25-jährige Frau brutal zusammengeschlagen

Waiblingen. Am 22.11.2009 wurde um ca. 20.00 Uhr eine 25-jährige Frau krankenhausreif geschlagen und bewusstlos liegen gelassen. Täter nun vor Gericht.

Der 22.11.2009 wurde zum Unglückstag von Anne V. Um 19.45 Uhr verließ sie ihr Haus und war dann um 20.00 Uhr im Park, wo sie von hinten angegriffen und K.O. geschlagen wurde. Die 15-jährige Jule E. wurde wegen des Verdachts, die Tat begangen zu haben, vorläufig festgenommen. In der Verhandlung gab sie an, nichts mit der Sache tun zu haben. Danach berichtete das Opfer, Anne V., wie sie am späten Abend noch außer Haus ging, worauf die Richterin nachfragte „Wieso sind sie denn noch so spät raus gegangen?“ Anne V. meinte, ihr wäre langweilig gewesen und sie hätte außerdem noch ein bisschen frische Luft schnappen müssen. Sarah P. war eine Zeugin der Tat und erzählte von ihrem Hund, mit dem sie im Park spazieren  gelaufen war. Dabei hat sie das Vergehen der Angeklagten beobachtet und sofort den Krankenwagen gerufen, welcher kurze Zeit später Anne V. in das Waiblinger-Krankenhaus einlieferte. Während Jule E. sich noch mal mit einer sehr guten Anwältin vor der Richterin behaupten musste, brach sie auf einmal in Tränen aus und gestand die Tat. „Ich habe das alles nur aus Eifersucht gemacht. Mein Ex-Freund hat mit mir Schluss gemacht, nur um mit ihr eine Beziehung zu führen.“

Jule E. wurde zu 700 Strafstunden und 2 Jahren auf Bewährung verurteilt.

Tout le monde connaît Les Trois mousquetaires. Beaucoup connaissent Vingt ans après. Peu connaissent Pauline. Roman de jeunesse, ce court récit romantique, qui doit beaucoup au gothique,  est délicieux.

Bandits de grands chemins, femmes ravissantes de pureté et d’amour, gentilshommes au grand cœur. Un roman d’aventure comme on n’en lit guère plus  aujourd’hui. Dumas cède la parole au narrateur, le jeune Nerval, afin de se faire conter l’histoire sombre de celle qu’il a accompagnée jusqu’à la tombe. On tremble, on pleure, on souffre aussi et l’on referme ce court roman plein d’une nostalgie propre à cette atmosphère sombre et brumeuse, souvent lugubre.

La plume de Dumas est jeune et l’on ressent comme un manque de densité parfois. Mais ce sont surtout les promesses de ses oeuvres à venir qui transparaissent ici, pour le plus grand bonheur de ses lecteurs.

Title: The Restitution of Jesus Christ

Author: Servetus the Evangelical (a.k.a. Kermit Zarley)

Bibliographic info: XXIII + 511 + 53 pgs of indices and bibliography

Published: 2008

Website: Here

With thanks to Servetus the Evangelical for the review copy.

This review is mainly a condensed version of my recent blogs (starting here) in which I have been discussing this book in more detail.

For those unaware of the controversy surrounding this author and his book I will give a brief summary. The name of the author is (obviously) a pseudonym. Why the author chose not to reveal his real identity right from the start is unclear. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pseudonym, Servetus was originally planning on revealing his true identity on September 29^th, 2011, which is the 500^th anniversary of the death of the real Servetus who was burned at the stake for certain teachings and beliefs of his, the most notable being his rejection of the Triune nature of God. However, due to some undisclosed circumstance, Servetus has recently decided to reveal his identity on November 19^th, 2009.

For those who do not know, the books title is a play on the title of the book bt the original Servetus – The Restitution of Christianity. The book is meant to give a comprehensive and in-depth look at the doctrine of whether Jesus is God in the orthodox sense of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian creeds. The footnotes and quotations show that the author is familar with works by many specialists in the fields of early Christology and early Christianity, such as, Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham and James Dunn.

The author says:

The Restitution of Jesus Christ encompasses the whole range of biblical material that reputedly addresses the subject of whether Jesus is God. In doing so, it proposes an alternative, a revised Christology called “exclusive God-in-Christ Christology,” which does not identify Jesus as God. This God-in-Christ Christology is strictly a “functional” or “spirit” Christology as opposed to the traditional Christology. The latter – that Jesus is God – is called “incarnational” Christology or “ontological” or “essence” Christology. (pg. xii)

While the author denies the belief of the deity of Christ, he stresses that he does believe in the rest of what orthodox Christianity has to say about the person of Christ:

While this book diverges from Christian orthodoxy on the critical issue whether Jesus is God, this book affirms all other major doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. So, it adheres solidly to belief in Jesus as the virgin-born, sinless, miracle-working, resurrected, exalted Lord, Messiah of Israel, Son of Man, and Savior who accomplished salvation, made available to all humankind, through His sin-bearing, atoning death on the cross. (pg. xii, his emphasis)

The author also wants to make known that his Christology is the result of an orthodox look at Scripture, which sees all Scripture as the product of the inspiration of God. In other words, the author does not derive his unorthodox belief from viewing Scripture as merely the product of men who put their own false words into Jesus’ mouth.

On the final page of the preface, the author says:

My primary purpose in writing this book has not been to convince readers of my christological convictions. That is secondary. Rather, my primary purpose is to persuade readers that the Bible does not require that people believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, and thus the deity of Christ, in order to become a true believer in Jesus. So, I insist that these teachings should not be included as elements in evangelistic messages or as faith-requirements for formal church membership. Assessing people as “non-Christian” solely on the basis of being non-Trinitarian ought to forever cease. ….

In conclusion, I contend that the NT verifies that anyone who (1) truly believes Jesus is the Christ, the sinless Son of God, who died for their sins and arose bodily from the dead, and (2) confesses Him as Lord, manifesting evidence in their life to that effect, is indeed a genuine Christian believer and should be accepted as such. (pg. xix)

This is an issue that I have been pondering upon quite a bit lately. It raises all sorts of questions: Is inheriting eternal life a matter of orthopraxy or orthodoxy? Can the two be separated? If not, then what exactly defines orthodoxy? Is believing in the deity of Jesus a necessary part of orthodoxy? Can one be ontologically saved by Jesus without any epistemological knowledge of Jesus?

The Restitution of Jesus Christ is divided into three sections. The first section is titled “History of Church Christology.” This section takes a look at the formation of Christology over the two millennial since the time of Christ as seen in the writings of the church fathers as well as the creeds produced by the ecumenical councils. The second section is titled “Messianism in the Old Testament.” This section dives into the subject of how God and the Messiah are presented in the Old Testament Scriptures. The third and final section is titled “Christology in the New Testament.” This chapters in this chapter each specifically focus on the Christology present in: the synoptic gospels; the Johannine literature minus the Revelation; the Pauline epistles; the book of Hebrews; the epistles of Peter; and the Revelation. There are also three appendices: (1) The Doctrine of the Trinity; (2) The Nature of the Holy Spirit; (3) Modern Christologies.

The first chapter is the introduction, in which the author lays out some groundwork in regards to whether the New Testament identifies Jesus as God. This chapter gives a general look at issues such as who Jesus was, the modern quest for the historical Jesus, how Jesus identified Himself, how others identified Him, as well as a brief look at the theos (“God”) texts used in regards to Jesus. Also, the author presents “the three foremost irrefutable texts” (pg. 17) for his claim against the deity of Christ. They are John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:4,6 and Eph 4:4-6.

• We know that… there is no God but one… there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor 8:4,6)
• There is… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph 4:4-6)
• And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)

At the end of the chapter the author asserts the following which accurately sums up what the author tries to show in the rest of the book:

There is no NT evidence that Jesus ever claimed to be God.

There is NT evidence that Jesus denied that He ever claimed to be God.

At Jesus’ hearing before the Sanhedrin, He was not accused of claiming to be God.

The NT constantly distinguishes God and Jesus Christ as two separate individuals.

The NT repeatedly identifies God exclusively as “the Father.”

The NT contains no unambiguous statement such as “Jesus (Christ) is God.”

These major points will emerge repeatedly as we progress in this study. (pg. 24)

The second chapter is titled “Church Christology in the First Millenium.” Here, the author deals with what the church fathers and the councils and creeds of the first millennium proclaimed about Jesus and His deity. After dealing with the ante-Nicene fathers in the first half of chapter 2, the author then turns to the councils and creeds for the remainder of the chapter. I would agree with some of what the author said in this chapter, but I still think it was too short of a treatment for each church father that can not do real justice to their teachings and beliefs, for instance, the author deals with Irenaeus by only referring to 5 or 6 verses that he wrote which I thought was far too brief of a treatment.

The third chapter is titled “Church Christology in the Second Millenium.” In this chapter the author explores such issues as the inquisition of the Medieval period, a special focus on the life and execution of Michael Servetus, the quest for the Historical Jesus, and recent developments in Christology such as Kenotic Christology. The author then moves on to discuss the rise of the Socinians, European Unitarianism, British Unitarianism, John Locke, Deism, British Arianism, Samuel Clarke, William Whiston, American Unitarianism, the Anabaptists, the history of religions school, liberal theology, the quests for the historical Jesus, and more.

The fourth chapter is titled “”Messianism in the Old Testament.” In this chapter, the author deals with topics like how the Old Testament presents Yahweh, the Messiah, the meaning of the title “Son of God”, and other issues. One issue that the author gives an in-depth look at is “the angel of the LORD” in the OT. The author lays out his case for “the angel of the LORD” being Michael the Archangel.

This is then followed by a study on the much debated title “Son of Man.” He asserts that neither the exaltation nor association of the Son of Man with the clouds requires a literal pre-existence of the Son of Man figure. The final section of the chapter takes a look at problem passages in the Old Testament such as the plural references to God in Genesis and the “mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6, in which the author sees the translation of el gibbor as “mighty warrior” instead of “mighty God” as better fitting the context.

The fifth chapter is titled “Christology of the Synoptists.” It contains a look at the Christology that is presented in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A couple of issues are given a special focus: the limited knowledge of Jesus, and the charges raised against Jesus in His trial. Four problem passages are also given a more in-depth look. They are Matt 1:23; Matt 28:19; Mark 2:5; Mark 10:18.

The sixth chapter is titled “Christology of John.” It takes a look at the Christology that is present in the gospel of John and his epistles. The author spends 11 pages on John 1:1 and the following excerpt is his own summary of what he thinks of that verse:

In sum, we have seen that Jn 1:1c has been traditionally translated, “and the Word was God.”  …

Rendering the clause, “and the Word was divine,” or the like, fails to suffice. Instead, an increasing number of scholars now agree with Harner in treating the anarthrous theos therein as qualitative and therefore advocate the NEB translation (or its equivalent): “what God was, the Word was.”

Finally, as is so often the case, William Barclay explains the situation beautifully, “When John said the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like.”(pg. 336)

The author then deals with other Johannine passages which seem to teach or imply the deity of Christ. They are John 1:15; 1:18; 1:51; 3:13; 5:18; 6:25-55; 8:23; 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; 1John 2:22; 5:7; 5:20.

This is what the author had to say about the “I AM” saying in 8:58,

Jesus may have purposely uttered His “I am” saying in v. 58 as an allusion to Yahweh’s “I am” sayings in Deutero-Isaiah. If He did, it was only to highlight the unity between Himself and Yahweh His God. (pg. 374)

The author’s interpretation of Thomas’ confession in John 20:28 is best summed up in these words of his:

So, this God-in-Christ interpretation of the latter half of Thomas’ confession accords perfectly with the overall tenor of the Fourth Gospel as the “spiritual gospel.” That is, Thomas’ words “my God” mean that he now spiritually sees and acknowledges God the Father as indwelling Jesus, which  is a spiritual interpretation. In contrast, the traditional view of Thomas’ words “my God” is a literal interpretation that repeats the common error of failing to comprehend “the spiritual gospel” and the Johannine Jesus. (pg. 394-395)

Chapter 7 is titled “The Christology of Paul.” The author asserts that to Paul, “God” is exclusively the “Father”, and that Jesus is only called “Lord” and not “God.” The author then discusses passages which are pointed to as showing that he taught the deity of Jesus. Naturally, Titus 2:13, Rom 9:5, 2 Cor 8:9, Col 2:9, and Php 2:6 are all dealt with. The author also deals with less important passages as well as other concepts, such as how Paul applies Yahweh texts of the Old Testament to Jesus.

Chapter 8 is titled “Christology of the author of Hebrews.” This chapter mainly focused on whether Hebrews 1:8-9 is calling Jesus “God.” Apart from that, there was a brief look at the opening verses of the epistle, and an even briefer look at what 1:6 means when it says, “let all the angels worship Him [Jesus].”

Chapter 9 is titled “Christology of Peter.” In this chapter the author explains what he considers to be the main focus of Peter’s Christology, that is, servant Christology. The last half of the chapter is a look at 2 Pet 1:1 which naturally was quite similar to the author’s examination of Titus 2:13.

Chapter 10 is titled “Christology of the Apocalypse.” Here is the author’s summary of what he thinks in regards to Jesus being worshipped in heaven as presented by the Apocalypse.

In sum, the idea of heaven’s citizens performing proskuneo toward Jesus Christ and showering praises on Him does not necessarily indicate that they believe He is God. Yet it is unclear in The Revelation if proskuneo is ever directed toward Jesus. Even if it is, it probably means no more than what the earthly Jesus taught – that it is the Father’s will that “all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” (Jn 5.23; cf. Rev 5.12-13). Such honoring of the Son does not necessitate believing that He is God. Although The Revelation presents the slain Lamb – Jesus Christ – as God’s exalted associate, God the Father still remains supremely central to all worship and praise in heaven. (pg. 511)

However, I think that Revelation 5:11-14 shows that Jesus is just as central as the Father to the praise and worship in heaven.

My main criticism of this book is that a lot of Servetus’ objections to the belief in the deity of Jesus betray his lack of understanding as to what Christianity really teaches about it. Here is a perfect example of what I mean:

As stated in the previous chapter, if it is impossible for mortal human beings to literally see God, how could Jesus be God since He was certainly seen by humans? (pg. 424, his emphasis)

This objection is merely the result of a misunderstanding as to what Christians believe. Christians do not simply believe that Jesus = God. Rather, Christians believe that Jesus = God who became flesh. A proper understanding of what Christianity teaches in regards to that crucial phrase “who became flesh” would render those objections null and void.

However, I know that a lot of Christians emphasize Jesus’ deity to such an extent that they virtually exclude  His humanity. Furthermore, I think that this overemphasis on the deity of Jesus gives many Christians a seemingly docetic Christology, but this is not due to an error in the theology behind traditional Christology, rather, it is due to a skewed understanding of what the Scriptures teach concerning Jesus Christ.

Overall, I would say that this book is definitely the most comprehensive book that I have read about the doctrine of the deity of Christ from someone who denies it. Although, while the author does quote and refer to some of the leading specialists in the field of Christology and early Christianity, he does not really interact with what they say. This book did nothing in regards to convincing me that traditional Christology is in error about the deity of Christ.

I do wish, however, that the author had explored the issue of what he said was his point in writing this book, that is, whether someone needs to believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, and the deity of Christ in order to inherit eternal life.

Mais uma noite de apresentações e nessa semana tivemos a participação do público colocando em perigo três casais.

Sobre a noite de apresentações, foi uma noite de supresas tanto boas quanto más, já que alguns que se davam por vencidos mostraram que tem potencial e outros casais fortes demonstraram suas fraquezas.

Melhores da Noite – Ashleigh & Jakob – Jazz

Piores da Noite – Ellenore & Ryan – Hip-Hop

Na noite de eliminação os casais colocados para dançar para continuar na competição foram Karen & Kevin (o que achei injusto, mas entendi pelo fato de terem sido os primeiros a dançar e o povo sempre esquece), Pauline & Peter (que não foram tão bem e não criaram identificação com o público) e Ellenore & Ryan (que apesar de serem bons, foram péssimos na noite anterior)

Pauline e Peter acabaram sendo os eliminados da noite.

Ya estoy de vuelta tras mi operación, todavía algo renqueante pero bastante mejor que las últimas semanas. Parece que como mi novia dice “bicho malo nunca muere”.

Para celebrar que todo ha ido bastante bien hoy os traigo uno de mis anuncios favoritos sobre uno de mis videojuegos favoritos. Personalmente no me imagino otra forma de promocionar “Donkey Kong” más “cool” y ochentera, aunque ese actor se parezca más a Luigi que a Mario…

En cuanto a las tres versiones que se presentan, la de Atari era simplemente decente, mientras que la versión de Colecovision es prácticamente una réplica del arcade (si no fuera por sus infectos mandos de control).Por su parte, la conversión para Intellivision es símplemente abominable.

Lo curioso del tema es que las conversiónes para estas tres máquinas fueron realizadas por…COLECO, lo que dio lugar a la leyenda urbana de que los programadores tenían orden de que las versiones de Atari 2600 e Intellivision fueran muy inferiores a la de Colecovision, para que quedara claro que su máquina era la más potente.

Desde luego, en el caso de la conversión a Intellivision (una máquina relativamente potente en la época) la leyenda se convierte en una posible explicación razonable, aunque personalmente creo que este lamentable título se debió más a la inexperiencia de los programadores para trabajar con un hardware diametralmente opuesto al que solían utilizar y a la necesidad de lanzar el título cuanto antes, lo que dejó muy poco tiempo de margen para hacer una conversión más trabajada.

Para completar este post, aquí os dejo los videos de las tres versiones:

Part IX here.

Some more thoughts and excerpts from the chapter on Pauline Christology.

On pages 417-418, Servetus discusses how Adam Christology can not be reconciled with what Christians believe about Jesus being God in the flesh. He states:

In sum, Adam Christology is nullified if Jesus is essentially different from Adam. Again, Jesus cannot rationally be compared to Adam if Jesus is a God-man; they must be exact parallels. This is why many traditionalists refrain from adopting Adam Christology. (pg 418)

How much of an “exact parallel” must Adam and Jesus be? They were both fully and completely human. They were both tempted by the father-of-lies. How much more of an exact parallel do they have to be? I found Servetus’ argument that Jesus can not be the second Adam if He is the God-man to be less than persuasive.

On pages 421-422, Servetus discusses the YAHWEH texts in the Old Testament that Paul applies to Jesus in his epistles. His explanation for this is best seen in this excerpt:

Finally, Paul quotes Yahweh from Isa 40:13 by writing, “For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE SHOULD INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Cor 2.16; cf. Rom 11.34). The meaning is surely no more than that the risen Christ and Yahweh think alike. (pg. 421)

As in the previous chapters of this book, there are some silly arguments put forth which just ignore what traditional Christians believe and teach. Here is one gem:

As stated in the previous chapter, if it is impossible for mortal human beings to literally see God, how could Jesus be God since He was certainly seen by humans? (pg. 424)

That objection reminds me of the bad Muslim apologists who say things like, “Jesus can not be God because Jesus got tired but God does not get tired.”

Servetus then addresses an explanation that is given to his objection, however, it is not a standard explanation (as far as I am concerned). He states that traditionalists answer this issue by appealing to kenosis theories. I find that bizzare because I don’t see why one would resort to kenosis theories to answer this objection. I think a much simpler and more correct answer is this: Yes, by nature God is invisible. Yet we do not simply believe that Jesus = God. We believe that Jesus = God who became flesh. The incarnation of the eternal Logos becoming flesh naturally entailed being able to be seen by humans.

In talking about whether Paul thought Jesus preexisted as a personal subsistence or merely a personification, Servetus says:

More importantly, Paul never indicates in any of his epistles that people need to believe that Jesus literally preexisted in order to obtain salvation. (pg. 428)

If you recall, in the first part of this series I quoted the introduction where Servetus said that his purpose in this book was not to convince anyone of his beliefs, but rather, it was to show that one does not have to believe in the traditional belief of Jesus being God in order to inherit eternal life. Unfortuately, this is the first time outside of the introduction where Servetus has bought this issue up (I am hoping he talks about it more later in the book).

On page 429, I found it odd that Servetus briefly mentions Col 1:16 where it states that “by Him [Jesus] all things were created”, yet he does not really explain how all things being created by Jesus fits into his God-in-Christ Christology.

After 23 pages of dealing with Pauline Christology in general, Servetus then gets into specific problem passages, which are:

• Acts 20:28
• Romans 9:5
• 2 Cor 8:9
• Gal 2:20
• Php 2:6
• Col 1:19, 2:9
• 2 Thess 1:12
• 1 Tim 2:5
• 1 Tim 3:16
• Titus 2:13

The only passages from the list above in which I think either definitely or maybe show Paul’s belief in traditional Christology are,

• Romans 9:5 (maybe)
• 2 Cor 8:9 (maybe)
• Php 2:6 (definitely)
• Col 2:9 (more than likely)
• Titus 2:13 (definitely)

I had some issues with what Servetus did and did not say in regards to the Carmen Christi, and so, if time permits, I may try to post some thoughts to what he said about it in the next blog in this series.

Part VIII here.

Chapter 7 of Servetus’ book (see here) contains a look at the Christology of Paul.

Servetus see’s two passages from Paul as undisputable proof that he did not teach that Jesus was God in the traditional sense, and that only the Father is God.

The two passages are:

• We know that… there is no God but one… there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor 8:4,6)
• There is… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph 4:4-6)

At one point, Servetus says this:

What must be concluded from all of this Pauline evidence is this: for the Apostle Paul, “God” is exclusively “the Father,” so that there can be no one else who is God. [pg. 415]

I think that if one argues that theos is used exclusively of the Father and therefore that Christ cannot be theos, then one would have to be consistent and say that since kurios is what Paul calls Christ, then the Father cannot be kurios. But that is absurd right? I mean, of course the Father is Lord as well isn’t He?

The way I look at this is that theos and kurios are two different titles that Paul uses to distinguish between the Father and the Son, and that they are not being used in a mutually exclusive sense. In other words, in 1 Cor 8:6 Paul is not saying that only the Father is theos and that only Jesus is kurios. Rather, it is just Paul’s way of distinguishing between the Father and Jesus. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Paul does view Jesus as theos, but it does seem somewhat logical, especially in 1 Cor 8:6 where Paul describes Jesus as the One as “by whom all are things.”

As I heard one Christian apologist put it, in 1 Cor 8:6, Paul is taking the Shema and filling it in with Christian revelation.

I will post some more thoughts on this chapter in my next post.

Tonight was weak. My favorite was Russell and Noelle with Afrojazz. I LOVE Russell- he has an inner-glow that shines through his smile and when he dances. Even so, it was missing something for me.

Channing and Victor’s was pretty good- loved the choreography and music selection, didn’t love the performance. But Karen and Kevin were great, as always. Karen is the strongest female contender.

Worst of the week definitely goes to Mollee and Nathan. I wish they would stop acting like 12-year-olds in the interview packages- it makes it awkward for all of us watching- like seeing a little sister try so hard to be sexy. (did you notice she high-fived the choreographer who told her she was sexy? ha!) And the dancing was so, so off.

But thankfully for them, many other couples were off too. Like Ryan and Ellenore in hip-hop and Pauline and Peter in the quick-step (although I agreed 110% with what the judges said about performance.)

I do think the judges were wrong on 2 things: 1) Ashleigh/her dance with Jakob. Nigel was wrong- this cane dance was not up to snuff with the table dance for Mandy Moore. Ashleigh is not nearly as good as they praise her for being, and I didn’t feel any of the intensity the judges felt. 2) Legacy and Kathryn’s routine wasn’t as bad as they made it out to be. And they tore Kathryn up for something her choreographer may have (probably) told her to do- act cute. The moves were all cutesy, and they stuck her in that cutesy outfit.

Predictions for bottom 3 couples: Ellenore and Ryan, Pauline and Peter, and Kathryn and Legacy (crossing my fingers this last won’t come true because it should be Mollee and Nathan.)

I guess we’ll see tonight…What did you think?

Bonjour,

J’ai fait un stage de coiffeuse chez Cap’tif à La Sarraz. J’ai fait des brushings, une mise en pli, une permanante, un chignon de mariée, des tresses plaquées tout ça sur une tête en plastique et un schampooing sur une cliente.

Après cette semaine passée, mon choix est fait. Eh oui, je veux faire coiffeuse. J’envoie ma lettre pour une demande d’apprentissage dès ce soir.

Je vais super bien, l’école aussi, toujours d’aussi bonnes notes !!!

J’espère que pour vous aussi tout va bien !

gefunden von Sille beim türkischen Ecklädchen

Pauline. That’s her name. Happy 16th birthday!!!!! Ahhh my long time christian buddy. haha . Well, I don’t recall how long I’ve known you actually. But it has been a joy sharing memories together. I just remember that I have gotten to know you a lot more this year and for that I am blessed! Btw biology is the best hey? *Thumbs up* And dude, I will never forget that moment we spent together in the library- cramming before the maths exam. We were so NERVOUS! LOL but wasn’t everyone else. I loved it how we were like let’s pray! So we simply devoted that time to God, giggling like girls, but that was an awesome God moment. We did well in that exam too eh? Well I don’t recall but I think I have done pretty good in most math exams. I don’t remember you telling me how you went though! Please do share . Pauline, continue shining your light for God! I’m sure he’s so happy for ya! Happy birthday again and here’s cheers to many more memories!

From left to right: Soap, Gummy, Paulie =D

Det är en strålande musikvecka. Vi fascinerades över att blivit sådana ja-sägare över natten. Vad har hänt? Varför denna enorma kärlek? Antagligen den enkla orsaken att det bara kom förbannat mycket bra denna vecka.

Nytt med följande:

Weezer – (If you’re wondering if I want to) I want to
Makthaverskan – Vi var människor från början
Jay Z feat. Alicia Keys – Empire state of mind
Pato Pooh feat. Adam Tensta – Follow me
The Mary Onettes – Once I was pretty
Roenik – Someone’s love is going to die
Kite – I give you the morning
The River Phoenix – Kittens
Local natives – World news
Pauline – Red Carpet

Lyssna på Spotifylistan här!

Extra extra från veckans skörd
En sjuk bredd inom en massa genres dessutom. Weezer låter poppigare som aldrig förr. Danska The River Phoenix är myspys-finstämda och hypade göteborgarna i Makthaverskan är bara så jävla bra. Tyvärr saknades mycket på Spotify så jag får you-tubelänka så länge. Förhoppningsvis kommer jag kunna lägga upp en del låtar för streaming inom kort!

Why so good?

Local natives
Sonics senaste, I quote: Ditt nästa favoritband. Kanske. Har hört på tok för lite för att avgöra detta, men EP:n vi fick var minst sagt trivsam och gossarna är ju söta som… hipsters.

Weezer
Kul till att börja med för att Weezer knappt låter som Weezer. Egentligen uppskattar jag nog herrarna bäst iklädda sin rockuniform som i Buddy Holly, Hash pipe eller fantastiska In the garage, men detta är poppigt, sött och trevligt. Inledande raderna: INDIEPOESI:

The moon was shining on the lake at night
The slayer T-shirt fit the scene just right
Your smeared mascara I looked into your eyes and saw a light

Kite
Men vad kul att göra en cover på Fred Åkerströms gamla dänga tänkte vi. På engelska dessutom, så fyndigt och nyskapande. Men så visade det sig snabbt att det var ju inte herr Åkerström som gjort originalet, utan Tom Paxton. Se där, men då lärde vi oss i alla fall något nytt idag med.

Pato Pooh & Adam Tensta
En av de mest hypade videosen just nu. Förståeligt. Jag förespråkar mer användning av tv-spel i videor och blir speciellt glad när traditionellt äckliga hip-hop-soft-porn-shorties ersätts av detta. Blir sugen själv. Sneglar på playstationet och förstår vad jag kommer sysselsätta mig med strax…

Jay Z & Alicia Keys
Denna finns på Spotify så jag skippar you-tubelänken, men måste ju peppa lite extra för denna också. Varför? Jo för det är det bästa möjliga tillägget till min NYC-spotifylista! Mitt hjärta hoppade till lite extra när jag hörde refrängen. Vackra Alicia tack för detta. Vi ses snart.

Denn seht selbst, DAS ist wahre Kunst.
Habe gestern das erste selbstgemalte Bild meines Patenkindes geschenkt bekommen und es hat seit heute einen Ehrenplatz in meinem Büro, damit es mich hier mit Freude erfüllt. Außerdem ist es schön bunt, das gefällt mir gut.

Gestern war ich bei der Mama vom Patenkind und beim Patenkind. Passenderweise war auch Abendbrotzeit und ich bekam ein kleines Häppchen ab.
Danach musste Pauline ins Bett, denn es war Schlafenszeit.

Wir sind dann wieder ins Wohnzimmer, bis wir Geräusche aus dem Kinderzimmer vernahmen. Das Kind geisterte rum, da die Mama die Stäbe aus dem Gitterbettchen rausgenommen hatte, Versuch macht klug. Die sind natürlich postwendend wieder eingesetzt worden.

NEW FACES !

PAULINE

ELIZA

(pictures Jonas Lindströem)

AND NEW POLAROID OF NASTASIA

Voilà voilà… quand j’ai un peu de temps, entre du rangement et du ménage (^^”) je joue un peu avec mes poupées, surtout que je viens de tout ranger et trier ma collec’ de fringues de poupées (elles sont bien plus fashion victims que moi les bougresses, faut voir le nombre de paires de pompes qu’elles ont !!).

Bref =) Je les habille petit à petit avec des tenues plus adaptées aux températures arctiques que je subis ces derniers jours ^^ Oui je sais, ça vient de moi qui suis trop frileuse, n’empêche je ne suis pas la seule à trouver qu’il caille =)

Donc une partie de mes “demoiselles” a déjà troqué les tenues courtes d’été pour des pull-over plus de circonstance !

Donc mes 11″, à savoir Pauline, LeeAnn et Lily (j’ai mis en fin d’article les liens vers leurs galeries flickr respectives, comme ça si ça vous tente de voir d’autres photos… ^^”), se sont mises à l’heure polaire automnale =)

Pauline:

LeeAnn:

Lily:

Oui je sais, ya grand beau soleil dehors, mais bon fait froid, alors je fais mes photos en intérieurs avec des miroirs pour refléter la lumière du soleil hihi ^^

Si ça vous intéresse, en gros les minettes portent tout un mix&match de tenues diverses dont une partie seulement vient de tenues “officielles” ^^ En tous cas, grande fierté, Pauline ne porte presque que du “by me“… ya que les chaussures que j’essaie pas encore de fabriquer moi-même ^^”

-♥-

Vala, j’ai encore plein de choses à faire, tiens par exemple, je bosse là-dessus en ce moment : une poupée de chiffons… Modèle Intemporel pour celles qui connaissent.

See you soon !

-♥-

Galeries Flickrs :

• Pauline (repaint Cheryl Bell / Expressions of Beauty, poupée LeeAnn)
• LeeAnn (basic LeeAnn Doll 1st edition)
• Lily (Lily of Oren Village, Maryanne Oldenburg)

…sie träumt von Chicago, von Chicago, …

Dieses Lied war das wichtigste Thema heute, denn wir haben unsere Videos angeschaut J Es war voll lustig zu sehen, wie man vor der Kamera plötzlich jemand anderes war. Aber auch hinter der Kamera hat es beim Dreh voll Spaaaaaaaß gemacht! =) Zuerst haben wir das Video von den Jungs angeschaut. Danach haben wir unser (Klaras, Rahels, Lars´, Retos, Jules&mein) Video angeschaut. Zusammen haben wir über die beiden Videos diskutiert. Mir haben eigentlich beide Videos gefallen, aber unser Video fand ich doch ein bisschen besser   Da Frau Marinic den Computer nicht hochfahren konnte, schauen wir den Film von Caros Gruppe erst morgen an.

Que Internet soit et le bonheur fut ! Et soudain Lille me semble tellement mieux… Oh je rigole mes petits chtis mes potes me disent j’ai déjà l’accent à force de traîner avec vous, et en plus I’ve to admit it : vous allez me manquer pendant les vacances.

Je pense que l’intégration est belle et bien finie et que tout va pour le mieux. Malgré les embrouilles passées, les batailles manquées et les frayeurs oubliées ! I’m ready for studies (enfin presque) j’suis surtout ready pour aller au Private et boire des Mojitos et fumer dans le fumoir aéré pour me la jouer Mariah Carey (gimme your love gimme your love) avec Pauline. D’ailleurs Pauline c’est ma meilleure amie mais le dîtes pas autour on est ” trop proches ” mdrrr !

Mis à part ça y’a quelques inconvénients à habiter seule dans une résidence : je peux plus chanter super fort comme si j’étais seule au monde… Je peux plus danser comme une débile parce que j’ai pas de rideaux… Je peux plus faire des faux clips devant ma glace parce que j’me prends le mur et l’étagère… Je peux plus aller aux toilettes la porte ouverte parce que j’ai pas de rideaux mdr… Je dois utiliser parfois le balais parce que j’peux pas allumer l’aspirateur à n’importe quelle heure pour n’importe quelle miette… Et encore j’en oublies pleins je suis sûre !

Well my friends j’ai toujours pas rencontré l’homme de ma vie mais j’ai fini de lire la Saga Twilight et franchement quelle fin de merde ils m’ont pris pour une babache eux ou quoi (ouais toi aussi tu sens aussi le vent du Nord!) ?? Ceci  dit j’ai plus de 3 semaines de news à rattraper donc j’y vais de ce pas ! Team Jacob more than ever !

Taylor tu es très sexy mon p’ti !

•