of the passage is this: 'For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power" The point is, the members of the Body of Christ are made complete in Him who is above the angelic realm. We do not attain perfection (completeness) by the flesh (as he warned the Galatians in Gal 3:3). Being complete in Him, and seated with Him above the angelic realm, we need not to submit to earthly religious symbolisms and holidays (which are administratively beneath us) and to the angelic ministry that attended them. To submit to religious holidays and ceremonies is to deny our position as jointly seated with Christ above the angelic realm (Eph 1:20 2:6 3:10 1Co 6:3). This is why Paul calls it angel worship. He says don't. Do. It.

I do not see most knowledgeable christians, regarding holidays, thinking they need to or are required to submit to them. And though I agree believers are above the angelic realm administratively, I am not sure why you keep driving at angels and angelic realms.
I will check out your link.

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
I do not see most knowledgeable christians, regarding holidays, thinking they need to or are required to submit to them.

Of course not. That's the subtle effectiveness of ceremony, ritual, symbolism and holidays. It appeals to the sin nature, and it's all dressed up in religious clothes. That's also the allure for some. The Colossians and the Galatians didn't have to be aware of the angelic element for them to be a grave danger.

STONE writes:
And though I agree believers are above the angelic realm administratively, I am not sure why you keep driving at angels and angelic realms.

The link should help with these details. If you have further questions or need for clarification, just say so.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

For more information, perhaps you would consider the following link:

The Seven Ones

Okay, so you are saying that because believers are 'higher than the angels' we subject ourselves to abasement by partaking in Holidays, baptisms (other than the holy spirit), and the sabbath.

It seems somewhat reaching to suggest that when apostles after the ressurection were apparently participating in feasts and observances; though they were not bound by them.

Then we need to bring in dispensationalism to allow Jesus, the Word made flesh, God's Son, both God and part of the Godhead, to partake in all ceremonies, holidays, and baptisms, give the examples at the last supper...then forbid it after the ressurection or pentecost.

The focus on angels still eludes me.

I am a bit concerned that this line of thinking could lead one to dismiss the teachings of Jesus in favor of Pauls. Please allay my fears in this.

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
Okay, so you are saying that because believers are 'higher than the angels' we subject ourselves to abasement by partaking in Holidays, baptisms (other than the holy spirit), and the sabbath.

Correct. It dishonors the blessings secured by Christ specifically for His Body.

STONE writes:
It seems somewhat reaching to suggest that when apostles after the ressurection were apparently participating in feasts and observances; though they were not bound by them.

Not at all. The Biblical evidence is solid. After Christ's resurrection, He commanded the disciples to observe everything whatsoever He commanded them. This includes strict adherence to the Laws of Moses, and the teachings of the Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-3), which included the sacrificial offerings of the Mosaic Law. Also, early in Acts we see Peter and John lining up at the Temple at the time of prayer. This required sacrifices. Later in Acts, Paul honors Israel's gospel by having sponsoring the circumcision of proselytes and being purified himself in the Temple (which necessarily includes sacrificial offerings). All these were done righteously, properly and in accordance with Israel's gospel. Consider further that food ordinances were still enforced in Acts 15 (AFTER Peter's vision of the sheet and unclean animals) for Gentile proselytes according to the Noahic laws.

STONE writes:
Then we need to bring in dispensationalism to allow Jesus, the Word made flesh, God's Son, both God and part of the Godhead, to partake in all ceremonies, holidays, and baptisms, give the examples at the last supper...then forbid it after the ressurection or pentecost.

No, the public prohibition of ceremonies comes much later, long after the inauguration of the Body of Christ (which was at the conversion of Paul). When the reprobation of national Israel was fully manifested in Acts, Paul began to publicly declare the gospel of the Body of Christ. Paul's history regarding his receiving of the Mystery and the delay between receiving it and publicly teaching it can be correlated in Galatians 1 and 2Corinthians 12.

STONE writes:
The focus on angels still eludes me.

I think your statement needs to be re-worded to this: The Body of Christ explains the absence of angelic activity today. Since Israel has been temporarily set aside, there is no current need for the angelic ministry. The elect angels are currently in abeyance, awaiting their future roles as mediators between Israel and God.

STONE writes:
I am a bit concerned that this line of thinking could lead one to dismiss the teachings of Jesus in favor of Pauls. Please allay my fears in this.

Paul's teachings ARE Jesus' teachings, the difference being that Peter taught the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, delivered by angels to the Moses, confirmed and fulfilled by the earthly Messiah. Paul taught a gospel that he received directly from the risen and glorified Christ (no angelic intermediaries as in the case with Moses and Israel), who is seated above the earthly realm, and above all principalities and powers. Paul's gospel, or rather, the risen glorified Christ's gospel, is distinct from the earthly gospels that require a priesthood, angelic mediators, etc. Peter and the Eleven were called to follow Jesus. The Body of Christ is called to follow Jesus as Paul followed Him (1Co 11:1,2).

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

Correct. It dishonors the blessings secured by Christ specifically for His Body.

Not at all. The Biblical evidence is solid. After Christ's resurrection, He commanded the disciples to observe everything whatsoever He commanded them. This includes strict adherence to the Laws of Moses, and the teachings of the Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-3), which included the sacrificial offerings of the Mosaic Law. Also, early in Acts we see Peter and John lining up at the Temple at the time of prayer. This required sacrifices. Later in Acts, Paul honors Israel's gospel by having sponsoring the circumcision of proselytes and being purified himself in the Temple (which necessarily includes sacrificial offerings). All these were done righteously, properly and in accordance with Israel's gospel. Consider further that food ordinances were still enforced in Acts 15 (AFTER Peter's vision of the sheet and unclean animals) for Gentile proselytes according to the Noahic laws.

No, the public prohibition of ceremonies comes much later, long after the inauguration of the Body of Christ (which was at the conversion of Paul). When the reprobation of national Israel was fully manifested in Acts, Paul began to publicly declare the gospel of the Body of Christ. Paul's history regarding his receiving of the Mystery and the delay between receiving it and publicly teaching it can be correlated in Galatians 1 and 2Corinthians 12.

I think your statement needs to be re-worded to this: The Body of Christ explains the absence of angelic activity today. Since Israel has been temporarily set aside, there is no current need for the angelic ministry. The elect angels are currently in abeyance, awaiting their future roles as mediators between Israel and God.

Paul's teachings ARE Jesus' teachings, the difference being that Peter taught the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, delivered by angels to the Moses, confirmed and fulfilled by the earthly Messiah. Paul taught a gospel that he received directly from the risen and glorified Christ (no angelic intermediaries as in the case with Moses and Israel), who is seated above the earthly realm, and above all principalities and powers. Paul's gospel, or rather, the risen glorified Christ's gospel, is distinct from the earthly gospels that require a priesthood, angelic mediators, etc. Peter and the Eleven were called to follow Jesus. The Body of Christ is called to follow Jesus as Paul followed Him (1Co 11:1,2).

Okay we have brought in ultradispensationalism, have separated ourselves from the gospel teachings of Jesus in mid acts because they are distinct and only for Israel (which is not the body of Christ), and now follow only the teachings of Jesus as given through Paul which are distinct and only for the Body of Christ.
Is this correct?

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
Okay we have brought in ultradispensationalism, ...

What do you mean by "ultradispensationalism"?

STONE writes:
... have separated ourselves from the gospel teachings of Jesus in mid acts because they are distinct and only for Israel (which is not the body of Christ), ...

Incorrect. In order to rightly understand Paul's gospel, and in order to fulfill our hope in eternity, members of the Body of Christ must be diligent students of Israel's gospel as well.

STONE writes:
... and now follow only the teachings of Jesus as given through Paul which are distinct and only for the Body of Christ. Is this correct?

That is correct. That is what Paul taught in his epistles regarding the Mystery (Ro 11:25 1Co2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16) that was specially committed to him and his co-laborers (1Co 4:1 9:17 Col 1:25 1Ti 1:11 2:7 6:20 2Ti 1:11,14 2:2 Tit 1:3). His gospel will judge the men of this dispensation (Ro 2:16 16:25,26 2Ti 2:8).

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

What do you mean by "ultradispensationalism"?

Incorrect. In order to rightly understand Paul's gospel, and in order to fulfill our hope in eternity, members of the Body of Christ must be diligent students of Israel's gospel as well.

That is correct. That is what Paul taught in his epistles regarding the Mystery (Ro 11:25 1Co2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16) that was specially committed to him and his co-laborers (1Co 4:1 9:17 Col 1:25 1Ti 1:11 2:7 6:20 2Ti 1:11,14 2:2 Tit 1:3). His gospel will judge the men of this dispensation (Ro 2:16 16:25,26 2Ti 2:8).

Sorry, to be clear I was referring to a dispensationalism system that sees the church or body of christ beginning not in acts 2, but later...or to the extreme in acts 28. Simply put I am referring to a dispensational system with at least 1 extra (hyper/ultra) dispensation between pentecost and Christ's return.

By one being a diligent student of 'Israel's gospel' does that mean one follows and observes the 'earthly messiah's teachings'?

Regarding Paul's distinct and exclusive teachings please consider this:

"Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake."

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

I will leave that for you to consider. I will bring up more points later, but better rest now.

Grace and Peace,
STONE

 

[Frank Ernest]

Looks like a good one this year.

Daughter is recovering from surgery, so we will be spending Christmas at her place. Erstwhile son-in-law is doing an excellent job of erstwhiling.

Boss(ette) is recovering from surgery and doing well on chemo, so I will be getting more (YEAH!) time off. (She is more than happy to reclaim the CIC chair. I am more than happy for her.)

Oops! Friend needs help with sales business. Her mom is ailing and can't be as much help as she usually is. I have again "retired" into another job. One of these days I will get it right. :chuckle:

Na ganna worry about being Calvinized, Dispensialized, Lutherized, Opentheized, Gnostisized, or any other "ized."

So, I am going to have a :sozo:Merry Christmas with my family, friends and buds. (ToL folks are on the "buds" list.)

 

[Frank Ernest]

The Big Kahuna:
Five thumbs up! Great post!

Thank you, :knight: Big Kahuna! I'm having fun already (HO HO HO) and this is just the beginning. Gotta thank Hilston for giving me some great ideas. I suspect they aren't what he had in mind, but what the Heck? The images I got were angels using AAA on Santa.

Oh, well, at my age they say the mind is the :second: thing to go.
No one remembers what the :first: thing is.